Rhi_Bran_y_Hud

Being a Nihilist might be the only worthwhile thing to do if Christ did not rise.

in other words, what you thought was false turned out not to be, and what you thought was a restoration wasn't. Would that be a decent summary of the dilemma you would find yourself in, if today you felt you saw irrefutable proof that Mormonism was false?

Some would say it has been proven false, the whole thing, back to Joseph Smith. That "some" would be a whole lot of those who don't believe in the LDS faith (of course, I'm part of that camp). As for how the church might proceed in such a situation: I think you are already doing what you would do. What I've wondered is this: what if a modern prophet made an announcement that it was all false, step down and called others to follow him?

but matter is being held together by whom?

[really long post to respond to everything you had to say. the meat of it though, I is at the end in bold.] I think you're the first one to pick up the Robin Hood allusion. Do you read Lawhead's books also? Anyway... you are right I did not respond to you, but not on purpose, I am grossly behind. Here goes... When did I change the rules? My God is all-knowing, so he knows what he can resist, which is anything, so that makes it easy to remember. ;-) You are right he cannot create those things, or a square triangle for that matter, for the reason that if He made it, he has power over it inherently; if what was once three sided is now four sided, it is no longer three sided. How does that make him less than infinitely perfect? He can be completely blissful because even in his wrath there is reason for rejoicing: victory! And in His sorrow over our sin he sees our restoration. How does he fail at being trustworthy and worthy of worship? I have a guess at where you're going with this, but I don't want to assume. On to your previous post... Unmoved Mover? Yes (the Rock Himself). But you misunderstand how the word "passion" is used there. It means he does not having sinful, sudden, changing emotions like we do. It is a great comfort to know that He is not at all like me in this way! But being infinite and perfect, you bet he feels, and loves completely, unswervingly... I would run out of adjectives!!! :-) No, not an experiment, but His will will be done. Obviously, babies do not go to hell because they have not actually committed any sins, though they are born sinners by nature in Adam. Augustine was a theologian, not God's prophet. I do hold to TULIP though (with some reservations about the "L" part, still working that out). Does anyone deserve to know God and be saved? Doesn't He have every right by justice to treat us as fully responsible sinners like the SEALs treated Bin Ladin? That is where repentance starts: the acknowledgment that we ("I" "you") deserve sudden death, and nothing else from God. Are there any good people, who by their conduct have earned a anything? Not before God. This is a severe picture, but it is all the more reason to get out there and preach, giving those whom we've never had a chance to reach into the hands of a loving and sovereign God who may have already reached them another way. So when He does send His message to someone it is pure grace. But you have a worse problem I think, which cannot be resolved. What do you do with all those decent people who have never heard your Gospel or had a chance to partake in your ordinances like eternal marriage? Will they be relegated to the Terrestrial kingdom without a choice in the matter? "They will have an opportunity in the afterlife!" Then what was the point of this life? And if I don't need to believe the LDS gospel in this life (being honestly deceived, misinformed or ignorant) why do you exist as a church at all? Where is the urgency of your message? is this about salvation or self-progression? You might say, "How they fought in the Pre-mortal Life determined their place in this life," (if I have that part right). So are you better than them? More valiant even from birth? More deserving of exaltation and therefore given a better shot at it? A Calvinist entertains no such thought (though I am not saying you yourself actually have). Love exists because God is a community of 3. Trinity aside, we are creations and He is Creator. That by itself is an infinite gulf. Yet again, how does that prevent me from knowing him? How does that prevent my from loving Him? It certainly does not prevent him from loving me. If anything his infinitude makes his love for me possible!!! Why are so concerned with being a god just like him? 1. He does feel empathy and infinite love for you. 2. Why should he? Why would we need to be gods just like Him? Wasn't that our sin from the being? 3. He is a mystery and not a mystery. You can make very concise and true statements about him, yet never finish plumming the depths of what it means. I will have eternity to be with Him, and since He is infinite I will never run out of things to learn about him, or reasons to love Him. 4. Do you ever talk to evangelicals!? :-) I will always be His servant, yes. And also His adopted son, his priest, his king under him forever! 5. Augustine was wrong on babies for sure. There are no blameless "good" people who deserve heaven, but we all deserve hell. If you do not start there, the religion that follows is not Christianity. 6. Why do you accuse him of being unjust, without mercy, or unloving? Because He is all-powerful, yet does not always stop evildoers whom He will judge, and does not save every sinner, who by his own choices and by justice deserves hell? Yet even in LDS theology evil is perpetrated freely and there will be those who go to outer darkness. Have you resigned yourself to a God who means well but cannot stop somethings from happening even if he wants to? That, to me seems a bleak reality. I will worship my God, because being Sovereign and infinite in both love and power, no evil happens that was not allowed by Him, and which cannot be undone and even used for our benefit. No person person ever went to Hell who was not justly condemned and fully responsible (Romans 1-2), and no sinner was saved based on any other fact than that God loved Him. And that is exactly where I was hoping this conversation would go.

:-) Why is this always the first response? If you say that about what Joseph seemed to think it was absolutely true then you have a problem with someone you hold a prophet.

Why can't it be? If matter itself has a creator/source, then that creator would have to be something other than matter. Not so. The electro-chemical reactions are carriers, effects and sometimes the causes of our emotions and the pains we feel, but they are not the things themselves. If you really believed your emotions were the sum total of, or merely chemical reactions in and of themselves, and no more, then you would be a determinist like Stephen Hawking. Also, I don't think your girlfriend (fiance? wife?) would appreciate the idea that your feelings for her are no more than that... ;-) Never said God was made of nothing. Jesus said He is spirit, and what spirit is... well you got me, and the Bible never defines it, therefore I wouldn't even say that spirit is energy, but it is certainly not nothing. Besides that, both matter and energy wear out if they are not sustained or regenerated: "in Him all things hold together." So if matter and energy cannot exist without being held together then they are not eternal in and of themselves, so God, cannot be "made of" either thing. Yes, he does exist outside our frame of reference, and you yourself effectively summarized my answers above, but I thought your questions were definitely worth addressing in detail. As for knowing: I believe I mentioned before, but I will say it again: "knowing" God does not mean I have to fully understand every aspect of His being... I am no where near fully understanding my wife--I could never sit here and say I've got her totally figured out--but I do know her. In fact I know her better than anyone else alive. It is similar with God: I need only understand him insofar as He has revealed Himself (here we agree), and he hasn't really defined the exact nature of his being (here we disagree). I don't need to know it to know Him. And yet the LDS God would owe his existence to yet a higher power, would he not? If he is in indeed progressing? When you say that your God is the greatest you can only say so within a certain context. I can say mine is the greatest absolutely. And yet, if LDS theology is true, (and I am correctly understanding that it teaches matter and intelligence are eternal things which God(s) organize into creation), then we actually do not owe our existence, ultimately, to God, but we are in and of ourselves eternal--thankful for being organized into a person--but already gods by nature, essentially independent from God. But remember: matter is something that must be held together. How is having a body, having something more than an immaterial God? If anything, my physical body is a clear sign of my finiteness in contrast to His infinitude. As for what the image of God is, I will say this: Solomon said that God himself (not just his power, influence or glory), but He himself cannot be contained within all creation (1 Kings 8:22-30). Is he a giant? No, I don't think you would say that. He himself, his actual presence is everywhere (Psalm 139), he cannot be that way if he is physical. If those things are true, then we are made in the image of God in a much more profound way than appearance. me too.

Wow, lots of posts since last we met. But first a brief note on why I'm not a Chuckian just yet. Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair Fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he? What does that have to do with anything? If your version of Chuck Norris delivered a roundhouse kick to my God and actually made contact, killing him instantly, then should we conclude that Chuck can kick the un-kickable and kill the un-killable? No, that's actually nonsense by definition. Instead Chuck would have proved that my God was not in fact what He said He was: neither immortal nor immaterial. In other words, you did not actually succeed in imagining anything better than my already infinite and totally awesome, round house proof God. Instead, you had to change the definition of what my God is: you had to make Him both mortal and material before your Chuck could take Him. After all, if he can be kicked, he is not truly immaterial, and if he can be killed he was never truly immortal. So your Chuck never met my God, but instead took out another of your own imagination. Fuzzy wuzzy wasn't fuzzy was he? But in the scenario of my God versus LDS God, I did not have to change anything around. Instead I've gone along with the framework laid out by Joseph Smith in the KFD: "you have supposed and imagined the God was God from all eternity... but I will remove the veil" (paraphrase). He quite candidly tosses out the "old" idea of an eternal, infinite God and tries to substitute it with a not so eternal, ever progressing God.

Yes, I do get the idea, that's why I said from the beginning that it's a silly question. Yet I think it brings out a very serious issue. Why did you feel the need to immediately think of something better than my idea idea of God? By doing so you admitted that my imaginary God beats yours. In fact, it seems so far that you and all of the posters have admitted the same, unknowingly or backhandedly, that in some way the Triune God (imaginary or not) is above the LDS God, and then cry foul. In other words, you realize that your God presently has a similar set of limitations as you do, and that while his glory and power are ever expanding, they do have a frontier. Neither is true of mine, and that puts Him in a category above and beyond your own. Now of course, none of you would say that this unfathomable immensity of my God is a good thing because you falsely assume that since I cannot fully comprehend the nature of His being, I cannot therefore know Him as closely as any loved one. Yet I do, and by Him I am fully known, which is a much more encouraging idea. So if my God is greater, why should I downgrade?

But Chuck Norris (blessed be his name) didn't create me.

Lol!

This question (if it could be called that) is so ridiculous I can't believe I'm actually writing it down. But it's been on my brain for months and won't go away, so here goes: Who would win in a fight? The God of the Latter Day Saints, or the God of Protestant (Evangelical) Christianity? It's stupid, I know. It sounds like I'm about to say, "my dad can beat up your dad!" And to certain extent, I am saying just that. But that is not the real question, just the starting point, stay tuned. First, someone might say we really worship the same God, only with different ideas about him. But after a point, different ideas amount to different gods... and different gospels... In this corner: we have the Heavenly Father of the Mormon faith! Having worked his way up from humble beginnings as a mere man of flesh and blood, has become an exalted man, a God whose glory continuously brightens. Though he himself is made of matter and spiritual intelligence he has the power to form it into new creations! And in this corner, we have the Triune God around whom Christians throughout the world have united for 2,000 years! His glory and power are infinite, and always have been. Being immaterial Himself, he is the source and sustainer of all matter, the father of all spirits, the ultimate giver of life and death. He spoke and it was! Quick summary: LDS God is made of matter, is potentially infinite (his progression does not cease) but he is not actually infinite. The triune God on the other hand is actually infinite, and not made of matter but the source of it. So who would win? I think you know what I'm about to say: the traditional Triune God of course! It wouldn't even be a fight, he would simply "unmake" the LDS God and that would be it. Or being infinite in every way, He would be infinitely more powerful and able to beat down the other. It would not be a fair fight at all. Yes, I do realize this is total silliness, even irreverent silliness, but bear with me. Now here comes the real question: if the LDS God were true and the the Triune imaginary, how then can a person, a creation of his, imagine something greater than his/her creator? Of course, I don't believe I am imagining things, but that I believe in the God the Bible reveals. But if the eternally infinite God is fake, then at some point he was a product of someone's imagination. How is this possible?

I will rephrase then. If we asked God, "What are You?" He would probably answer, "I am." God is the only thing that always was, is, and will always be. And no, everything else need not be co-equal to Him in any way. Why do you conclude that if Jesus is a man, and we humans are flesh and blood, that God must be also?

God is.

The Westminster Confession says that, "The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." John Piper likes to say (and rightly so), "man is to Glorify God by enjoying Him forever." Getting a free pass, or having a chance to repent after death is probably not as sweet a deal as you might think. I tmight make us feel better, but it it were true, then we had better close up shop and never tell anyone the Gospel! Why? Because so often people don't believe us, and they reject God without ever knowing Him. So the more practical thing to do would be to zip our lips so that when they do stand before Him they will have a valid excuse: 'I never knew.' But if they repented right then and there, would they really have a choice? Would it be true love or just aquiescence? Would it be true repentance at all? Or would it be a mere acknowledgmnent of fact like demons do? Wouldn't it be like a kid who gets caught in the cookie jar and cries, but will try it again the first chance he gets? Instead, God approaches us without his glory so that we may truly repent and love Him for Himself. And if Romans chapter 1 has any truth in it, they do know, deep down. They were created to know, and the creation points to Him. So we can't be quiet, because all those people really are in danger of God's justice falling on them. We cannot assume that anyone deserves to be saved or even to hear the Gospel. We all deserve justice, and that is not good news, but we must start there if there is to be any true faith at all.

I watch Glenn Beck all the time. Read the Twilight books and can attest to the values brought out in those (sexual purity is championed, pro-life as well; the Cullens refuse to be slaves of their innately evil/murderous/lustful nature). We stood shoulder to shoulder on Prop 8 in CA, and they took their lumps right along with us evangelicals (in fact, since they are a single, well defined organization, they were easier targets, and might have taken the brunt of the vitriol, I think). If a Mormon were in office I would have every reason to believe that he would be an honest and courageous man. I've heard some say (use Glenn Beck's 'idiot friend' voice: "if you made a mormon the president he would bring in all his mormon buddies!" I say, "the more the merrier!" We would be better off.

I actually do appreciate it when people try guess the day. Since no one really knows it as Jesus said, we can therefore rule out the particular day in question! So May 21st is out. Only a slightly smaller infinitude of possiblities left to consider...

say anything? ... I'm not a Mormon, and I really don't know much about Free-masonry. I've heard it said that there are a lot of elements of Free-masonry within LDS ceremonies, but I don't know if there's any validity to that. I don't think a Mormon would say there is, and out of respect I really have no desire to know for sure, because the ceremonies they do in the Temple are very private and sacred to them. However, from what I do know of both, I think you will find the same common denominators: there advancement of same kind, climbing a ladder to get closer to God, or even becoming a god, and/or attaining enlightenment. You may also find a degree of universalism common to both (the idea that basically everyone gets "saved" in the end). In other words, if you were a website, I think you might change "skins" and even a lot of content, but not much actual substance if you were to switch between the two. At least that's the opinion of an outsider (an evangelical I guess you could say). Option #3 can be found in Luke 15:11-32. Is this about joining a club? Pursuing your own spirituality?

May offer an alternative? What if Jesus was always God?

Why are you concerned with spiritual advancement and not knowing Christ? The two are not the same thing. I know that if I seek the first, it is to detriment of the other. If I seek Christ Himself, as an end in Himself (not unlike seeking to better know/love my wife), then the first thing follows quite naturally. Otherwise, it is only advancement, and it is empty. Why would you want, or expect there to be a second chance in the afterlife? Is God's grace insufficient to accomplish His work in us with one lifetime? Since He will eventually change believers "in a moment, in the blink of an eye," he doesn't really need any amount of time, though he takes it nontheless. So if now is all we have to prepare for eternity, then suddenly everything we do is more important, precious, and meaningful. Doesn't even Alma in the BoM say that today is all that we have, that we can't wait until nightfall? Are you planning on goofing off for now, and then working on your spiritual advancement in the afterlife when you can go after it with a resurrected, sinless body? I don't think you are. Instead, are you more concerned that you might fail at some point in this life, and fall short of Celestial glory? If you have read the Letter to the Romans up to chapter 7 then you will know it is guarranteed that you, like me and the rest of us, will fail repeatedly, and fall infinitely short. But if you read Romans 8 and following, you might find that what you call Celestial glory (being with God the Father and Christ forever) is not earned by advancememnt, but it is given only by grace, guarranteed by blood, secured by the Spirit and recieved by faith in Him, taking Him at His word that he has and will save us. How else would a Father relate to His children? Not through advancment, I think.

yeah, I guess so. That would be a pretty long line though...

If Jesus said, "whoever loves mother or father more than me is not worthy of me," then wouldn't it seem that the Gospel ought to be about more than growing a family and getting to whichever kingdom tier? It seems as if the point is entirely about Him. When the Sadducees posed their question to Jesus ("what would happen in the resurrection if a woman had had seven husbands in her lifetime?") they assumed two things: 1) that the resurrection won't really happen and they were trying to prove it with this question, and 2) that marriages would continue and that the institution itself would still exist in the resurrection (or heaven, or after life, or new creation; however we want to refer to it). Jesus blasts those assumptions by saying that they "will be like angels" and that there will be no "giving and taking in marriage." The only interpretation that this passage could allow is that marriage does not continue in any way at all after death. If you try to squeeze it in somehow, you miss the entire point of Jesus' argument. Not only that, allowing marriage in the afterlife,in any form does not solve the conundrum put forth by the Sadducees--you still end up with one woman having or picking from seven men, all of whom have equal claim on her! Instead Jesus argues back in essentially this way: "that won't be a problem because all contracts of the old life will be canceled, along with old institutions." What if marriage is not an end in itself, but points to, pictures, is fulfilled in and consumed by our Lord Himself? If the Gospel becomes about who you will be married to, and how many kids you will have, there is little room for Christ; the Gospel is muddled and His face becomes obscured. The Gospel is about losing yourself in Him alone--the church is the bride of Christ: where would we we get off having brides of our own? You will say, "But we believe in Jesus!" Then isn't He enough? Am I disparaging marriage? Not at all: it is all the more sacred precious because of how fleeting it is and because of what it points to, and will give way to! Will I miss my wife? I won't have an opportunity to: she will be there as well, we have no chance of ever being separated since we are both heirs of eternal life, adopted children of God the King!

"God can make whatever changes he wishes. Why? Because he is God!" Ummm... no. If that were true, Jesus would not have had to die.

Is the introduction page to the Book of Mormon inspired also? That's an honest question. From the Joseph Smith History quote I do see how you make the connection to Rev. 14 based on the phrase "everlasting gospel," which occurs in both places. But I think you would need the History quote to directly reference Revelation in order to make your case airtight. Just because the eternal gospel is mentioned in both places does not mean that it is described as being contained in, or transmitted through the same medium in both instances. In the History passage, yes, the everlasting gospel is contained in the Book of Mormon. But in Rev. 14:6-7 the everlasting gospel is contained and proclaimed in the actual words that the angel speaks himself, right then and there. This prophecy shouldn't have us looking for a written record necessarily, but a spoken message. For the record, I'll offer two possible ways in which I think this could be fulfilled: either A) there really will be an angel who takes flight and circles the globe telling the gospel from the sky so that no one will have any more excuses [maybe, but I doubt it]. Or more likely: B) John is using similar language as when the lying spirit gave a false prophecy to all of Ahab's prophets [1 kings 22]. Perhaps in a similar way this good angel will put the gospel, instead of a lie, in the mouths of preachers (the 144,000?) who will go out in the height of Antichrist's reign, as that seems to be the time frame in view in the larger context of the passage (that is Rev. 13-14).

"...it seems that a late Apostle is disagreeing with you." -bytor2112 "...You missed the part about the angel having the everlasting gospel. ...the everlasting gospel is the Book of Mormon." -LDSChristian I have freedom under the blood of Jesus to disagree as well. What in the text itself, or the surrounding context, would allow one to identify the angel? Or more importantly (this is the real issue between us I think), what would lead one to conclude that this angel is delivering a particular written book to mankind? Rev 14:6. And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Rev 14:7. Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. I will say it again: you are inserting our own modern day meaning of the phrase "a gospel" into the ancient text. When we say "a/the gospel" we are often (but not always) referring to one of the 4 books in the NT, or in your case, the Book of Mormon itself. Instead, you should read Rev. 14:6-7 on its own terms and then bring out the meaning. In verse 6, the Greek word for gospel (euangelion) means a message, the good news, etc. Sure, it can be written down in a book, but the gospel, in and of itself, is not a book. Instead of being written down, this eternal gospel is to be "preached," verbally. The Greek word is euangelion again, but now morphed into the verb: "euangelisai" (meaning: to preach the good news). And then in verse 7 the angel actually does speak it out ("saying" = "legon" to speak, say, tell). He is now "saying" the very gospel which in verse 6 he was only yet "to preach." And the gospel is this very sentence: "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Indeed, it is an eternal Gospel! It is a sweet summary of the Gospel in a nutshell--it sounds just like "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," and "the greatest commandment is this: love the Lord your God..." That is all there really is to the Gospel! Let that be the sum total of what we preach! Do you still think that when John writes "a gospel" he means "a book?" Or are you foisting our own modern day convention on him? Where in the NT does the word "gospel" ever refer to a book, and not the sweet spoken message of repentance, salvation and peace with God? Why did I pull out my Greek dictionary? To show off? To shut you down? No! To encourage you to do your own homework (because I know I have still not convinced you)! To show you that you don't have to take anyone's word for it.