Dear434

Job 38:7 is talking about the angels. Jer 1:5 is simply showing God's fore-knowledge and that He is all-knowing. John 9:2, in context, is simply a misunderstanding the disciples had, believing the man was born blind because of sin. When in fact, the man was born blind because it was God's will (v. 3). Just because the disciples asked a question in ignorance doesn't mean the question validates the belief in the LDS premortal existence. Eph. 1:4 again speaks of God's foreknowledge. Verse 5 says He "predestined us to adoption as sons". Does this mean Mormons believe in predestination since it uses that explicit word? And finally, Rev 12:7 is speaking of the war in heaven between the angels and the devil (the dragon). Again, you would have to read into the text something which is NOT there to come up with the LDS interpretation.

Romans 8 is talking about us being adopted as children of God and we call Him "Abba Father". If it were true, that we are already His children (by some pre-mortal spirit birth) then there would be no need to be adopted. Even if you believe we were disowned for some reason, adoption would be unnecessary for a child that is by nature the offspring from their own parents.

What is it that Mormons accuse anti-Mormons of doing? Taking quotes from LDS authorities out of context or twisting the meaning of certain words? I think it would be nice if certain Mormons would refrain from doing that very thing (like with the ECF's quotes). It's one thing to say "this is what we believe" and then quote LDS sources and quite another to quote from the early Christian Fathers (whom Mormons consider apostate) to justify their beliefs.

I don't believe Clement of Alexandria was saying we can become "gods" in the way Mormons teach this doctrine of eternal progression. Where in any of his writings does he say anything about celestial marriages and that a man cannot become a "god" without this type of marriage? None of the early Church Fathers taught that we (humans) are of the same species as God. The early Church Fathers were Monotheistic and given this fact, I seriously doubt they would be teaching a plurality of gods (similar to Greek mythology).

That's one unorthodox interpretation. But the truth is Jews have NEVER interpreted Psalms to mean these judges were true "Gods" in the same way God is the "only true God".

That is correct. The Book of Mormon does NOT teach the LDS concept of eternal progression. As a matter of fact, it is even more strictly monotheistic than Trinitarianism (some might call it Modalism).

Just as it bothers us when Mormons insist we accept their interpretations as being equally valid. Simply because Adam and Eve became "like God" (knowing the difference between good and evil) does not mean they became Gods. Is God mortal or immortal? When Adam and Eve transgressed God's commandments and were cast from the Garden of Eden, were they "gods" or simply mortal human beings?

Paul (in Romans 8) is speaking about our (Christians) adoption as children of God (the Father). It says nothing of our becoming "gods" or becoming deified as taught by Mormon theology.

None of the above mentioned men taught the LDS concept of Eternal Progression. Can a Mormon become a "god" by him or herself? Or, must they obtain a celestial marriage? None of the men referred to above taught any such thing. So, did they refer to "gods" or becoming like Christ? I'm sure they did, but I have no doubt that the LDS concept of becoming a god was entirely foreign to them just as it is foreign to the Bible.

That's an interesting assumption. WHY? Why must we ASSUME that Joseph Smith is a "prophet" if he translated the Book of Mormon? What if his only gift and calling was to translated the Book of Mormon and that's it? Why the need to leap from "translator" to "prophet," "see," and "revelator"?

Christ did NOT call all mankind "gods". Perhaps you could quote the actual chapter and verse where Christ allegedly does this.

Of course that's the LDS interpretation of John and Psalms. Of course, Biblical interpretation (exegesis) is a funny thing. I can give you the correct interpretation and you'd claim it was just my own personal interpretation (eisegesis). But whether you accept it or not, I believe it is true. The so-called "gods" referred to in both Psalm and the gospel of John are referring to human judges. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, mere mortal MEN. Not true Gods in any sense of the word. Jesus was not calling these Jewish scribes and pharisees "gods" or "Gods". Rather, he was comparing their own unjust judgments (against Him) with the unjust judges spoken of in Psalms. If they were truly "Gods" or "gods" then how could they "die like men"? The phrase "die like men" is a simple idiom meaning they would die just like any other man (great or small). Apparently sarcasm and other rhetorical devices are lost on some people when read and not heard.

Apparently we have a failure to communicate. I was under the impression there was more than one "high priest" in the LDS church. This is different from the Jewish (Levitical) Priesthood which only had one "high priest" per year. The point I am making is that Jesus could NOT be "the last High Priest of the Levitical Priesthood," as you assert, because he NEVER held the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood! How do we know this? Because Jesus was NOT from the tribe of Levi. Do you know which tribe Jesus ancestry came from?

If "sex" or "procreation" (be fruitful and multiply) is ordained of God, then the union between a husband and his wife (the two shall become one flesh) is holy, sanctified and the children which are produced from such a union is a BLESSING. So, why do Mormons get so upset over the phrase "Celestial Sex"?

I just have one question (possibly more to come). Do Mormons believe the flesh is evil or sinful?

Words have meanings. Only means only (unless your Bill Clinton). So, if the LDS Church is the "only" true church, then that means other churches are not "true". If the LDS church is the "only" living church upon the face of the earth, then that insinuates that other churches are not "living". How can Mormons expect non-LDS to NOT be offended when we read such things? How is that NOT condescending?

If the LDS church quotes from the King Follett Discourse and views it as reliable then why shouldn't the rest of us? Can you show me where the LDS Church has officially denounced and rejected that sermon?

Which "argument" would that be? I thought my explaination of what it means to be "ordained" was spot on. :)

lilered, I appreciate your interpretation of those scriptural verses. Unfortunately, the LDS interpretation reads more into the text than what the text actually says. What I said was true that being "ordained" in it's most basic sense means that a person is "set apart" or "commissioned" to perform a specific function, mission or duty. I hope you don't mind me quoting from an article I recently read which says it much better than I did. "Christ commissions and mandates the entire Church to be in ministry. The scriptures give many examples of persons whom God designated to hold specific authority and responsibility. God calls such persons out from the kin-dom of the baptized and the Church authorizes them to serve with them in mission to the world. Mission is the basis for ministry. Being called by God and set apart by the Church are inherent in the nature of ministry. Ordination recognizes that the Holy Spirit empowers persons to use their Godgiven gifts for service to God and God’s creation. Ordination denotes action by both God and the community in which the Spirit strengthens those ordained for service, and the community upholds them with prayer and other means of support. Historically, order in the Church means ordination. Ordination is the act through which the Church recognizes and affirms God’s call to persons and authorizes them for ministries of koinonia, leitourgia, didache, kerygma and diakonia (more about this later). Ordination conveys a commission based on recognition of individuals’ gifts and the Holy Spirit’s empowerment. Ordination witnesses to a covenant established between the ordained persons and the Church. The Church, by the laying on of hands, sets apart persons for particular ordained ministries. It is a sign of the call and response to Christian vocation. Ordination is a gift of God given in answer to the prayers of the Church by which qualified women and men are called, authorized, and empowered to be representative ministers of Christ, who is the one who ultimately ordains." Deacon Dialogue – Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary 2 Patty Meyers April 7, 2005So basically, all I was saying is that a person who is "ordained" is set apart to perform a specific function (or in LDS lingo "a calling"). I hope that makes more sense.

No, RC priests are not ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. If they are, then that's news to me. Are you familiar with the Jewish priesthood? Did you know that there was only 1 official (or legitimate) "High Priest" per year. This is the same with the Christian faith. Jesus Christ is our one and only High Priest who is our mediator between us and God the Father.

The King Follett Discourse is one reason why non-LDS Christians don't recognize many of Mormonism's doctrines as "Christian". God the Father was once a mortal man, like us?

Mary was born a virgin? What's so strange about that? Weren't we all?

If you read Hebrews chapter 7 you will see why your answer is less than correct. The REASON the Levitical (Aaronic) Priesthood was passed from one person to another (and not just any ol person) is because that was the only way for it to remain perpetual. However, if you had a person, say a High Priest, who was immortal, he would not NEED to pass it on to someone else because it would remain perpetual BECAUSE of that person having everlasting life. Jesus is that Eternal High Priest who has the Melchizedek Priesthood and He is our ONLY High Priest. Do you know what the purpose of the high priest was in Judaism?

None of the quotes you posted say that either priesthood was transferred to Jesus' apostles. When the word "ordained" is used, we must not ASSUME it means a person is being "ordained" to the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. Being "ordained" simply means to be "set apart" for a special (or specific) purpose. The Melchizedek priesthood that Christ has is inviolable ("unchangeable") meaning that it does not need to be transferred from one person to another. Why? Because, unlike the Levitical priests (who died and had to be replaced) we (Christians) have a High Priest who is alive forevermore. Therefore, such a High priest does not need to be replaced and therefore His priesthood does not pass from one person to another like the Levitical priesthood did. THAT is the reason the Melchizedek priesthood is not mentioned as an office within the early Christian church.

Talk about poisoning the well. Do you really expect anyone to take your question seriously? How would it make you feel if I asked a question (which on the surface sounds legitimate) but in reality is meant to undermine? Here's the question: Do we have to believe in the nature of God as promulgated by a lying prophet, or can we just believe what the Bible says about God? If you compare the two questions, they are basically asking the same thing. However, what they are BOTH in fact doing is trying to undermine a specific person. Is that fair?