Help With Mormon Question

[darrel]

I agree with the Dr. G-d must obey eternal laws which are without beginning or end. Our limited understanding and more importantly limited comprehension keeps us from a full hight, depth, and breadth of all that G-d does. (For my ways are higher than your ways)

[Dr T]

Those questions aren't really truth questions. They are nonsensical.

[darrel]

Do you mean nonsensical as lds beliefs or as non lds belief. Opinions or beliefs have to be based on one's testimony which is revealed through the spirit. The restored truth is just that. Joseph Smith's restored gospel is truth that has been from the beginning and has been taught in all ages of men until the apostasy and "Christian" doctrine voted in by the Nicean scholors and contained in the Necean bible.

[ciustudent]

Do you mean nonsensical as lds beliefs or as non lds belief. Opinions or beliefs have to be based on one's testimony which is revealed through the spirit. The restored truth is just that. Joseph Smith's restored gospel is truth that has been from the beginning and has been taught in all ages of men until the apostasy and "Christian" doctrine voted in by the Nicean scholors and contained in the Necean bible.

I, for one, (and apparently Sarah too) would love to hear where these "original" or "eternal" laws came from? Are there any descriptions from God's Holy Word of these eternal laws? Help us out. The problem with "obeying these laws so that we can become like Him" is monumental. This idea puts us in the same boat with Lucifer, that cursed angel. As a matter of fact, that was the same lie old Lu gave to Eve. "Surely you will not die, if you eat of the fruit, you will become like God..." So, as you can see, there can be only One God. YHWH is a jealous God, and He will not share His glory with another (I think that's somewhere in those things He calls the Ten Commandments). I hope I have clearly warned against any human (pre-mortal or otherwise) hope of becoming like God.

[Dr T]

Hi Das,

Do you mean nonsensical as lds beliefs or as non lds belief.

I meant nonsense, as in having little or no sense or meaning. I'd submit to you that those questions, as written are merely an absurdity. See, I hold that God can do all things are possibly done. Things that are not able to be done ought not be held up as a standard.

Again, questions such as:

"Can God make this question into a declarative sentence?"

"Can God change the subject of this sentence to 'Jello'?"

"Can God make this sentence so long that he cannot read it?"

"Can God make the slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe?"

“Can God create a rock so invisible that it casts a shadow two nanoseconds long?”

The above appear to be regular sentences but they have what philosophers of language call 'ungrammaticality' (See Language and Reality--An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, by Michael Devitt & Kim Sterelny, MIT Press, pps.89-92). Another example would be, “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." These sentences (and any questions based upon them like, "Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?") are said to have “no truth value” (as they are neither “true nor false”)--they just don't have any meaning and therefore cannot be true or false. Again, they are absurdities. To say, God can make something colorlessly green but we don’t know what that means or looks like is basically useless/silly. This is no different than the assertion that “God CAN make a square circle.”

As for the other part of this discussion, if, as others have stated in this thread, “Nothing can bound/limit God” I see that as ironic. This, in itself, is showing what you they are trying to argue against. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t/can’t argue for God. On the contrary, we are told to give a defense for the hope that is in us. All I’m trying to point out is you cannot deny logic being applied to God unless you affirm it with those very same words.

More examples regarding His essence, might include,

“It is impossible for him to will Himself out of existence?” Or my brother-in-law’s (Jonathan)

“Can God be Satan?”

“Can God find the limits to his unlimited abilities?”

“Can God do something that God can’t do?”

“Can God formulate a proof of His own non-existence?”

The answer to this simple questions are NO. God cannot do those things because they go against His nature. They are silly things to ponder because they are impossibilities. Again, to hold that for God to be all powerful it is requisite that He be able to do things that are impossible. If impossible things are possibly done, those things are not impossibilities Sir. Again, silliness. My answer to all of those questions might as well be “Blue Unicorns which taste like Mondays.” Logically incoherent

I know God as the Great I AM. Not the “great I will be or what I've developed into.”

In conclusion, God can do impossible things (Walk on water, be outside of time, know all things, etc. for example) and He can obviously do the possible. For us to hold that God can do things that are logically impossible we are tilting at windmills. Since I know that an omnipotent God exists, then I have to come down to “God can do all things that are logically possible to do.”

[Snow]

Sarah,

I note that you have studiously avoided addressing many or most of questions put to you. Perhaps you will consider answering a few for me now.

1. Why does the bible not support your view of creation ex nihilo?

2. Why did the earliest Christians not hold the ex nihilo view - it being an addition that came later?

[the Ogre]

So...back to my original question.

I know that mormons believe God doesn't create out of nothing ,but does that also mean that they believe he couldn't even if he wanted to?

yay or nay?

He hasn't mentioned it, or do you not listen.

Das, there are two billion professing Christians in the world that do not have this testimony. Additionally, some LDS posters here seem to indicate that their testimony is more "by faith," than by a felt witness of the Spirit. For every true prophet there are hundreds, if not thousands, of professed ones. During the Seoul Olympics ('88) there were 72 self-professed "returned Christs" spreading their messages around the country.

And man weren't they interesting. I was there then and got the word on the subway (as a then Jack Mormon, I was told I was going to the hot place twice as fast for being an annoying drunk and a Mormon).

Nobody said there was a time when there was nothing. God is eternal. He never "came about." He always was.

Like I've said before, there are times when you are wonderful.

There is a thing I read about in this thread that I want to bring up now and that is "time". I was a student of physics at BYU for three years in the early nineties and now I am very interested in post-structuralism in identity and cultural theory and from these perspectives I think it is important to note that most likely the "time" discussed in this thread is a social construct that G-d does not need to adhere to as H- is not a member of our society, but rather the G-d of our existence. Society and all social constructs are the creations of people that often lead humanity away from any actual apprehension of G-d.

The concepts of ex nihilo or Nicaea's vision of the Nature of G-d like time are also social constructs. We as culturally bound humans do not understand the Nature of G-d and creation because we as humans are restricted to understanding by what we can perceive in relationship to the social norms that we have been brought up with or have adopted (like the several people in this thread relying too strongly on the work of apologists and their man-made theologies) through study. The L-rd has given us texts by which to learn about H-m. If a concept is not included in those texts, then it is indeed the construction of humans. I do not know where in scripture ex nihilo or Nicaea's concepts are mentioned and thus believe they are subsequent ideas developed by humans to explain that which they do not understand.

Time is non-linear. Time is subjective. Time is inconstant. Time can not as yet be completely defined. Time is not defined by scripture either merely mentioned and alluded to. Time is a function of linguistics. Time is a social construct. As this is the case and matrix of nullification by which we must operate, why are we trying to base arguments around it? If we begin to grow beyond this dangerous social construct then we might see and understand the socially contrived fiction of a beginning and an end and see that indeed they can both be descriptors for our Eternal F-ther and of ourselves as eternal beings (however one might define that).

[a-train]

Can everyone see the double-standard this thread demonstrates? It is suggested that any rejection of ex-nihilo is a denial of God's infinite power. The LDS who so believe a different means by which God created the heavens and the earth are therefore deemed offensive in their theology and guilty of rejection and denial of God's true creative power.

My true feelings toward those who are advocates of ex nihilo is not so bitter as they seem. I frankly do not believe that it's acception or rejection will be in question on Judgment Day, but much more important and personal issues will be at hand in our final designation as sheep or goats.

Understand that my seemingly abrasive portraits of the ex-nihilo theory are not so ill-tempered. I suppose the LDS could take up the method of mocking and scorning the teachings among men disharmonious with the Restored Gospel. This however, would be entirely opposite the directions our LORD has given us. We have not been commanded to mock false doctrine, but to testify of that which the LORD has given us.

I simply wanted to demonstrate the spirit of those who pretend the LDS are worshipping a false god simply because of different understandings such as ex-nihilo which is not only of meager importance, but entirely unmentioned within the scriptures.

What we all need to do is 'beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees'. It is when we put the reason, the understanding, and the perspective of man over the word of God that we shut our ears and reject true living prophets and the true living words of God. The Pharisees in all their logic and understanding of previous revealed doctrine, could not humble themselves and accept true messengers of God.

If the LORD manifests through modern prophets a confirmation of ex-nihilo I will quickly accept it. And how will I know it is true and that the prophet be of God? 'Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.'

-a-train

[Brother Dorsey]

I, for one, (and apparently Sarah too) would love to hear where these "original" or "eternal" laws came from? Are there any descriptions from God's Holy Word of these eternal laws? Help us out. The problem with "obeying these laws so that we can become like Him" is monumental. This idea puts us in the same boat with Lucifer, that cursed angel. As a matter of fact, that was the same lie old Lu gave to Eve. "Surely you will not die, if you eat of the fruit, you will become like God..." So, as you can see, there can be only One God. YHWH is a jealous God, and He will not share His glory with another (I think that's somewhere in those things He calls the Ten Commandments). I hope I have clearly warned against any human (pre-mortal or otherwise) hope of becoming like God.

First of all...if you're going to quote scripture...quote it right.....

Gen 3: 5 "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Nowhere did it say you will become like God...it said "ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Knowing the difference between good and evil like the gods....Hmmmm...which brings up another question...why gods (plural)?

Are there other gods who know this difference...did they progress as humans on some other worlds and entered into their own eternal progression?

Does this mean the Lord's Holy Scripture contains proof that there are other gods?

And by the way...we will never be like satan because satan and his followers gave up their first estate and will never have a body. Satan wanted Gods glory and was cast out and he can never become a god because he gave up that right...

So, you are right, God is a jealous God and He requires us to worship Him only and follow His commandments. His glory is to bring about the eternal life of man. I know of no LDS Saint who worships no other God but God the Father. That however does not stop God from giving his faithful servants the glory of becoming joint heirs with Christ (I know that is somewhere in the Bible isn't it?) As far as I know becoming and heir and receiving all God has is a wonderful opportunity...for what does God have? Godhood! Think about it for a minute....Gods glory is to bring about the eternal life of man....might this be another stepping stone in His own eternal progression? Heaven would sure be a boring place after a few million years of the same old thing wouldn't it? I am looking forward to being perfected and my own eternal progression!

I hope I have shown you that you can receive all God has and through eternal progression you can one day become a God. But not ever as God the Father is, for His eternal progression is eons further along than ours is or ever will be...He will always be our one true God! To all of you who base your Christian faith on creedal accounts of the Bible you need to look further...the Heavens are not closed to Gods children...He has a Prophet on the Earth and through him we are guided in these latter days

[a-train]

'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.' (Romans 8:16-18)

There you go Dorsey.

I'll bonus you:

'Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.' (Rev. 3:20-21)

'Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.' (Matt 25:23)

What a thread this is becoming.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Like I've said before, there are times when you are wonderful.

There is a thing I read about in this thread that I want to bring up now and that is "time". I was a student of physics at BYU for three years in the early nineties and now I am very interested in post-structuralism in identity and cultural theory and from these perspectives I think it is important to note that most likely the "time" discussed in this thread is a social construct that G-d does not need to adhere to as H- is not a member of our society, but rather the G-d of our existence. Society and all social constructs are the creations of people that often lead humanity away from any actual apprehension of G-d.

The concepts of ex nihilo or Nicaea's vision of the Nature of G-d like time are also social constructs. We as culturally bound humans do not understand the Nature of G-d and creation because we as humans are restricted to understanding by what we can perceive in relationship to the social norms that we have been brought up with or have adopted (like the several people in this thread relying too strongly on the work of apologists and their man-made theologies) through study. The L-rd has given us texts by which to learn about H-m. If a concept is not included in those texts, then it is indeed the construction of humans. I do not know where in scripture ex nihilo or Nicaea's concepts are mentioned and thus believe they are subsequent ideas developed by humans to explain that which they do not understand.

Time is non-linear. Time is subjective. Time is inconstant. Time can not as yet be completely defined. Time is not defined by scripture either merely mentioned and alluded to. Time is a function of linguistics. Time is a social construct. As this is the case and matrix of nullification by which we must operate, why are we trying to base arguments around it? If we begin to grow beyond this dangerous social construct then we might see and understand the socially contrived fiction of a beginning and an end and see that indeed they can both be descriptors for our Eternal F-ther and of ourselves as eternal beings (however one might define that).

I believe I agree with almost everything in this post. The creeds of Nicea and Athanasius were developed as a means of defending truths against heresies. It is not impossible to imagine that the explanations go beyond what the Bible says, in order to defend what the Bible says.

The Trinity, imho, is accurate. There are three persons called God in the Bible, and yet the Bible insists there is only one God. The discussion about essence is an outgrowth of the desire to both affirm the deity of Christ, and yet maintain monotheism. The one other idea that might be compelling (though I disagree with it) is "Jesus only." It argues that God is not three in one, but rather one in three (Jesus is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit--one God, one person, three "manifestations").

Nevertheless, the precision with which the Athanasian Creed explains God's nature, does indeed use the language of people to explain the nature of an eternal unlimited God.

As for creation ex nihilo, I still maintain that most readers of Genesis simply assume that when it says "In the beginning God created..." that Moses is describing when God began bringing the material world into existence.

Additionally, when the Bible says, God is one, most would not see room for us to say, "Well...that only means during our world's existence.

So, I grant that there are assumptions to Trinitarianism and creation ex nihilo. Some defenses and explanations go beyond the direct biblical language. Nevertheless, I do not find these defenses and explanations outrageously creative or innovative. Just MHO, of course.

A central difficulty with the LDS understanding of creation is that it ruins a perfectly good joke. Can you see what I mean...here's the joke:

An atheist scientist prays, "God, you can go away now. We've learned how to create life by mapping the genetic code."

Suddenly, the scientist appears in a non-material void. God responds, "Really, you can create life? Go ahead. I want to see this."

The scientist looks around, and suddenly sees a pile of dirt. He says, "Sure...watch this." He heads over to the dirt and bends to pick some up.

God stops him and says, "Get your own dirt."

[the Ogre]

So, I grant that there are assumptions to Trinitarianism and creation ex nihilo. Some defenses and explanations go beyond the direct biblical language. Nevertheless, I do not find these defenses and explanations outrageously creative or innovative. Just MHO, of course.

MHO? It is a nice opinion. I too do not find them particularly creative or innovative, just difficult to understand for the lay person. There is a time and a place for the convoluted (Isaiah), but the Nature of G-d is not it (I personally thing ex nihilo and other creation discussions are red herrings designed to divert people from the real work at hand: salvation). I know others feel differently, but I love the simplicity of the LDS description of G-d. G-d is an individual with a body. J-sus, another individual, is G-d's S-n who also has a body. The H-ly Gh-st is another individual without a body. How are they unified? Not in body, but in purpose and in act.

I recognize, appreciate, understand, but also reject all other complications of the G-dhead. Is it the intention of G-d to leave us confused by who he is? I don't think so and many of those who index the scriptures on this forum have provided many quotes explaining the LDS perspective, doctrine, and theology and most likely will again (I personally like much of what Traveler has had to say about this, though CK is not too bad either).

Why do I have the luxury of this opinion and belief? I believe in modern prophets and in modern revelation and that sinse G-d not only loved us so much that H- sent H-s S-n, but also decided it was time to get the dialogue regarding the direction we need to be going restarted and in a better direction that was not so exclusive and hard-hearted.

Be simple when you need to.

Be convoluted when you need to.

Pick your battles. G-d loves us and would rather we were not confused or in combat regarding who H- is, just involved in the combat for our own souls and those we can hope to save though the work G-d set out for us alive and dead.

BTW, I love the joke and will use it when the opportunity comes up (though with my own tweeks and such).

[prisonchaplain]

Another opinion of mine...this particular string has done what such strings should do in an ideal cyber world--allow posters to flesh out our thinking on substantive questions, and perhaps entertain some alternative thoughts--even if, merely as non-impossibliities.

[the Ogre]

Another opinion of mine...this particular string has done what such strings should do in an ideal cyber world--allow posters to flesh out our thinking on substantive questions, and perhaps entertain some alternative thoughts--even if, merely as non-impossibliities.

I like this concept, but still worry. One of the problems of this thread is the identification of several binaries (some people need them to define how they think or who they are). One of the hopes I have is that we will be able to get past these "separations" and realize the ideological gulfs should not separate us and the good that might come from forming long term relationships and connections. I do not think there is a single binary that is absolute (in human interaction that is; Lehi did say there is opposition in all things and Newton said there is an equal reaction to any action, I just do not think all action need be absolute or direct and that most are oblique if we took some time to really examine them) and an insistence on any binary is immature, but to each their own. No issue that is discussed by any human is as simple as a binary. Who has the right to be simple? G-d; humans insist on mucking everything up with needless complications and near pointless distinctions to the point of addiction.

[CrimsonKairos]

(I personally like much of what Traveler has had to say about this, though CK is not too bad either).

Thanks bro, I enjoy your posts too.

This thread has led me to modify an old joke with a twist:

How many ecumenical councils does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One to determine if the light bulb was created ex nihilo or not;

One to define what the bulb's ontological significance is;

One to ascertain whether the light bulb and the socket are united in purpose or consubstantially;

One to pinpoint that the light emanates from both the socket and the light bulb (a shout-out to filioque); and,

One to relieve frustration with our incomplete understanding by pointing out that all the details cannot be understood by man and this fact is the beauty of the mystery of the bulb. B)

[darrel]

I am a newcomer to this website. I appreciate the oppertunity to discuss gospel questions in an open forum. With all due respect to our non-lds friends, and I do mean friends, on this forum. I see this thread becomming a theological baseball game with no winners. Debate, conjecture and opinion are not grounds for a mutual understanding. God's house is not a house of confusion. I believe and the bylaws of this website is based on lds gospel. With that in mind, the basic premis for discussion is this: first Was Joseph Smith a Prophet of God. Second Was the truth restored to the earth by God through him, and third Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints Gods true church on the earth which was restored to bring the world to the knowledge necessary to Regain the Presence of God. Secular Christianity has been batteling theology for hundreds of years without a unity of faith. With over 3000 christian denominations in the world today all vying for converts they can't get it right because no one can agree. God restored his truths to the earth to bring us in the unity of the faith. One Faith One Lord and One Baptism is literally what is needed to bring Men the salvation they desperately are seeking. Only the lds church can bring this unity because it is God's true Church restored to earth in preparation for Christs Return

(Acts 3: 19-21)

19)Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20) And He shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you:

21) Whom the heavens must receive until the times of the restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Lets get back to basics and help our non lds friends understand Gods will concerning His plan of Salvation.

The old sticks used by the christian world to beat up Joseph Smith and the lds church are worn out. Christians don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to a true Knowledge of the Nature and Purposes of God, the Mission of His Son Jesus Christ and the true path to salvation for all Gods repentant children. Our discussions should not be debates over things which only faith and the Holy Ghost can confirm but the Bountiful evidences that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God Called in these Last days to fulfill God's promise to restore all things. We should be reasoning together over the discoveries and evidences which were not available when Joseph Smith restored God's Church to the earth but now confirm his gospel as having been taught millennia before, during about two hundred years after Christ. Only when A council of Men organized by a pagan ruler voted on what was and was not doctrine and then establishing a religion based on the book of selected and altered scripture and then adopted showy pagan ritual to become the Church of Contstntine. Then a campaign of distruction for any and all records doctrine or opposition to it's teachings as hiretical or unchristian. Christian churches today have a questionable lineage from that church. It is no wonder they are confused and can't get it right. While good and noble people of all faiths have parts of true doctrine The advesary is delited and works hard to perpetuate the limited understanding of the scriptures contained in the Christian Bible. Gods scripture was, is and will be given to His prophets. His church is built upon a foundation of Apostles and Prophets with Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone. It is upon the earth today teaching truths of salvation to all who will listen. I know this to be true and declare my witness to these truths in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen

[Doctor Steuss]

Those questions aren't really truth questions. They are nonsensical.

And hopefully they illustrated how sarah_22's question is nonsensical from a non ex nihilo paradigm.

Since I know that an omnipotent God exists, then I have to come down to “God can do all things that are logically possible to do.”

Agreed. It's just that for some of us, creation from nothing is illogical.

[Dr T]

I guess I'd have to say that God is bound by his nature-his essence. I can see why creating matter is outside of human nature and why that would be illogical. I do not see why that would be the case for a being that is God (has always existed, is all powerful, etc.). I do not see him as progressing and getting better in any way. I don't see him as an exalted man. Maybe that is from where our conflict comes on this issue.

[Doctor Steuss]

I guess I'd have to say that God is bound by his nature-his essence. I can see why creating matter is outside of human nature and why that would be illogical. I do not see why that would be the case for a being that is God (has always existed, is all powerful, etc.). I do not see him as progressing and getting better in any way. I don't see him as an exalted man. Maybe that is from where our conflict comes on this issue.

Perhaps.

Stepping outside our own belief systems to view those of another is often a difficult task.

Maybe we should just go back to singing hymns?

[prisonchaplain]

I am a newcomer to this website. I appreciate the oppertunity to discuss gospel questions in an open forum. With all due respect to our non-lds friends, and I do mean friends, on this forum. I see this thread becomming a theological baseball game with no winners. Debate, conjecture and opinion are not grounds for a mutual understanding.

I humbly disagree. When we can read one another's "debate, conjecture and opinion" offered in sincere discussion, rather than point-scoring argumentation, me thinks we all be winners (grammar muttered as poetic license to emphasize the point communicated).

God's house is not a house of confusion.

God may not be the author of confusion, but his tabernacle, his temple, his synogogue, and his church, peopled by people as they are, has often been host to a fair amount of confusion.

I believe and the bylaws of this website is based on lds gospel. With that in mind, the basic premis for discussion is this:

I don't mean to be difficult, but:

1. This may be and LDS-themed site, but it is not an official organ of the Church.

2. Heather is the site owner, and might have some input on what the basic premises for discussion are.

3. Keep in mind that LDSTalk has managed to remain a faith-promoting LDS site, while making room for non-LDS posters, sometimes reaching a 70/30 mix. Some find this uncomfortable, many others, quite interesting and motivating.

first Was Joseph Smith a Prophet of God. Second Was the truth restored to the earth by God through him, and third Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints Gods true church on the earth which was restored to bring the world to the knowledge necessary to Regain the Presence of God.

We've had scores of interesting strings on these topics.

Secular Christianity

What exactly is that? "Secular" means non-religious. This appears to be an oxymoron to me, and I don't know what it means or how it is intended.

has been batteling theology for hundreds of years without a unity of faith.

We had several strings on this, as well. I contend that Christianity is remarkably united. Most core doctrines remain consistent, and I'd argue that 90% of Christians agree on 90% of our doctrines. Further, I've found that even amongst the LDS posters here, there is probably a similar amount of disagreement on common religious beliefs and practices.

With over 3000 christian denominations in the world today all vying for converts

This is a bit overstated. Most Christian denominations are happy to see any nonbeliever converted to any Christian denomination. In other words, if a friend of mine became a believer, and joined the church down the road instead of mine, I'd still be ecstatic.

they can't get it right because no one can agree.

Agree about what. I'm Pentecostal, my best friend is a Southern Baptist. We fully expect to see one another in heaven, and basically believe we are united in the Christian faith. We disagree on a few teachings, again as many LDS might disagree about some faith issues.

God restored his truths to the earth to bring us in the unity of the faith. One Faith One Lord and One Baptism

Most Christian churches agree that it is the one Christian faith, in the one Lord God, through baptism--the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that we are saved. We recognize one another's baptisms, and do not hesitate to call each other brother or sister.

Lets get back to basics and help our non lds friends understand Gods will concerning His plan of Salvation.

I'd argue that dialogue is more effective than monologue.

The old sticks used by the christian world to beat up Joseph Smith and the lds church are worn out. Christians don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to a true Knowledge of the Nature and Purposes of God, the Mission of His Son Jesus Christ and the true path to salvation for all Gods repentant children.

I believe that President Hinckley has indicated a slightly more optimistic assessment--seeing good in most Christian expressions of faith.

Our discussions should not be debates over things which only faith and the Holy Ghost can confirm but the Bountiful evidences that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God Called in these Last days to fulfill God's promise to restore all things. We should be reasoning together over the discoveries and evidences which were not available when Joseph Smith restored God's Church to the earth but now confirm his gospel as having been taught millennia before, during about two hundred years after Christ. Only when A council of Men organized by a pagan ruler voted on what was and was not doctrine and then establishing a religion based on the book of selected and altered scripture and then adopted showy pagan ritual to become the Church of Contstntine.

You discourage debate, then profer debatable opinions.

Then a campaign of distruction for any and all records doctrine or opposition to it's teachings as hiretical or unchristian. Christian churches today have a questionable lineage from that church. It is no wonder they are confused and can't get it right.

I'm not confused.

While good and noble people of all faiths have parts of true doctrine The advesary is delited and works hard to perpetuate the limited understanding of the scriptures contained in the Christian Bible.

I'll bet you get real angry when people suggest that the visions Joseph Smith spoke of were other than "of God."

Gods scripture was, is and will be given to His prophets. His church is built upon a foundation of Apostles and Prophets with Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone. It is upon the earth today teaching truths of salvation to all who will listen. I know this to be true and declare my witness to these truths in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen

I have no difficulties with a courageous proclamation of anyone's spiritual experiences.

[CrimsonKairos]

Don't take it personally, PC. We all know you're awesome.

I enjoy our inter-faith exchanges.

[prisonchaplain]

Don't take it personally, PC. We all know you're awesome.

I enjoy our inter-faith exchanges.

No worries. My faith is being stretched in unique ways at this site.

[Jason]

first Was Joseph Smith a Prophet of God.

Maybe, but certainly not in my fav five. B)

Second Was the truth restored to the earth by God through him,

I would say he taught partial truth, but might argue that he "restored" very little, as much of it has always been around (in one religion or another).

and third Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints Gods true church on the earth which was restored to bring the world to the knowledge necessary to Regain the Presence of God.

Nope.

The old sticks used by the christian world to beat up Joseph Smith and the lds church are worn out.

If they were worn out, they wouldn't be so effective today.

Christians don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to a true Knowledge of the Nature and Purposes of God, the Mission of His Son Jesus Christ and the true path to salvation for all Gods repentant children.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[darrel]

If I have posted issues that do not meet the objectives of this website I sincerely Apologize. I believe Heather or moderators would and will correct me if I am wrong on these issues. I stand by my previous points and suggest that we move into discussing the evidences I mentioned. The reason Christ was crusified was that He taught doctrine contrary to the accepted belief of the time. The reason Joseph Smith was killed was because He taught doctrine contrary to the accepted belief of the time. Joseph Smith has been and will be villified in his teachings by the new evicences from around the world which he could not have known because they were not discovered yet.

The restitution of all things was not critiqued. I do not get angry with apposing positions. I do get sad when I see a religion based on belief and faith only. You are right we will see each other in heaven on Judgement day. I know in Gods house are many mansions and those who have no belief and live and act accordingly will be justly rewarded in the Telestial kingdom, those who believe faith only is required and try to live by their limited understanding are a better than those with no belief will receive the Terrestrial Kingdom. I do know that Knowledge of the steps to salvation including the saving ordinances outlined in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are necessary to receive all that God has promised and rewarded the Highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

While these doctrines do not meet the criteria of general christian belief on how one is "Saved", they are criticised as not doctrinal based on the bible. This shows that the Constantine book called the Bible was edited to change the doctrine taught by Christ and every previous age age back to Adam. Additional scripture from Joseph Smith the prophet and more recent discoveries of scrolls and plates and codises let us understand this concept.

[CrimsonKairos]

Well das, start a new thread and see if anyone wants to discuss that stuff.