Ray

Well, let's see if it is better. You're saying that whether the Trinity (One God in three co-equal persons), or the Godhead of LDS (One God that we worship, working in corporation with Jesus and the Holy Spirit, who have the fullness of God in them, and so are God, but yet, are not) is true, there's still only one God (even if, he had a Father 'before' (an odd term, since we're all eternal) him. Did I get it? NOPE, not quite... but it would be if your last "him" was a "them". There is only one God in all of existence, no matter how many "persons" there are. And whether we (LDS) are right, or whether you are right, there is still only one true God in existence. And by the word "God" I'm referring to the ULTIMATE of all the beings there truly are in existence. So if our Father is the ULTIMATE, and our Lord is the ULTIMATE, of all the beings there truly are in existence, they are both the one God, the only God that is one, the only one true God, in existence. :)

No. I'm asking about the gods that preceded and follow your god. That did not clarify that matter for me. Can you please try and explain what you mean again. I appreciate it, Ray. Dr. T Okay. What about them? I'm saying it doesn't matter how many persons there were and are who are God, because there still is only one God. ( and by God I'm not referring to our Father in heaven this time ) Why are you asking about other persons who are God when the number of persons doesn't change things? With proper understanding, there is only one God. (and again, when using the word "God", I'm not referring to our Father in heaven, this time ) Do you know how to get at the truth? Then ask a simple question, and make sure it makes sense. What question are you really trying to ask?

Hi Josh,I apologize if this quesiton has already been answered, but I just started reading this thread and at this point I don't get what you mean by a "day" because your math doesn't seem to make sense. Can you tell me how you figured out your math, and why each "day" period is different than the others? Day 1 = 15,750,000,000 years ago ( Why that number? What information did you use for that? ) Day 2 = 7,750,000,000 years ago ( day 1 was 8 billion years long??? ) Day 3 = 3,750,000,000 years ago ( day 2 was 4 billion years long??? ) Day 4 = 1,750,000,000 years ago ( day 3 was 2 billion years long??? ) Day 5 = 750,000,000 years ago ( day 4 was 1 billion years long??? ) Day 6 = 250,000,000 years ago ( day 5 was 500 million years long??? ) I don't see why you think your numbers make sense, or why you have chosen those numbers. Can you help explain what you meant by those ideas? I have no idea what you mean.

Ahh, yes. I love that thought.I first heard it from Thumper in 'Bambi', and he supposedly heard it from his Mom. If we could only do what our Mom's tried to teach us, then I think we'd all get along. :) And btw, a time to "NOT GRIPE" is when someone we love has died. It's not good to be with those who are contentious.

L.H. And I thank God I was born in Texas.God bless the US of A.

Ray, are you saying that you agree with the above statement - you believe the above statement to be true? If so, I am shocked, it's a good shock, but still a shock. M. Yes, I agree with that statement. I said it and I meant what I said. Do you know what I meant by what I said in my words? Or do you think that I meant something else? You and I do agree a lot more than you realize, Maureen, but words sometimes get in our way. Each "person" who is God is truly God in person in all of His personal essence, but each person who is God is not the very same person as other persons who you know are truly God. So does that mean there are 3 gods, or only one God, when you know that each person is God? Is our Lord truly God? Is our Father truly God? So how many are there out there who are God? Is the Holy Ghost truly God? That's 1 + those 2, so how many are there now who are God? What if you and I both become "one" with God... how many are there who are God out there then? And how many Gods are there out there in existence if each person is His essence is truly God? Hint: Try first thinking of Man, and how many who are Man who are out there in all of existence. Is there only one Man, knowing what you know of Man, or some others out there who are Man too? And if there are any others, and they're all like what is Man, then how many are there who are Man? I hope that you won't need some aspirin. It's very simple, but seems hard, if you make it hard. :)

Okay, I'll try to clarify. No matter how many "persons" there are or may be in what is known as "God", whether 1, or 3, or many more (we'll someday see), there is only one true God in all of existence... again, regardless of whether there is 1, or 3, or many more "persons". Better now??? Try thinking of that. Get it ALL figured out. Then take 3 aspirins and call me in the morning. :)

No, but having a website devoted to the opposition of the LDS Church certainly does. Josh, FYI, "anti" means against, so if I use logic and a little common sense I can see you're against our beliefs. Or in other words, you have personally presented ideas and information against our (LDS) Church and beliefs, and by doing so you have personally shown yourself to be against our (LDS) Church and beliefs. And btw, Josh, I still love you anyway. And you're one of the kindest "anti-Mormons" I have met. :)

It's not "or" pushka, it's "and".I get my belief in .... from the Bible, and other (LDS) scripture, and God. Have I now satisfied your curiousity???

That's not really in harmony with our official (LDS) beliefs, Tommy, but you do have a part of the truth.I'd personally say that when we (LDS) say "God", we are normally referring to our Father, but we also say sometimes that Jesus is God because He has the fullness of our Father... or all that our Father has... while he yet lives as a separate person. And btw, we (LDS) are not the only ones who have ever said that... that our Father is the only true God. And if you would like, I'll find you a scripture where our Lord once said that Himself. Heh, anytime anyone says there is only ONE or THE <LDS> response to a question, they are only showing that they haven't heard from others who are LDS. And instead of continuing to hear from other people, I would rather just listen to God. And if God changes His mind, or He changes His rules, I will still choose to listen to God. Well aren't you, or aren't you? Don't you say He's a separate person?Or do you believe there is somehow a difference between a person and a personage, if by using the word person you're referring to a form or entity and not just some regular, human person. Sorry to burst your bubble, Tommy, but all LDS are not "one" yet, so again there is more than one LDS response, and you can know that by asking other LDS. Heh, would you look at that. That personal "Scriptures" guy is "saying" things again.Does that mean "your" scriptures were written by someone who did not write "our" personal scriptures? Why not just say who personally wrote down those scriptures... the ones that you are referring to??? Yes. That is right. The God that we (LDS) worship is the only <true> God there really is, and ever will be, in all of existence. And the one true God exists as "separate, distinct personages" who are all in their essence one God. I like it when we do agree. :)

I disagree with you that Jesus is Jehovah, but that's besides the point. Okay, I will not make try to make a point regarding whether or not Jesus is Jehovah, and instead I will say that Jesus and Jehovah are "one"... meaning that what one does the other one does or would do if given that situation... so if Jehovah said that there must be a death penalty then Jesus would also say that. That's good. I'm glad we agree on that point. It does deter crime, the crime of murder, when someone who murders is executed, because it deters that murderer from murdering again by eliminating that murderer from this planet. And if anyone cares enough to learn from that example, by seeing what will happen if they murder, then it also deters other murders from happening... unless some numbskulls have to learn for themselves to see that murderers are in fact executed. Okay, you disagree. I personally know for a fact that if or when someone intentionally murders another person... with murder defined as the killing of an innocent person... with an innocent person defined as someone who is totally innocent of any crime for which there would be a "good" reason to kill him/her... (such as self defense, or the defense of another innocent person or people, or to preserve a righteous way of life instead of allowing a murderer to rule (a righteous war), etc...) then, in that situation, our Lord will not wipe the sin of murder from a person's conscience and not hold them accountable for that act EVEN IF the person who murders someone else feels really sorry and won't ever do it again. But you can believe what you want to believe, and I am living my life to defend that right. Every word of that is true. But again, you can believe what you want to.

Ray: Do you think our Lord just automatically forgives people who murder and then ask for His forgiveness? Josh: I consider that to be the essence of Christianity. (of course they would have to repent...meaning turn from their sin) Heh, okay, let me put this in other words for you, Josh. The essence of Christianity is Christ, and Christ is none other than Jesus, and Jesus is the one who was known as Jehovah, and Jehovah is the one who killed murderers... or the one who commanded His people to kill those of His people who murdered. Are you getting the gist of my idea, now? You can't reasonably say the death penalty is un-Christian, because Christ commanded the death penalty. Ray: FYI, our Lord (Jehovah) commanded His people to execute those among His people who murdered other people, and since He commanded that at one time in the past, He will still command that in the future. Josh: He also commanded you to kill goats, do no work on the Sabbath, and many other things I'm sure you do not to...why? did God change? No. He simply fulfilled His law on what to sacrifice. And btw, He could have commanded His people to kill a goat when one or some of His people murdered other people, but He didn't do that, did He? And what did He say they should do when someone murdered? Do you need me to quote the Bible to you? Ray: You err if you think God does not deal justly. God's mercy does not rob God's justice. Josh: ... If you believe someone should die (according to the Bible) for murder or adultery, then they would also deserve to die for doing work on the Sabbath... Josh Hey, yeah. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks, Josh. :) And btw, death doesn't have to be physical death. We should obey or we will die (be divided or separated from) God's presence.

I think what you need is just a little space now. But you'll be back. I know that. And God also knows exactly how you feel. You may fool some, but not us. :)

Nope. You're wrong. This one, right here, doesn't have.And yes it is sad that Steve Irwin was killed. I'm just trying to find humor where I can. It's a jungle out there, but we can't avoid living just because we will die someday too. Here's to a man who lived life how he wanted and who got want he wanted from life.

Should I assume that your check is in the mail???

It would be an act of love for people to execute someone who has murdered another person because those who execute someone who is guilty of murdering another person are doing justice for the person who was murdered, mdb.And how is that Biblical, you ask??? Do you need me to quote some scriptures in the Bible showing how God commanded His people to execute those who were among His people who had murdered another person, or people? Don't you know those commands to execute those murderers was approved by our Lord Himself??? Where is your sense of justice, mdb??? Do you think our Lord just automatically forgives people who murder and then ask for His forgiveness? FYI, our Lord (Jehovah) commanded His people to execute those among His people who murdered other people, and since He commanded that at one time in the past, He will still command that in the future. Do you imagine a God that changes? Do you think God has changed the way God was? You err if you think God does not deal justly. God's mercy does not rob God's justice.

Hi Doc,Just a few points of clarification. We (LDS) do NOT believe that marriage in a temple (building) of our Lord is necessary before "progressing to godhood". Marriage in a temple (building) of our Lord is necessary only when there is a temple (building) of our Lord on this Earth that is available and fit for that purpose... and a temple (building) is NOT the only thing necessary... because there are other things necessary. There must also be a man and woman who are willing to be eternally married, in heaven as well as on Earth, and there must also be a man with priesthood keys to perform an eternal marriage ceremony. And btw, eternal marriage is necessary only when a man and woman desire to have children, because in no other way can children be formed. There must be a man and a woman to produce children, in heaven as well as on Earth. Or in other words, if a man or woman do not desire to be etermally married, they can still attain to a certain level of "godhood"... or in other words, they can still become as God to a certain degree... while living as "singles" in heaven. Oh, and one more thing. If our Lord ever desires to have a "real" wife, a wife who is literal and not figurative... or if our Lord desires to have literal children and not just those who He has adopted, either in heaven or right here on Earth, He will do so by following the commands of our Father, and our Father has told Him, as He already knows, that He must be eternally married. I hope that helps you understand this issue. :)

Okay. I will try to be of service. Why does it matter what you're wearing when you go to church? It matters to me because I think I should look good when I go to worship my God. And since authorities of this church have established some standards, as a member, I follow those standards. And since, as a leader, I'm responsible for other members, I teach those standards to other members. And from there, as far as I'm concerned, personally, they are free to govern themselves. The person sitting in church who smells like cigarette smoke and looks like he just got off of a 3 day bender is still there searching for the truth. Wow. Really? I think that is totally awesome. If I met him I'd tell him that truth comes from God, and I'm trying to learn all about Him, and that I've found more truth since I joined this true church than all I'd ever learned before I joined it. And it's much harder for that person to be there. Hard? To be where? What's hard about being in a church to learn from God? The thing I'm finding in the LDS church nowadays is that they're focusing on stuff like modesty and tattoos and earings so much that they are forgetting so many important things. Yes, the church does focus on teaching stuff like modesty and how important it is to look good for God, but I don't think we're forgetting some other important things. We focus on EVERYTHING about God. By constantly putting all that stuff down as "bad" you are pushing away people who are seeking truth but who wont find it because you're not focusing on God and Jesus, what the church should be based on. FYI, the church IS based on God, and Jesus Christ... and ALL that they want us to learn. Maybe you should focus on learning just a few things from God before you go ahead and try to condemn us for everything. I admit that there is a lot of evil out there in the world, but do you think if Christ was in church, he would dislike a person more for having more than one earing or for wearing a tank top or even if they had a tattoo? No, of course not. And most members of His church would also not dislike a man if he chose to wear some clothes like that to worship, but most members of His church would try to teach that man some things to help him learn HOW and WHO and WHY and WHEN and WHERE to wear his best clothes. If you came in practically naked, do you think I really wouldn't and I shouldn't really care??? Don't judge people so harshly. Good advice, and I don't. Do you think that somehow I do? Who are you to now judge me for what I do? Who are you to say that I should agree with you? The church says they are trying to look less earthly by not doing all that stuff but the way they judge the people that do that stuff, they are contradicting themselves. Says who? You? And who are you, again? Are you thinking that I should care what you think? Why should I believe what you say about anything? Me thinks you're too great in your own eyes. God doesn't care what you look like, who you are, where you come from, as long as you believe in Him and His Son with all your heart and you're not out there breaking the commandments. Really? Really truly? Are you really telling me God doesn't care? If I try to dress up nice by putting on my best clothes, are you telling me God really doesn't care? Who are you to speak for God? How do you know He doesn't care? Why should I believe what you say about God? And btw, you don't really need to answer those questions. I know how to know what God expects from me. And if you think I need you to know what God thinks, I know better than to believe what you think. Right now I am questioning my faith, deciding if the LDS church is for me and it's comments like the ones you made earlier that started my whole quest and make me think more and more that it isn't for me. Heh, are you saying you can decide if the "LDS church" is for you by knowing what I think about the church? Really?!? Really truly?!? Like, you wouldn't even ask God or the other 13+ million members of the church? All you really need to know is what I think??? Wow. That's interesting. I didn't know I had that much influence. Forget the other writings, and forget the other talks. Forget God and what He says though ALL of His prophets. Live, from SW Washington, it's Me, it's RAY!!! And if you act NOW, I'll include a nifty item. Send your money in a self addressed envelope to... Oh, why bother, I'm sure all the postal workers know me and how to get to me. After all, I'm ME!!! I'M RAY!!!

Look at what you are saying, "It's not your dad's church" you then said "Even if he's a saint" and then contradicted yourself by saying that it belongs to the Lord "AND ALL HIS SAINTS." You say it belongs to saints and her father (even if being a saint) it isn't his church (point #1 of below). You are talking out of both sides of your mouth sir. (point #2 below) I like you Ray. I'm trying to nod and smile. Sometimes I have a hard time though. - points #1 and #2 to be added by Ray Point #1: No, I said it (with it referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is the church of Jesus Christ and ALL of His saints... which is not the same as saying it is the church of Desire's dad, even if he's a member of this church.For an analogy, try thinking of this: America isn't yours even if you're American... the people and the country aren't yours. All the people aren't yours, all the land isn't yours, and neither are all the real assets. And while you might now have a part of America, if it was given by the authorities of this land, the authorities of this land could take it all back, and the authority over all of it is God. Point #2. Sometimes it only seems that way to you and others when you really don't know what I mean, and sometimes when you know what I mean and disagree I still know what I'm saying is true. And you now have the right to think I'm wrong and disagree because that right was given by God. Not America all alone, not one of us is all alone, because God was over all, and always will be.

ApostleKnight: Well my point is, Joshua, that if "Mormons" are saved by Jesus just like all other Christians, why do you concern yourself so much with our beliefs? I mean if we're harmlessly over-zealous, what's the big deal? mdb: The problem isn't with being over-zealous. It is good to be zealous for God. The problem is with the doctrine I can see that. I agree. What's the problem. mdb: The Scripture speak... Oops, wait a minute. Sorry to interupt. The "scriptures" don't actually speak. The scriptures are words that were written by men, and God CAN inspire men to write now. Can you tell me who you're quoting from now??? How about this? some men who wrote some words through inspiration from God spoke... ... of those who follow after false doctrines and those who lead others astray by the same. Is that okay? Good. What's your point? mdb: Regarding Jesus and doctrine, the Scriptures also say... Oops. There we go again. I think you meant: Regarding Jesus and doctrine, a man named Paul once said: mdb: For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! (2 Cor 11:4) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8) I think that we would all agree that only the true Jesus Christ can sent the Holy Spirit. Okay. Yes. I think all of us would. I know I certainly do. mdb: If you believe in a Jesus Christ who is not the Jesus of the bible, then you do not have the Holy Spirit in you and you are not saved. Yeah. Okay. I can agree with that too, if by "Jesus of the bible" you're referring to the person referred to in the Holy Bible by many people who really knew who He was, and now is. mdb: This is where the problem lies: in the doctrine which is taught you. Okay. So you're saying there is or at least can be a problem with doctrine that is being taught. Yeah. Okay. I agree with that. mdb: The LDS teaches... I think you either mean the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches OR People you know who are members of (the church named above) who call themselves "LDS" teach: mdb: a Jesus Christ who was a created man on another world who attained a status of Godhood Hmmm. Okay, You must be referring to certain members of the above named church, instead of the Church as an organization, because that is not what the Church teaches. The Church (named above) teaches that Jesus Christ, who was once born on this Earth in a small town named Bethlehem, lived a long, long time before He ever came here to be born on this Earth to a woman named Mary, and that before He was born here He was living on another world instead of just floating around in space above our planet. Oh, yeah, and He had already become like our Father in heaven. Anyway, again, sorry to interrupt. I'll now quote the other thoughts that you were teaching us. mdb: ...that He <Jesus Christ> is now the God of this world and that you should strive to attain the same. Yes. He is now the God of this world we live on, and we can become like Him through the Atonement. mdb: You are taught that Jesus is the literal brother of the devil and not his creator. Yes. That is right. Satan was not created by Jesus. Satan was created by our Father in heaven... and when Satan was born he was good. mdb: You say Jesus created this world, but not all things. Heh, actually He created all "things" on this world... but the "things" do not include all the "people". And yes, He didn't create our Father in heaven. Our Father created all of us, or the "people". But we can be created as a NEW creature through Him. And when we are, Jesus Christ is then our Father... ALSO. mdb: The Scriptures teach none of this. I think you really mean the "Holy Bible" teaches none of this. But even then you're still wrong about that. There are many things that I've said which are mentioned in the Bible, but some other things are also taught in other scriptures. mdb: ...it's false doctrine... Says who??? YOU??? Do you expect me to believe what you think??? I'm learning from God, and ALL of His prophets, and I suggest that you do that as best you can. mdb: ... and you follow it to your own destruction. Says YOU??? Who are YOU to tell US what is TRUE??? mdb: As the Scriptures say... Uh, who said what??? mdb: ... you believe in one God. Good, so do devils and shudder." References please. And I'd like to see all of your credentials. mdb: Because you say that you believe in Jesus and claim to have an indwelling of the Spirit, and pray to God does not make you a follower of the true Jesus Christ. Amen. I agree with all that. And who has said that I should follow what YOU are saying??? mdb: It's a long weekend here. I'm going home. Get some good rest and I'll see you when I see you. :)

Then more power to YOU, Desire'.And I do mean EXACTLY what I'm saying. But please take your time and look toward that day. With your mind, and your heart, ALWAYS praying. Let's pray that God will help you see things His way. :)

My friend and I make jokes about the mormon punch.. it isn't even mormon punch.. but it is at all of the social events... that it should be trade marked! Is that another thing that is only in Utah??? I have no idea what "mormon punch" is. I live in Canada. I live in Washington. In the good ole US of A.

Heh, WAIT!!! NOT THAT!!! EDIT: Josh B) Josh YEAH!!! THERE WE GO!!!

My friend and I make jokes about the mormon punch.. it isn't even mormon punch.. but it is at all of the social events... that it should be trade marked! Is that another thing that is only in Utah??? I have no idea what "mormon punch" is.

Okay, Josh, I took a little more time to go over your comments. That would be good. I recommend that. And I hope you will read it in the spirit of trying to understand all his knowledge, without finding fault with his lack of ALL knowledge. Yes, I understand that is the claim that is being made. I’m saying that the scroll, or part of the scroll, attached to Facsimile No. 1 may not have been the scroll from which the Book of Abraham was translated.For instance, the scroll (which may have been a piece or section of a larger scroll) attached to Facsimile No. 1 may have only been a copy or translation of the text in Facsimile No. 1… written by Egyptian or Hebrew scribes on another scroll, a scroll other than the original scroll written on by Abraham or by a scribe who received knowledge from Abraham… not the source for what’s written in the Book of Abraham. Or in other words, the source of the text from which the Book of Abraham was written may have been another scroll not attached to Facsimile No. 1. That may be true, but let’s look at the evidence to see what we can see, shall we?Here’s the evidence you offered to me, with my emphasis added instead of yours: “On the 3d of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian Mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and deices. (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 235, emphasis added.) Okay, these facts came from a source known as the volume of books called “History of the Church”, an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the source of these facts was basically stating that two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and deices were exhibited by someone named Michael Chandler who came to Kirtland. “Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus…and with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation…and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another, the writings of Joseph of Egypt.(Ibid., p. 236, emphasis added.) Okay, these facts should be considered in light of the other facts stated… since these facts came from the same source… and this source was basically stating that, on the two or more rolls of papyrus exhibited in Kirtland, one contained the writings of Abraham, and another contained the writings of Joseph of Egypt. (the son of Jacob, aka Israel) “Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, I may say a few words. This record is beautifully written on papyrus with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation. (Cowdery, op. cit., emphasis added.) Okay, these facts came from a source other than the source of the first two quotes, a source identified as “Cowdery, op. cit.” The source is not clearly identified. The source may in fact be Oliver Cowdery, but without some more research I can’t tell for sure. At this point I’ll entertain that possibility. If the source is in fact none but Oliver Cowdery, Oliver was basically stating that the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph, was beautifully written on papyrus with red and black ink or paint in perfect preservation. . “On opening the coffins he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies, were something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which when examined probed to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. I may add that two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c. were found with other of the mummies . (Ibid, emphasis added) Okay, these facts came from the same source as the last quote, and again, IF it was in fact Oliver Cowdery, Oliver was basically stating that the two rolls of papyrus previously mentioned were discovered along with two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, etc. Cowdery proves that there were two, and only two, “rolls of papyrus,” which he believed, because of Joseph Smith’s identification of them, were “the writings of Abraham and Joseph, “though there were also a few fragments “similar to the astronomical representation” [i.e. Facsimile No. 2] with the papyri. –“By his own hand upon papyrus, p. 133. Heh, not much source information is given, other than stating that it came from page 133 of a book titled “By his own hand upon papyrus”, and I don’t know who wrote that book. But aside from the point that I really don’t know who I’m hearing from, the fact that only two rolls were discovered with writings from Abraham and Joseph doesn’t mean the records some Egyptologists found recently were those two rolls with those writings. Or in other words, the rolls the Egyptologists found recently could have been some of those “two or three other small pieces of papyrus” (or sections of rolls) that Oliver, if it was Oliver, said contained astronomical calculations, epitaphs, etc… which may have included Facsimile No. 1 and anything else that was attached to that scroll or piece of scroll. Heh, do we (LDS) even have a “Book of Joseph”???What on Earth are you talking about now??? p.s. I just read your comment about your Dad. I hope you and your family are now doing well. :)