Red

Hello, Have any of you ever heard of A. W. Tozer? He was a Christian thelogian and wrote a book called "Knowledge of the Holy," (he died in 1963). In his book he looks at all the attributes of God, explains them, and even offers a defence for believing in them--showing why it is necesarry to believe in every aspect of God fully, because to compromise in one area is to describe an entirely different (and lesser) being. I do not intend to get involved in this particular discussion, I am still focusing on the "goal of our faith" debate, but I did want to share this excerpt with you which I read over the weekend. I thought it might bring clarity to the (non-LDS) Christian position on the Trinity. The Knowledge of the Holy: The Holy Trinity A.W. Tozer http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_knowle...f_the_holy.html God of our fathers, enthroned in light, how rich, how musical is the tongue of England! Yet when we attempt to speak forth Your wonders, our words how poor they seem and our speech how unmelodious. When we consider the fearful mystery of Your Triune Godhead we lay our hand upon our mouth. Before that burning bush we ask not to understand, but only that we may fitly adore You, One God in Persons Three. Amen. To meditate on the three Persons of the Godhead is to walk in thought through the garden eastward in Eden and to tread on holy ground. Our sincerest effort to grasp the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity must remain forever futile, and only by deepest reverence can it be saved from actual presumption. Some persons who reject all they cannot explain have denied that God is a Trinity. Subjecting the Most High to their cold, levelheaded scrutiny, they conclude that it is impossible that He could be both One and Three. These forget that their whole life is enshrouded in mystery. They fail to consider that any real explanation of even the simplest phenomenon in nature lies hidden in obscurity and can no more be explained than can the mystery of the Godhead. Every man lives by faith, the nonbeliever as well as the saint; the one by faith in natural laws, and the other by faith in God. Every man throughout his entire life constantly accepts without understanding. The most learned sage can be reduced to silence with one simple question, "What?" The answer to that question lies forever in the abyss of unknowing beyond any man's ability to discover. "God understands the way thereof, and He knows the place thereof," but mortal man never. Thomas Carlyle, following Plato, pictures a man, a deep pagan thinker, who had grown to maturity in some hidden cave and is brought out suddenly to see the sun rise. "What would his wonder be," exclaims Carlyle, "his rapt astonishment at the sight we daily witness with indifference! With the free, open sense of a child, yet with the ripe faculty of a man, his whole heart would be kindled by that sight... This green flowery rock-built earth, the trees, the mountains, rivers, many-sounding seas; that great deep sea of azure that swims overhead; the winds sweeping through it; the black cloud fashioning itself together, now pouring through it; the black cloud fashioning itself together, now pouring out fire, now hail and rain; what is it? Ay, what? At bottom we do not yet know; we can never know at all."[1] How different are we who have grown used to it, who have become jaded with a satiety of wonder. "It is not by our superior insight that we escape the difficulty," says Carlyle, "It is by our superior levity, our inattention, our want of insight. It is by not thinking that we cease to wonder at it... We call that fire of the black thundercloud 'electricity,' and lecture learnedly about it, and grind the like of it out of glass and silk: but what is it? Where does it come from? Where does it go? Science has done much for us; but it is a poor science that would hide from us the great deep sacred infinitude of Nescience, which we can never penetrate, on which all science swims as a mere superficial film. This world, after all our science and sciences, is still a miracle; wonderful, inscrutable, magical and more, to whosoever will think of it." These penetrating, almost prophetic, words were written more than a century ago, but not all the breath-taking advances of science and technology since that time have invalidated one word or rendered obsolete as much as one period or comma. Still we do not know. We save face by repeating frivolously that popular jargon of science. We harness the mighty energy that rushes through our world; we subject it to fingertip control in our cars and our kitchens; we make it work for us like Aladdin's jinn, but still we do not know what it is. Secularism, materialism, and the intrusive presence of things have put out the light in our souls and turned us into a generation of zombies. We cover our deep ignorance with words, but we are ashamed to wonder, we are afraid to whisper "mystery." The Church has not hesitated to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Without pretending to understand, she has given her witness, she has repeated what the Holy Scriptures teach. Some deny that the Scriptures teach the Trinity of the Godhead on the ground that the whole idea of trinity in unity is a contradiction in terms; but since we cannot understand the fall of a leaf by the roadside or the hatching of a robin's egg in the nest yonder, why should the Trinity be a problem to us? "We think more loftily of God," says Michael de Molinos, "by knowing that He is incomprehensible, and above our understanding, than by conceiving Him under any image and creature beauty, according to our rude understanding."[2] Not all who called themselves Christians through the centuries were Trinitarians, but as the presence of God in the fiery pillar glowed above the camp of Israel throughout the wilderness journey, saying to all the world, "These are My people," so belief in the Trinity has since the days of the apostles shone above the Church of the Firstborn as she journeyed down the years. Purity and power have followed this faith. Under this banner have gone forth apostles, fathers, martyrs, mystics, hymnists, reformers, revivalists, and the seal of divine approval has rested on their lives and their labors. However they may have differed on minor matters, the doctrine of the Trinity bound them together. What God declares the believing heart confesses without the need of further proof. Indeed, to seek proof is to admit doubt, and to obtain proof is to render faith superfluous. Everyone who possesses the gift of faith will recognize the wisdom of those daring words of one of the early Church fathers: "I believe that Christ died for me because it is incredible; I believe that He rose from the dead because it is impossible." That was the attitude of Abraham, who against all evidence waxed strong in faith, giving glory to God. It was the attitude of Anselm, "the second Augustine," one of the greatest thinkers of the Christian era, who held that faith must precede all effort to understand. Reflection upon revealed truth naturally follows the advent of faith, but faith comes first to the hearing ear, not to the cogitating mind. The believing man does not ponder the Word and arrive at faith by a process of reasoning, nor does he seek confirmation of faith from philosophy or science. His cry is, "O earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Yes, let God be true, but every man a liar." Is this to dismiss scholarship as valueless in the sphere of revealed religion? By no means. The scholar has a vitally important task to perform within a carefully prescribed precinct. His task is to guarantee the purity of the text, to get as close as possible to the Word as originally given. He may compare Scripture with Scripture until he has discovered the true meaning of the text. But right there his authority ends. He must never sit in judgment upon what is written. He dare not bring the meaning of the Word before the bar of his reason. He dare not commend or condemn the Word as reasonable or unreasonable, scientific or unscientific. After the meaning is discovered, that meaning judges him; never does he judge it. The doctrine of the Trinity is truth for the heart. The spirit of man alone can enter through the veil and penetrate into that Holy of Holies. "Let me seek You in longing," pleaded Anselm, "let me long for You in seeking; let me find You in love, and love You in finding."[3] Love and faith are at home in the mystery of the Godhead. Let reason kneel in reverence outside. Christ did not hesitate to use the plural form when speaking of Himself along with the Father and the Spirit. "We will come unto him and make our abode with him." Yet again He said, "I and My Father are one." It is most important that we think of God as Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance. Only so may we think rightly of God and in a manner worthy of Him and of our own souls. It was our Lord's claim to equality with the Father that outraged the religionists of His day and led at last to His crucifixion. The attack on the doctrine of the Trinity two centuries later by Arius and others was also aimed at Christ's claim to deity. During the Arian controversy 318 Church fathers (many of them maimed and scarred by the physical violence suffered in earlier persecutions) met at Nicaea and adopted a statement of faith, one section of which runs: I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, The Only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of Him before all ages, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made. For more than sixteen hundred years this has stood as the final test of orthodoxy, as well it should, for it condenses in theological language the teaching of the New Testament concerning the position of the Son in the Godhead. The Nicene Creed also pays tribute to the Holy Spirit as being Himself God and equal to the Father and the Son: I believe in the Holy Spirit The Lord and giver of life, Which proceeds from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and Son together Is worshiped and glorified. Apart from the question of whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son, this tenet of the ancient creed has been held by the Eastern and Western branches of the Church and by all but a tiny minority of Christians. The authors of the Athanasian Creed spelled out with great care the relation of the three Persons to each other, filling in the gaps in human thought as far as they were able while staying within the bounds of the inspired Word. "In this Trinity," runs the Creed, "nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less: but all three Persons coeternal, together and equal." How do these words harmonize with the sayings of Jesus, "My Father is greater than I?" Those old theologians knew, and wrote into the Creed, "Equal to His Father, as touching His Godhead; less than the Father, as touching His manhood," and this interpretation commends itself to every serious-minded seeker after truth in a region where the light is all but blinding. To redeem mankind the Eternal Son did not leave the bosom of the Father; while walking among men He referred to Himself as "the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father," and spoke of Himself again as "the Son of man which is in heaven." We grant mystery here, but not confusion. In His incarnation the Son veiled His deity, but He did not void it. The unity of the Godhead made it impossible that He should surrender anything of His deity. When He took upon Him the nature of man, He did not degrade Himself or become even for a time less than He had been before. God can never become less than Himself. For God to become anything that He has not been is unthinkable. The Persons of the Godhead, being one, have one will. They work always together, and never one smallest act is done by one without the instant acquiescence of the other two. Every act of God is accomplished by the Trinity in Unity. Here, of course, we are being driven by necessity to conceive of God in human terms. We are thinking of God by analogy with man, and the result must fall short of ultimate truth; yet if we are to think of God at all, we must do it by adapting creature-thoughts and creature-words to the Creator. It is a real if understandable error to conceive of the Persons of the Godhead as conferring with one another and reaching agreement by interchange of thought as humans do. It has always seemed to me that Milton introduces an element of weakness into his celebrated Paradise Lost when he presents the Persons of the Godhead conversing with each other about the redemption of the human race. When the Son of God walked the earth as the Son of Man, He spoke often to the Father and the Father answered Him again; as the Sone of Man, He now intercedes with God for His people. The dialogue involving the Father and the Son recorded in the Scriptures is always to be understood as being between the Eternal Father and the Man Christ Jesus. That instant, immediate communion between the Persons of the Godhead which has been from all eternity knows not sound nor effort nor motion. Amid the eternal silences God's endless Word was spoken; None heard but He who always spake, And the silence was unbroken. O marvelous! O worshipful! No song or sound is heard, But everywhere and every hour The Father speaks His dear Eternal Word. --Frederick W. Faber A popular belief among Christians divides the work of God between the three Persons, giving a specific part to each, as, for instance, creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, and regeneration to the Holy Spirit. This is partly true but not wholly so, for God cannot so divide Himself that one Person works while another is inactive. In the Scriptures the three Persons are shown to act in harmonious unity in all the mighty works that are wrought throughout the universe. In the Holy Scriptures the work of creation is attributed to the Father (Gen. 1:1), to the Son (Col. 1:16), and to the Holy Spirit (Job 26:13 and Psa. 104:30). The incarnation is shown to have been accomplished by the three Persons in full accord (Lk. 1:35), though only the Son became flesh to dwell among us. At Christ's baptism the Son came up out of the water, the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father's voice spoke from heaven (Mt. 3:16,17). Probably the most beautiful description of the work of atonement is found in Hebrews 9:14, where it is stated that Christ, through the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God; and there we behold the three Persons operating together. The resurrection of Christ is likewise attributed variously to the Father (Acts 2:32), to the Son (Jn. 10:17,18), and to the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:4). The salvation of the individual man is shown by the apostle Peter to be the work of all three Persons of the Godhead (1 Pet. 1:2), and the indwelling of the Christian man's soul is said to be by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:15-23). The doctrine of the Trinity, as I have said before, is truth for the heart. The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor. Such a truth had to be revealed; no one could have imagined it. O Blessed Trinity! O simplest Majesty! O Three in One! Thou art for ever God alone. Holy Trinity! Blessed equal Three, One God, we praise Thee. Frederick W. Faber --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the end of the chapter I drew some notes once, when I read it a year or so ago. First there is a circle cut into 3 slices: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Next to the picture I wrote, "The 3 Persons of the Trinity are not 3 slices of pie that can be separated. Instead..." Then I drew a circle and wrote "God" in the middle of it. Next to this picture I wrote, "This is the Father," "This is the Son," "This is the Holy Spirit." I drew arrows from these phrases pointing to the word "God." Then I wrote: "3 persons in 1 essence/being" and: "All one in the same God." I hope to be back at the other discussion soon. God bless.

I don't really know him better than anyone else...I just know what he told us... I am sure he will be thankful for any prayers. We haven't heard how things have gone... that worries me. Thanks for your prayers. ← I guess he must've said so on another discussion, so I missed it. Anyway, since then I've put his name out there in a few prayer groups and at the beginning of some of my classes. So yeah, he and his family have some prayers coming his way. I'll still write responses to his points though (they were good ones, and I still had few more to go), and Ray, I suppose you and I can continue with them as we seem to be doing. I I'll probably post more over the weekend. God bless.

Please: DO YOU KNOW THAT APOSTLEKNIGHT MAY NOT BE HERE FOR SOME TIME TO RESPOND TO YOU? HIS FATHER HAD AN ACCIDENT AND IT WAS VERY SERIOUS. No, I didn't know at all! I'll get the other guys in my dorm to pray for his dad and for his family, for strength and comfort and competent doctors. I take it you must know him well, please let me know how things go. I'll start praying now.

(I haven't read the posts since my last one, no time just now) response the ApostleKnight continued: “At the end of the day, what y'all are really saying is, ‘(1) You have to believe in Jesus to be saved, that's it. (2) Oh, but you can't believe in living prophets. (3) Oooh, yeah, and you can't believe in new scripture. (4) Then there's the troublesome belief in mandatory obedience to specific ordinances, (5) not to mention the corollary and equally troublesome belief that only certain people can administer those ordinance,’ and so on, ad infinitum.” 1: Yes, you’ve got it! And you’ll be responsible for it on the last day. Hopefully you’ll have accepted it before then. 2: Actually we have no problem with living prophets at all, only false ones. The issue is not that we do not believe in modern prophets and consider anyone who does to be a heretic, but that we will not accept false prophets as the scriptures instruct us. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy, is it not? Most Bible professors that I talk to (i.e. mine) say that gifts like speaking in tongues and prophecy were given specifically to just that first generation of believers; yet they’ll readily admit that, “who am I to say God couldn’t bring it back?” So again, our issue is not with prophets, but with false prophets (1 John 4:1). 3: Of course not. The Bible took at least 1500 years to complete, possibly even since creation if Adam and the patriarchs wrote their stories. If God did not endorse a policy of continuing revelation then the Bible would only be a paragraph long! If God had more to say we’d be glad to hear it—heck, a God-breathed bible commentary would be awesome! Many (myself included) would even say that the book of Acts is still being written every day (have you ever read Fox’s Book of Martyrs or Jesus Freaks Vol. 1 & 2?). Yes, for us the canon is closed because we have all we need to know—actually a whole lot more then we need to know! Really, all you would to know God would be any book of the Bible, you can find the message of the Almighty God who saves in any Bible book, especially in John or Romans. Many in this world are lucky if they can smuggle a hand written page past their guards and memorize it—and that would be the only scripture they get for a long time if ever. Yet, who are we to say that God cannot reopen the canon? We are nobody! Our issue is not with new scripture but with false scripture. If anything new were to come then we measure it by what we already have (that is a Biblical principle, remember the where Paul commended the bereans for measuring his words against scripture; I couldn’t track down that verse, perhaps you know it). 4: Troublesome belief? Obedience is a joy!!! However, if I start telling God that I need to supplement His work on the cross then I am out of line. If I try to have some control over my salvation in any then I am not trusting Jesus as John 3:16-21 instructs me (salvation hinges on belief). To think that anything I could do could determine whether or not I spent the rest of eternity with by Abba is to rebel against, as if I didn’t wholly trust Him to save me. On the other hand, knowing that my works have no bearing on my salvation, but that I am in God’s hands 100% I can have a solid hope in being with Him some day and our relationship is pure and open—as it should be between a Father and a Son. You’ve read this I’m sure, Ephesians 2:8-10 sums up the position very well: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:8-10, KJV). 5: No, don’t worry we’ve got plenty people gifted for that kind of thing (I was anointed and healed wasn’t I?). And technically, the original 12 are still alive and Jesus is the Head of the Church right here and now—they left behind their words for us. They are still in charge, so what are your prophets and apostles doing, presuming to sit in their seats?

Response to Apostleknight continued... “Having said that, the argument is always advanced, "You silly mormons, all you have to do is believe in Jesus to be saved." When we say, "But we do," the response is, "No, not THAT Jesus, THE Jesus." You have to admit, we are talking about two different Jesus’. Only one of them could have been the true historical Jesus who now rules from the right hand of God. Your church certainly teaches this: President Gordon B. Hinckley, answering those who claimed the LDS Church did not preach the traditional Jesus, he said, “No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak” (Church News, 20 June 1998; speaking to LDS Church in Paris). Apostle Bruce McConkie: “Virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ” (Mormon Doctrine, p269). And most importantly, Joseph Smith Jr. wrote: “I was answered that I must join none of them [any church on earth apparently], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight…” (PGP: Joseph Smith—History 1:19). So don’t run from the argument as if the argument itself were bad. Your own leaders use the “No not THAT Jesus, THE Jesus” argument. Your prophet said that God said that the body of my faith is an abomination. Your Apostle said that the Jesus I know and love is a mythical figment of my imagination. Perhaps then, you’ll excuse me when I take issue and defend my faith as I am instructed to do throughout the Bible, and to evangelize as I am also instructed. Just as a fundamental difference between the two Gods we each pray to exists, so too between our two Jesus’ whom we trust in for our own salvations. Mine was and always is God in human flesh. Yours was once unorganized intelligence, then organized by your heavenly father and mother (who were once both mortal humans themselves), as their first born/created spirit child. My Jesus offers a salvation/atonement which covers all my sin, past present and future—I can add nothing to it, and if I tried to it would be a very rebellious act on my part. In response to receiving this freedom by no effort of my own I ought to express my gratitude by Godly action, as the Holy Spirit continues to do His work in me. My Jesus IS the Way. Your Jesus SHOWS the way, and His grace catches you only after you do all you can do. I’ll answer more of your posts pertaining to the question of which is the true Biblical/historical Jesus.

Ray, Thank-you, and advice taken, but don't worry, I am basing my argument on the Bible first of all, and then measuring their words against both the Bible (as honestly as I can possibly represent it, without bias hopefully, but plain exegesis) and the teachings of your church as I understand them (again, to the best of my ability and understanding). I would be willing to accept what they as truth if and when they do make their case (as with anyone period), but I'm not trusting them to "spoon feed" me either. You see, I respect you more them, though they seem to (or at least just Snow does) accuse you of being some kind of naive "newby" (I had thought only Christians shot their wounded...). But actually your loyalty to you leaders is far more admirable. No matter what they say, you'll stick by them for better or for worse--though on occasion you may adopt an interpretation of their words which may not exactly be apparent in the plain wording, as in the case of Brigham Young's words about white men and black women (I thought I picked up on hints that you took a more "spiritual" interpretation?). Either way, I respect you for your loyalty, but at the same time I desperately warn you that your devotion is lethal to you. I ask God all the time about your church and the answer is always no, it is not true. Once I even opened myself up to the possibility that all my prayers were really just going to a figment of my imagination or something worse. So I prayed, in a Mormon church, along with two LDS missionaries and I addressed what I called "the God I haven't prayed to--the LDS God" if by chance I had not actually addressed Him and if He were actually the true God. The answer was silence. Not that the answer never came and I got impatient, but it was silence. Then the voice of the Shepard I know spoke again, not in words or burning bosoms, but in the simple, quiet and steady assertion of truth He said, "See Red, he has no authority over you. You can even cast him out in My name." That's what I learned that day, and so I apply it. I have found this lesson to be tested true as I continue to read His word. So as I ask God for guidance in truth in reading both your leaders and the Bible, I find more and more that LDS doctrine does not measure up to God's word. You know the gospel I've been preaching; what holds you back?

“We are criticized for being so "exclusive." I would be offended too if I didn't believe the LDS church's claims are true, and IF the promises weren't offered to everyone.” Actually I would argue the opposite: you are far too inclusive. Yes, in both our faiths the offer is open to any man woman or child on this planet anywhere. But here’s the key difference: my faith says that all (no more, no less) who believe in Jesus will be with God forever, while those who do not believe will be condemned. But your faith says that just about everyone (except the sons of perdition) will go to heaven, it just a matter other which degree. The latter belief is lethally common, starting with Islam which that just about everyone is likely to spend some time in hell, depending on how their good deeds measure up their bad. Some may skip hell entirely and go straight to paradise, and other truly evil types may never get out of hell, but generally everyone goes to paradise in Islam (after walking through hell). So I can live out my life and never worry if Islam is true because I’m a descent guy, if I do guy to hell it won’t be for long and then I’ll have eternity in paradise to look forward to. In Hinduism everyone reincarnates over and over until they achieve Mocksha. Your karma (and deeds and bad deeds) determine the status of your next incarnation. Again, if I remain a good person I’ll be just fine ignoring Hinduism even if it’s true. In a few thousand life times I’ll eventually achieve Mocksha. Similar story with Buddhism, except Nirvana is more like nothingness while Mocksha is unity with all. Either way, there are no lasting consequences for unbelief. Those are some of biggest ones, many other belief systems shoot off from them, but essentially they all say that almost everybody gets to go somewhere better that here (eventually), but that their way is the best and will take you the furthest the quickest. (Correct me if got any of these wrong, Prisonchaplain, if you wouldn’t mind.) This idea is worldly and so it is Satanic, it sets itself up in rebellion against God. Does Mormonism follow this pattern? Yes. I know what D/C 76 says, and I know that if Mormonism were true and I ignored it for the rest of my life or even continued witnessing, that I would have a place in the Terrestrial Kingdom. Sure, I’ll probably sit through hell until the resurrection, (though hell in Mormonism isn’t a burning place but a state of intense guilt) but in the end I’ll be ok. These religions have no teeth. Their sole purpose is to distract us from God and divide us—“I always hear, ‘I’ll believe what I believe and you can believe what you believe.’ People who say that speak out of tolerance and a desire for unity, but there is no love there. It only brings about division not diversity, and everyone stays at a spiritual arm’s distance smiling as they pass. Divide and conquer. Again, these religions are rebellious, they seek to control some aspect of their own salvation, when it is God you has done all and ought not be supplanted by our efforts. Christianity is the only one I know that has teeth. The God who loved us is the same who made hell to protect us for all eternity from those who would (and do) rebel. If Christianity is true then many will meet a horrible surprise and have no excuse because salvation was so easily given. I’ll probably post some more this week, I want to finish answering your objections from page 4. God bless you all.

"In the end, you need to share with us how you were scarred (not scared) by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For every thousand hacking at the leaves, there is one hacking at the roots of the issue. We've hacked enough leaves, let's address the roots now. We know WHAT your position is in relation to LDS teachings. You believe we're wrong (and damned). Tell us HOW that became your position...what event/s involving the LDS church required that God "save you" from it? This will ultimately foster more understanding than all of our posts put together. So if it's not too personal, let's get down to it...what happened?” Well my testimony isn’t too amazing, but it certainly drives me. The LDS Church has scarred me in no way whatsoever; I have nothing against any of you for any reason. I accepted Jesus as my Lord when I was 5 years old, probably heard the gospel multiple times in Sunday school and from my parents. One night I couldn’t sleep, so I got up and asked my mom and dad to pray with me, and so I became Christian that night—then I could go to sleep. The Lord has always been my rest. I’ll rewind a bit…once upon a time my dad was a Mormon, through highschool, a failed marriage and up to 1979 when he came to know the Lord. Long story short, he mentioned never really buying into it, and he told me a few things here and there but I grew up in a home generally indifferent to Mormons (he had moved to California, remarried and so here I am). The attitude was, “Mormons and JW’s are cults, be polite and say ‘no thank-you’ when they come to the door.” From your mission trip you might be familiar with this. Key: normal; nothing traumatic to report. But here’s were it gets interesting: anyone knows they could die any second, and any religious person knows they only live because God let’s them, but I have a very acute awareness of this fact. Your aortic valve in your heart is tricuspid, but mine is defective and is bicuspid. That means it doesn’t open as wide or close all the way, which can cause plenty of problems—so much so that doctors wanted to do surgery on me as an infant! I could have had a plastic valve in there and replaced it every two years—that’s open heart surgery, not much fun. Instead, God had other plans: my parents prayed and a pastor even anointed me with oil for healing and I was healed. The problem is still there but the symptoms are not. My heart shouldn’t be working normally but it is. It’s as if God is beating my heart for me every second. So you can imagine how that thought can drive a person and make him live with a sense of urgency. To me, evangelism and building up the body of Christ are the most important things in this life. As for my experience with Mormons: back in my freshmen year of college, the college group at my church went on a mission trips to Salt Lake City where we witnessed to Mormons (and anyone else). At the end of the week I had found my calling: you guys. Later on, I kept it up on my own at the community college I went to. There is an LDS Institute of Religion building right next door, and so one day I decided to go in there and see who I could talk to. Of course I was cocky had all my verses, arguments and pamphlets lined up but I was scared straight real quick. Long story short, I was confronted by a demon trying scare me away (not that I saw it of course); but I called on God like never before and went in anyway. That experience taught that this was no game, that the spiritual warfare is real and that you guys are in danger.

“An intellectual argument cannot CHANGE a spiritual experience. But a spiritual experience CAN change an intellectual argument.” In many cases that is unfortunately true. But it is dangerous and questionable territory to wander in. If spiritual experience is the standard of truth, then anyone can claim anything. But with the Word is the great equalizer, common denominator or the standard by which we measure all beliefs. Of course many people have many interpretations, some false, some true, but at the end of the day the Word says what it says and someone will be right in the their opinions and someone else will be wrong. Many people commune with many spirits; you cannot rely on a spiritual experience for truth. ‘But wait, I’m talking about an intellectual argument vs. spiritual experience!’ maybe you’d say. These arguments involve God’s word, and I am also pointing out a flaw in your method of truth seeking. Many of the people I witness to on the street or on college campuses share your thinking on this subject. They (often agnostic/spiritualist types, etc.) place their spiritual experience over any reasoning I present and so I fear for you and all Mormons.

Apostleknight: thought I’d answer your objections from pages 3. “It's absurd really, if you think about it. What you're saying in reality is: "LeGrand, you believe <insert controversial doctrine> is true, but because of <insert anti-mormon argument>, it can't be true. So you really never did get an answer from God, can't you see?" It’s not absurd at all. “…for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14, KJV). If Satan can and does pretend to be an angel of light then all bets are off when it comes to spiritual experiences. Our only hope for finding truth is in God’s word; all spiritual experiences must be judged by it. So the testimony which you received, no matter how powerful it must be, it may or may not be from God. I am pleading with you, telling you that it is not from God. Do I know this because some angel told me so? No, that would mean nothing, as Jason the deist pointed out that he got a “warm fuzzy” about Mormonism and a “warm fuzzy” about deism. Instead I am only telling you what God’s word says. ‘You mean your interpretation of what God’s word says,’ you might say. Of course not, I am learning and practicing exegesis in Bible interpretation, I am being trained not to buy into any “ism” like Calvinism or Armineism and then read through those lenses, but to research and present the plain meaning of the text by looking at context, structure, historical back-round and the original languages. The Holy Spirit does not reveal truth to me, but guides me to truth (John 16:13, KJV). Of course He does give revelations as the rest of the verse says, but I do not have the gift of prophecy. I try to be as honest as possible, true to the intended meaning of the text—to just be a conduit.

Snow’s Question: “Here's what you said that I am interested in you justifying: And if you exceed all the others in righteousness you will go on to become a God of your own world and populate it with countless children. But the cycle repeats again doesn't it?” The quotes on page 3 were meant to answer this. I am familiar with the passages you recommended on page 2: D/C 76 and 132. It would be interesting to see your interpretations of the Biblical passages you mentioned. I honestly do not want to misrepresent your church, and if you can make the case that your church does not teach what I’ve been warning about then I’ll be glad to stop saying what I’m saying. However, the more I re-evaluate my position in light of the objections, and the more I review your scriptures and the words of the one you call a prophet, the more I am convinced that I am truly representing what these doctrines teach. I am trying to tell you that they lead to a very bad conclusion. I see your question in two parts: 1. And if you exceed all the others in righteousness you will go on to become a God… (I honestly thought it was a given that your church taught this, but here we’ll look at it in detail.) 2. …of your own world and populate it with countless children. But the cycle repeats again… (I addressed this issue on page 4, but we’ll rehash it here.) Answer to 1: (Before I start, I realized that the word “all” might be a source of confusion. Forget it’s there, I know LDS doctrine does not teach that only one Mormon will ever attain Celestial Glory and/or godhood! Instead it would probably be more accurate to say “exceed many others…” I hope that clarifies my position.) I mostly get this idea from D/C 76. Speaking of those who enter the Celestial Kingdom it says that they: -“shall come forth in the resurrection of the just…” (v50), -believed in Jesus and were baptized (v51), -received the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands (v52), -overcame by faith (v53). -They are kings and priests according to the order of Melchizedeck (v56-57), -“they are gods, even the sons of God…” (v58), -“all things are theirs, whether in life or death, or things present, or things to come…” (v59), -“these shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever..” (v62), -and they are “just men made perfect through Jesus…” (v69). There is a whole lot “to do” in order to make it into the Celestial Kingdom. Not all Mormons will achieve this as it says in v79: “they are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus…” and are a part of the Terrestrial Kingdom and only “receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fullness of the Father” (v77). Essentially, Mormons who enter the Celestial Kingdom succeed where other Mormons have failed. Let’s explore this more, in the Book of Mormon for example: “…this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not” (Mosiah 4:30) What does this say about the requirement for salvation (i.e. anything besides perishing)? Watch your thoughts, words, deeds and observe God’s law (all of it apparently), and continue in this faith till the day you die and you won’t “perish.” Your salvation as a Mormon depends on your performance. As I understand LDS doctrine, “perishing” or “condemnation” does not necessarily mean burning in hell forever or being banished to outer darkness, but simply being kept from progressing (i.e. remaining in the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms for all eternity). One more from D/C 132, talking about being sealed in the temple for time and eternity with your spouse, and all the glories, salvation into the Celestial Kingdom and godhood that goes with it, it says: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory” (v21). So attaining Glory in the Celestial Kingdom (full Salvation) depends on where your heart is (are you valiant or not) and how well you perform in fulfilling the Law. And of course any failure in this area and your place in the Celestial kingdom is forfeit. Though I am aware of D/C 132:26 where it says that only murdering an innocent can cause someone who was sealed for time and eternity to loose their place in the Celestial. Still, the same principle is at work, your performance in this life determines whether or not you’ll spend eternity with your Heavenly Father. Of course he is the judge of all this, and after you do all that you can do, his grace kicks in (2 Nephi 25:23)—essentially a just man who has been perfected. Answer to 2: I’ll quote Joseph Smith again, from his King Follet sermon where He seems to clearly imply that he is speaking the word of God, specifically words pertaining to the knowledge of God which is vital to salvation. If any of you like, I have this saved as a word document (un-tampered with of course, only highlighted in some areas), and I’ll email it to you. “…you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . . . . they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before" (King Follet sermon). Before this passage he defines God as a being who was once a normal man but is now exalted and obviously ruling over our world. Now here he describes how this process has always been going on, and that we are to follow in the footsteps of God and all those who have gone before. When I consider the phrases “inherit the same power [as God],” “same glory [as God],” “same exaltation [as God],” and “arrive at the station of a god,” call me crazy, but somehow I am lead to the conclusion that ruling over a world with inhabitants on it is part of the package. Another example: “…and they [a man and woman who are both sealed together for time and eternity] shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them” (D/C 132:19-20). Again, maybe the doctor dropped me once or twice (maybe that would explain a lot of things, woo-hoo), but if these two people, Mr. Jack and Mrs. Jill Mormon are to become gods, and part of being a god is having seeds (which I’ll go out on a not so shaky limb and guess that these are spirit children), then these “seeds” need to live on a world where they can have the same opportunities to grow just as their heavenly mom and dad did. Well, it’s not a guess at all, according to vv62-63 of the same section: “And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified” (D/C 132:62-63). These “souls of men” that are born to the women as a result of “exaltation in the eternal worlds” need to go somewhere don’t they? I know about the doctrine of the pre-mortal life as well as you do, and part of that life was that you could progress no further until you lived out a life (a probation) on a sinful world. If that is true then these “souls of men” yet to be born ought to certainly have the same opportunity as you have had. Snow said: “You seem to labor under the assumption that there is some repository of LDS doctrine that specifies not only what we believe, but also what we do not believe. That is an erroneous assumption. With a few exceptions we do not have negative doctrines - stating what we do not believe in.” That is no excuse. Try again. If you can’t find some verse, or even words from one of your prophets that refute this idea categorically, then piece together your case from multiple sources—at least make a case! And no, I am not laboring under an erroneous assumption in this regard; the Bible is full of material specifically written to refute false doctrines—especially the Prophets of the Old Testament and letters in the New Testament. So why not also in the BoM, D/C or PGP if indeed these texts are “God-breathed.” Your church has been around for about 200 years, and I’m sure this controversy we are duking out right now must have been around since the King Follet Sermon—somebody must’ve written something! Surely there are recorded, constructive arguments for and against. You seem to be a knowledgeable guy, you know better than to state what you believe to be truth, say the other person is wrong, then not support your position at all as if you didn’t have to. You’ve heard this I’m sure: “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ” (1 Peter 3:15, KJV).

Wow, I've been gone longer than I thought! Oh well, glad to be back and as far as the semester goes its down hill from here and so I'll be posting more in the coming days. I've read through the discussions up to this point and (I'm probably the most shocked at this...) I can't wait to answer Snow's question for the third time now, because as I thought about it I realized that it's just another chance to share the gospel! But to be fair, Snow (and Apostleknight--in fact please do respond), tell us all exactly where it says in LDS Doctrine that this idea is false, the idea that: "the most obedient/valiant Mormons (most "righteous"--for lack of a better term) will accend to the Celestial kinghom, attain godhood and have children for the rest of eternity, and then rule over those worlds which their children will inhabit." What passage(s) refutes this idea? I've laid out out the "dots" several times now to support this idea, lets see yours. Again I want all of you to know that my intentions are not malicious but evangelistic in love. Prisonchaplain, I'm encouraged by your presence here. I hope we can work well together in reaching them (though I am aware you are here more to learn, and I certainly understand that). God bless

But here's the alternative: How about a God who was always what He is now, who did not have overcome anything to get there but simply always was God, is God, and always will be God. How about a God you passionately loves you, who wants to ignore your sins and bring you back to Himself, who took on flesh, walked in our shoes and gave Himself up for you to make that possible. Who wants to be one spirit with you for the rest of eternity. How about the God who gave use our own free will, to love Him and each other by choice, and along with that: responsibility for our actions because as Paul explains, "if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie [or any sin for that matter] unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?" (Romans 3:5-8). Evil is on our heads, not God's. But He took it on Himself for our sakes nonetheless. How about a God who never intended sin to come but saw it coming and made a plan of redemption; who will be glorified by showing sin and rebellion as pointless, hideous and only resulting in death. How about a God who loves us so passionately that he condemn those who do not repent, to guard us from them--A God who loves us enough to send the Flood and to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. How about a God who offers a way out of this fate by one single decision? By belief alone? Who gives us eternal life as a free gift if we only believe Him, and with that, the Holy Spirit--he allows us to become one with Him by no effort of ours. These last few days God has show me one thing as I was out doing some evangelism on SDSU campus nearby, while talking to some LDS Missionaries, and in posting here: There are only two religions in this world. There is one that says we are essentially good and that there are many good ways to the top of the mountain, some better than others. The one that teaches no true God would ever say, "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father but through me." The one that says, 'who are we to demand God's grace?' But then there is the one that says we are nobody, the we are sinners in need of a savior, that its not who we are but its who God is, and He offers his grace freely. This one says, 'who are we to even think that we could climb that mountain?' "for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith" (Romans 3:22-27). The whole world is trying to get to the top of a mountain that is too high. But how about a God who has picked me up and flown me to the the stars. THe mountain will crumble someday. But this God will pick you up too, no matter where you are on the hill, or in the valley, or even drowning in the ocean, HE will come and get you if you only cry out for Him. "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:8-13). God bless, -Red

Snow: "I guess this means you are refusing to justify making this statement (despite having been challenged on it a number of times: 'And if you exceed all the others in righteousness you will go on to become a God of your own world and populate it with countless children. But the cycle repeats again doesn't it?'" Excuse me your highness for not asking how high when you say jump! nah, just kidding. Anyhoo, reread the quotes I laid down last time, those are the primary reasons for why I understand LDS Prophets and scriptures to teach what they teach. Let's go through them, shall we... Joseph Smith, King Follet Sermon: "The scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Being the founder of your religion and called a prophet by every mormon I talk to, I have to assume his words spoken in public sermons have some considerable wieght. Reading through this particular sermon, Joseph Smith never flinches saying, "Now here's a theory of mine, hope y'all humor me for a sec..." No. He refers to himself throughout the sermon as a prophet who is bringing the word of God. Now in this quote he says something I highly agree with, even quoting scripture. "Knowing God = eternal life," of course I believe that--we all do, but then he goes on to define God in an entirely different way than (and in purposeful contrast to) traditional Christian doctrine: "...it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did..." Would Joseph Smith have bothered to explain all this if everyone gets to the top of the mountain anyway? No, he would not have, instead he makes it clear that knowing this God who was not always God is necessary for attaining eternal life, not that imaginary god of the other christians. We could go off on a tangent from here (and I want to later), but for now, back to the question. Next quote: "you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before." The bolded portions tell us that men have been in the proccess of becoming gods before. He gives no implication that this process began at any particular time, and gives no hint that it will ever end, in fact he exhorts us to participate in and continue the process. In essence, he treats the word "God" as a station, we treat the word "God" as refering to the being himself and no other, anywhere, at any other time, on any other world or universe--if its there, God is the God of it. We would say that God is God by nature. He is what He is, He said so Himself (Ex 3:14-15). I hope you are beginning to see now why I think that the LDS Church is teaching some kind of on-going process or cycle. To add to that, I have had it confirmed by multiple mormons I have witnessed to, and even LDS missionaries. So, I'm thinkin' I'm well within the bounds of your teachings when I say it is a "cycle." And here's more of a reason why: ". . . and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. 20 Then shall they be gods. . ." (D/C 132:19-20) I have also had this point confirmed by the testimony LDS missionaries, recently and in the past: if you achieve the utmost of celestial glory (God is the judge of course) you will continue to have children throughout eternity. Now here's the question to ask: will you give them the same opportunity to progress just like you followed your God, or will you not? If you are a fair parent and believe progression to be the right thing to do then you certainly will, or at least you ought to. This verse simply says that part of being a God is to continue to have seed. That is not what we other christians think. Now it gets more interesting: Brigham Young--"How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity" Again, from the quotes from before. Even though I have found many times that mormons do not consider every single word that Young said to be doctrine (that may be an understatement), he is still called an LDS prophet so his words ought to mean something to you. And here I find him in complete agreement with Joseph Smith, stating two things explicitly: 1) that this course or cycle of men becoming gods and having more children to become more gods has been, is, and always will be, and 2) that all these people must go through the same ordeals we all know very well. However you want to define "ordeal" is irrelevant, the point is that if Adam had not fallen we wouldn't have any ordeals. Both sides agree on this, the only difference is that traditional christians see it as a tragic thing, that redemption is taking us back to a state of unbroken fellowship with God which was lost. But in mormonism the fall was actually a good thing, that disobedience paved the way for a greater blessing than would have otherwise been possible. We christians see this as inconsistent with the character of the God whom we know and love--He would not reward disobedience in this way--He reproves and disciplines us for our trespasses every day! Now consider these (again, also quoted above): "And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient." In this LDS scripture it is clear that sin was necessary for the course (cycle) to continue--don't even try to argue that somehow "transgressions" are not, or are not as bad as "sins" and that that somehow makes it "ok!!" Whatever you want to call it, trangression or sin, it leads to death and Christ had to die for us on account of it. Brigham Young: Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let me know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fullness of glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through." If sin is necesarry for us to overcome and attain godhood then the system is evil, because, "sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (James 1:15). Here's the question I ask, how many must die (and/or be sent to outer darkness) before the gods are content in their glory?

Thank you for responding Apostleknight, You've always sounded like the most reasonable one here and will I definitely post again in the next few days as I have time. The heart of the matter is hope, not ideologies. I do not doubt for one second that you or any mormon, or even Joseph Smith himself has recieved a revelation from some source; just like I would be a fool to doubt that Muhammed met an angelic being in that cave. As a Christian who believes in the reality of spiritual warfare these things should be no surprise to me. This is not a question of "what we think about God." I happen to think that God has a sacastic sense of humor--what!? You don't agree with me!!?? Yer goin to hell!!!! GRR! ARGH!!!......umm, no its not about that. Instead, the question is "which God are we praying to/which one is true?" You have to understand the Christian mind here: we say He is spirit and that he was always God, you say He is a man, who was once like us but is now exalted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every mormon I've ever talked to has told me that. Do you see how these are two completely different Gods? Its like the difference between YHWH and Baal, the sun and the moon, Jack and Jill. Also, as I read the Book of Mormon (still a work in progress) the D/C, and the Pearl of Great Price (actually finished that) I begin to see a different "character" of the God in those words than the God I know personally. By "character" I mean the sum total of what you do and say. As for my testimony, of course it is not personal at all, I'd be glad to share it. I do not write you guys out of hate and malice, but out of sincere warning in love. You are my calling. I'll hopefully post again Thursday night, but if not, then Saturday. God Bless you all -Red

Hello again, Sorry or for the long absence, but I'm back for now. I'll use this post to show you all what I've been reading in your scriptures and the words of your prophets--to show you why in the world I would think what I think and say what I say about your beliefs. I had hoped I wouldn't have to do this because I didn't want you to feel like I was beating you over the head with your own doctrine. It's probably (well, it is) my fault that I didn't just cite this stuff to begin with, instead of relying on you to be familiar with it--don't take that as a jab, there are many from any faith who are "laymen" and that is just fine. Now of course, if it turns out that I've completely misread these passages which have brought me to my conclusions about your faith then show it, don't imply that I'm stupid, slow, or have a contentious spirit from satan (not for my sake of course, the more persecution the more reward in heaven, but for your for your own sakes--what does anyone prove by slander or how do they edify themselves?). Ok, here goes... Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 2:13-25 "13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. . . it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. . . 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. 24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." Pearl of Great Price: Moses 5:10-11 "10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient." President Joseph Smith Jr.: King Follet Sermon, 1844 "The scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is,—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle. My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true, God, and what kind of a being He is. . . for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. . . God himself was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. . . it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. . . , then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. . . but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, 302-317) President Brigham Young: Progress in Knowledge, 1859 "When you can thus feel, then you may begin to think that you can find out something about God, and begin to learn who he is. He is our Father-the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity. You cannot comprehend this; but when you can, it will be to you a matter of great consolation. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being" (E.G. Watt, 7:331) President Brigham Young: Ogden City, 1870 "If the Scriptures are true, it proves that sin is in the world, and the question arises, It is necessary that in should be here? What will the Latter-day Saints say? Is it necessary that we should know good from evil? I can answer this to suit myself by saying it is absolutely necessary, for the simple reason that if we had never realized darkness we never could have comprehended the light; if we never tasted anything bitter, but were to eat sweets, the honey and the honeycomb, from the time we come into this world until the time we go out of it, what knowledge could we have of the bitter? This leads me to the decision that every fact that exists in this world is demonstrated by its opposite. . . How many earths are there? I observed this morning that you may take the particles of matter composing this earth, and if they could be enumerated they would only be a beginning to the number of the creations of God; and they are continually coming into existence, and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience that we are passing through. Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let me know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fullness of glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through." (Jornal of Discourses Vol. 14, 71-72) Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20 ". . . and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." I hope that wasn't too much, but now you ought to see where I'm coming from. All these words point me to the realization that if Mormonism is true then every world that will be created after this one will be doomed to have sin on it. Apparently the teaching is that this is the way it has always been and always will be. In this system it is necessary that there be sin and death along with goodness and life because that seems to be the definition of "opposition in all things." Now, you cannot simply decide that sin and death really are kinda good things because they show us the way to exaltation--that opens the door for justifying almost anything and leaves us with no appeal to God. These words make God out to be the product and prolonger of the system, but I would that a perfectly good God would do everything He could to stop the proccess, even if only one more soul would be lost. And for every world there will always be one more soul lost in order for sin to come into a world--the tempter will be lost to outer darkness everytime, he is predestined to condemnation. This system relies on the actual doing of sin in order to be prolonged. Sin leads to death, so if God or any of you intend to prolong it you make yourselves into murderers. I don't mean that in malice (what good would that do?), I am trying to persuade you away from these doctrines. D/C 132:19-20 is a recent discovery for me, it affirms that you will continue to have children if you atttain celestial glory and become a god. Will you keep these children in heavenly innocence forever? If Mormonism is true then you would be a very bad heavenly parent for not letting them progress. So that's the "catch 22," either prolong a sinful cycle or prohibit your children from progression. Both options lead to an injustice, sure one more so than the other, but how is having to choose between two evils joyful? How could you be a good god (or God for that matter) if all you can provide is a choice between two evils? This is not the fulness of joy, this is not what a good God would provide or prolong. But you guys here's the awesome part: it doesn't have to be like that! I don't get my identity by bringing others down--I am the man who God in the flesh died for! My Abba loves me perfectly, I don't have to strive now to secure some closer position with Him in the afterlife! I am one with Him! Our spirits are meshed together! It is this union I want to share, no one should be denied this gift I have--take it! We do not need opposition in all things, we not need to sin--why else would God command us to stay so far away from it!? Instead, the only needed for there to be love between God and His creation is Choice. Love is simply done by choice and we all know the verse: "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love does not sin, and what are the two greatest commandments?: Love God and love each other! Does it say anywhere "learn from evil"--No! Sin leads to death and is not necessary for loving, or having a fulness of joy. Did the God I love know that sin would happen and still make this universe? Yes. Is He responsible for that sin? No. You and I both agree that God gave Adam and Eve (angels included) free will to love Him freely and purely, but the flipside is that if they sinned it would be on their heads, not the God who made them. So sin is the abuse of freedom. They had freedom not to sin, to obey, but didn't and so they died. But God had a plan ready to go and gave them and all mankind a sinful nature in order that He could redeem us all (if we trusted in Him) collectively. The child molester had freedom not to rape, so he will be judged, and we see first hand the utter waste and futlity of sin. So we ought to appeal to God for salvation from this system, which we add to with every sin, so that it will end completely. What does it say?..."He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." Revelation 21:4. If there will be no death there will be no sin to cause it. But you as a mormon do not have this hope, because if Mormonism is true you will see death again, and your tears would not cease. Leave behind this god who was once a man and his doctrines. I plead with you to accept the Lord I know in your heart. He is the only true and good God, he has more to give you than we can imagine. Email me if you want to know this God and his hope, [email protected]. In Jesus' Name, Amen.

P.S. Why do you think that me saying I am a busy college boy imlpies that I think I am a smart college boy? IF ANYTHING I GET TO PAY MONEY TO FIND OUT EXACTLY HOW DUMB I REALLY AM!!! LOL, , I'll miss these days, and all the wonderful insanities of dorm life ("sniffle"). nuf of the mushy stuff!

Snow: 1) How on earth would you know what I/we believe unless I tell you what I believe. Because what I said were my beliefs didn't match what you wanted me/we to believe you turn around and accuse us of hiding something. Say Red - can you see the problem with that?. . . 2) Maybe what you meant, had you thought this through clearly, is that my beliefs or AKnight's beliefs don't match official LDS doctrine and that's a bad thing. But alas - that too is wrong because I, as a Mormon, am not required to believe any particular doctrine about the afterlife in order to be Mormon. . . 3) Or maybe, and this is probably it, you meant to say that you, Red, understand Mormon doctrine and to the extent that AKnight or I or anybody else disagrees with you, then we are wrong about Mormon doctrine. 4) We don't know much about exaltation - what you might call deification, but what we do know is that your idea that deified Mormons will be (so we believe) Gods of their own worlds is not LDS doctrine. How do we know that? We checked Red. You can check to. Quick answers: 1: Actually its happened before where a Mormon I’d be talking to (even a missionary) wouldn’t admit that his church taught something until I quoted from LDS scripture or from a prophet. Usually it tended to be lack of study to be the cause, but then I would have no idea if the were indeed hiding it so as not to give “to much meat” when I should have milk, so to speak. There have simply been many occasions when it turned out that I knew more Mormonism than the Mormon at the time, though it doesn’t look like that will be the situation here of course. But I have not accused you, and you know that. I continually ask to be corrected if I have misrepresented you (though that doesn’t mean I won’t push the issue to make sure my misconception was indeed a misconception), and I even said that I do not want to tell you what you as a Mormon ought to believe (if anything I wish you’d stop learning Mormonism all together…). 2: The issue is not what you believe to make you a Mormon or not but what your scriptures and your prophets teach. And if those teach falsehoods then they are not of God and should be rjected. 3: Hmm, let’s see: I’ve studied Mormonism since August 2002, and you guys have probably lived and breathed it since birth………of I ought to differ to you guys if I’ve got Mormonism wrong! But again, I’m not afraid push an issue in order to find out exactly what Mormons believe. 4: I checked too, and continue to do so (what do you think I’m doing here?)…which leads me to my next post where I’ll show you guys what I’ve been reading and why I think it teaches what I think it teaches. Until then, God bless! -Red

Snow: “Next, you say that if God or a god were to go to other worlds and create a system whereby there was a cycle of sin and hell and the need for a savior then that would be the moral equivalent of murder and the God or god in question would be a murderer. Oh, hello! Who created this earth with sin and death and Satan and hell and innocent suffering and evil and the need for a Saviour? Does God not have moral responsibility for his own actions? And if he were to set up a system where other's did the same, would he still not have been the author of it all and therefore responsible. This one is not that tough Red. No, it’s not tough is it? Again you nailed exactly what I am getting at. If God is the author of sin and death then He is a murderer, no doubt. That would make Him not good, and so not God. And also if he let others follow in his footsteps He’d make them murderers too. But remember what I said earlier, God is not the author of sin, death, or Satan. Not Satan? Yes, not Satan but Lucifer. God is the author of all that is good, including free will which allows us to love Him and each other. Lucifer took the good he was given and rebelled—his own glory was like his tree of good and evil, and so Lucifer became Satan. However, we all do the same thing everyday, abusing the freedom God has given us, we call it sin and/or evil. God is also sovereign and if sin and death enter His creation He can and will use it for good. The suffering of the innocent is actually an example of this, as if God is saying by allowing it to go on, “Do you really think you can do this without Me?” Throughout the Prophets I see this principle driven home that God sends evil (our own perverted creation in a sense) to be used against us as discipline leading to repentance, healing and reconciliation, or to open rebellion resulting in condemnation—Hell was made by God, it is good because it justly punishes those who choose to be evil—it also quarantines the cancer in a sense. Lastly, the death of Christ was the most evil and dark day in history. I’m sure Satan was always very pleased with the method of crucifixion, yet God used the most cruel aspects of this life, the torture and death of a man who not only innocent but righteous—not only man but also God in the flesh to be the sacrifice for our sins, trespasses, mistakes, you name it. If it took all that, then sin ought to be opposed at every turn. You see, even though God knew sin and death would occur, He is not responsible for it because He gave us responsibility (free will, as seen by two trees, not just the one), everything would we need or want (the whole world as a garden or kingdom), and the way to escape temptation—seriously, was there anything stopping Adam from Eating of the Tree of Life?—Nothing! We hold responsibility for sin and death and the suffering of the innocent, especially for the death Christ Himself. However, God allowed sin to contaminate our whole race in order to redeem us collectively by the righteousness of Christ, not ours.

Snow: “Second, you say that if Mormonism were true, you would be content to hang in the terrestial or telestial kingdom but that contradicts your previous statement that to be in paradise without your Abba would be hell. So which is it? Do you want to be in God's presence or do you want to be in hell?” Both. In two different contexts of course. If in one sense I strived to know the God I loved and yet I found myself shunned from his presence based on the fact that I never had a temple endowment or was generally “deceived by men” and that because of my failures my Abba could not be seen with me, then yes, any paradise would be hell. Imagine if a boy struck out in his baseball game, or even got mad and cursed, or worse yet beat up another kid, what kind of a father would let that boy eat a wonderful homemade meal for dinner, but says, “I’ll give you all this but I won’t eat with you.” The boy would be crushed! No real major punishment, but horrible rejection! What kind of a father would do such a thing—none that you know. Instead, a good father would give His son a good spanking, have a talk and a cry, then eat that dinner together in joy. Maybe a playful little food fight might ensure? So in that sense, the terrestrial, or telestial kingdom would be like hell to me, having paradise because I was rejected, and I would imagine it would be even worse for the Mormon who “was not valiant in the testimony.” Instead I have the assurance that I will be with my Father no matter what I do because Christ pleads my case every day. You do not have this hope as solidly as that. You may have done all the necessary temple ordinances, maybe even celestial marriage, but if I’m not mistaken you could still fall short of celestial glory if you failed morally in some way. No specific LDS scripture comes to mind on this point but I do know that, “to obey is better than sacrifice,” (1 Sam 15:22 KJV). There’s a lot more to be said here but I’ll move on for now. But on the other hand, from the perspective of me specifically considering the system of Mormonism to be a sinful cycle of death, then yes, I ought to oppose it to my dying breath and pray for and witness to those who partake of it, urging them to leave it behind and end the cycle. Whether it is true or not, I ought to do this even though it would likely be futile, and if it turned out to be true then I would remain in the terrestrial kingdom—or even outer darkness having the moral satisfaction that I did not partake of an evil system, though I failed to stop it. However I do not see this future as a reality.

Snow, You’re right, I shouldn’t have assumed you’d pick up on the quote from Psalm 51, the was my fault for not specifying, I’m sorry. However, reread your posts, based on a misunderstanding or not, you crossed the line. Is that kind of language God honoring in any sense? Imagine if I actually was someone carrying around that kind of scar! You failed to display the fruit of the fruit of the spirit. But enough of that, back to some good food… Snow: “First, you say that if Mormonism is true that Mormons will have a serious moral issue. Well, all men sin and so have moral issues but you mean to say that Mormons, by virtue of Mormonism being true, will have serious moral issues as a result of following and adhereing to what we correctly (for the sake of your point) believe is God's will. Frankly I don't believe you can't see the problem with that but if we were to do God's will and God is good then what we do in following God's will would be good. For your illogic to be logical God would have to be something other than good.” That is exactly my point. The god who you pray to and follow is not good, and he sure is not mine. I know my Sheppard, and He is good. If your god is not good then he either does not exist or is a fallen angel (and is lying about his origin). I lean towards the latter out of first hand experience. I know the spiritual power and oppression in your church, I have faced it twice before and my Lord has brought me through it and proved Himself stronger. That’s my testimony, I’ll elaborate if you want, but for now I’ll leave it at that. Now if Mormonism is true (remember, remember, remember: I separate the “ism” from the “Mormon”) Then God certainly is not good. He would be a product of a sinful system starting as a man and a participant by creating another world where sin is necessary for having seed and exaltation. If sin is necessary for that, then we will always be under the power of sin, “redeemed” or not, if sin is simply a necessary part of the system. However, the God I know never made sin as a necessity—He never made sin at all, it is a perversion of the freedom which He gave us—an abuse if you will. We at least can agree on that can’t we? So the God I know remains absolutely good, the author of existence, freedom/choice, love, you name it—all that is good. Evil is the perversion of good, but God is in the business of redeeming it all. Something else I’m sure we can agree on is that when God told Adam and Eve (before the fall) to "Be fruitful and multiply,” (Gen 1:28) that he actually meant it—they were capable of doing so in every capacity. There is no hint at all that sin ought to occur—everything was good (v31)!

About God being the author of sin: I'll touch on this real quick. In a universe where God litterally made everything and predestined everything, He does not have to the author of sin. Did He see it coming? Of course, so He included it into His plan, to bring good out of it and show to be utterly futile--bringing glory to Himself, which is always a good thing for those who love Him. Instead He is the author of choice, and I'm sure you'll agree with that. There can be no love without choice to not love (though who would want to stop loving?), no worship without the option to be silent (though who would want to stop singing?), and there can be no obedience without the option to disobey (though who would want to stop being lead by the LORD?). You see, God gives us the choice to love Him and also gives us no reason not to. Satan had a choice. He could use his glory to love, worship and obey God or use it as an excuse to rebel: 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Ezek 28:17 (KJV) Since the conceqence for sin was (or will be) so severe for him, that tells me Satan was meant to use his glory for good and not to take good and make evil. Satan perverts good to make evil, but God tekes the evil to make good again. Evil cannot exist on in an dof itself, it is a perversion. So God is not the author of sin or evil, though He is soveriegn and will take satans toys away from him to show evil as futile and even use it for good. God gave Adam and Eve the same kind of choice with the two trees. He was dead seriouse when He told them not to eat from the tree, and if God is a God who rewards obedience and punishes rebellion (Isaiah 1:18-20), then he punished them for their disobedience. Hence world suffering, its like God is saying, "do you really want to try this without me?" You see, if He punishes sin then it didn't need to happen. Do parents hope their children will sin in order so that they'll learn? No! We don't need to sin to know that it's bad. God does not need to be the author of sin. I'll check back in a few days!

P.S. The site editted my words a little, ####### = illigitamate child, and we all know the word for that. Strange though, I read another post on here where someone said other things. . . go figure, nothing works perfectly.

No, I'm not going for a hit and run here. It is my prayer to do some real ministry on this site if God wills. Maybe He'll use me, maybe He won't, perhaps He already has. Snow: be ashamed. My words: "I was concieved in sin" were from Psalm 51: "1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. 3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. 6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. 7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. 8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. 9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Psalms 51:1-10 (KJV) Am I still a ######? David sure wasn't, so this "concieved in sin" concept has nothing to do with fornication. David was human just like us, so if he was concieved in sin then so were we: 14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 2 Cor 5:14-15 (KJV) We are born spiritually dead, separated from God, naturally sinful. And again this was for our own good: 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1 Cor 15:22-23 (KJV) If the sin of one man could make us all dead, then the obedience of one man could make us all alive. But there is no man who could do that: 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Mark 10:18 (KJV) If Jesus is not God (I don't mean in title, but in nature, essence or specific being as the passage seems to imply) then He is not good. And if he is not good then He is no good for your salvation (of any degree). Do I consider you to be murders? No, I said you weren't, and I believe you are not because I believe Mormonism is false. But if it is true you will have a serious moral problem and I will be content with my lesser glory, in the terrestrial or telestial kingdom, knowing that I did nothing to promote a system which inflicted more sin and death on more worlds. I have done my share of reading, the fact that you guys have denied to even believe the doctrine of becoming Gods of your own worlds is disturbing to me. I don't want to think you are hiding things and I don't want to tell you what you believe. Like I said I do not want to do a hit and run on you guys, I have a heart to minister to Mormons, what can I say. However, over here at San Diego Christian College the homework for my Bible major can have a funny way of adding up (I'm taking 15 units, I hope you'll understand). That, and I like the replies to accumulate and to digest them before I say my peace. Apostleknight: I am relieved to hear that there is no malice in my tone--that used to be such a problem for me, but now at least I can sound how I feel. However, you keep saying my reasoning is illogical--how so? Please elaborate so that I can better explain myself. Thank-you God bless, Red

Now that we have established what God's name(s) mean... What do they mean about Him? Or to get to the point: Why does Jesus (since you hold Him to be only YHWH) have a name like "Self-Existent One" (YHWH) if he was not always (a) God, but at one point unorganized intelligence/matter formed together by His Father? However you render the Holy name in english it implies no beginning and no end--did He just choose an arbitrary name, like we so often do?