Some interesting doctrines of LDS

[Hemidakota]

Are you saying, GOD viewable reference point is within a five dimension space?

[rameumptom]

Ok, no it doesn't state it word for word "God is out of Time" in the Bible, but there are many explanations for this. For example you

said that he rested on the seventh day and are saying that he must be in "day" , so therefore in "time" or some type of time. Well let me

ask you this. If you were eternal and out of time how would you describe that to someone in time? You would of course use time to explain timelessness.

For example if I were to explain what the ocean was to someone who never seen a large body of water, would be pretty hard to use terms that

are associated with the ocean. To explain it I could say the ocean is a gathering of a large amount of water and that you can't see the

other side, I could also say that it can reflect the sun like a mirror in the sunset, and on windy days have large sharp hill like "waves".

Now does this mean that the ocean is an endless mirror with hills on it?No it doesn't by any means.

I used the mirror and hills as an example to explain something different, something that he hadn't seen ever. Now how does this explain the

seventh day? Well if he said he created everything in some order according to him it would be hard to grasp, but if he said I took 7 days on

earth then it is easier to grasp how long it took.

IOW, we should look at the entire Bible as a potential metaphor? Do not believe what the Bible says, because it really doesn't say what it meant? Does this also mean that we should look at the entire Creation as metaphorical, since the Day thing is obviously a metaphor? And if the Creation was a metaphor, how about the Fall of Adam, or the Atonement of Christ? After all, there were several early Christian groups among the Gnostics that did consider the atonement a metaphor, and that Christ-God did not die on the cross (only the mortal Jesus did). They believed that Christ entered Jesus at his baptism ("Today I have begotten/chosen you") and that he left Jesus to die alone on the cross ("My God, why hast thou forsaken me?").

My only question then is, would the miracles performed by Moses and the other prophets be metaphors or similes? Any English majors out there that can help me?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Yes Shadow Jesus was there from the very beginning. He was known as Jehovah in the pre-existence and is spoken of many times in the Old Testament. But of course we were there with him in the pre-existence too. And he will be with us to the end because he lives now. He died and rose again and is alive today. All Biblical.

[Hemidakota]

Ok, no it doesn't state it word for word "God is out of Time" in the Bible, but there are many explanations for this.. .

I wholeheartedly agree in facilitate ‘…not everything is in the bible.’ There are about 5000 scrolls [more or less], either were overlooked, considered not inspirational or not necessary by the earlier apostated church clerics. One I do enjoy and frequently read is the Book of Enoch. I have great affinity to this man works. Another is two works by the Prophet Abraham.

There are a few gospel topics I had asked in the past most here would deem it ‘outside our salvation’ and would hesitate to ask the FATHER. These questions or answer given will not be found in either scripture BOM or Bible. Perhaps, later when the Savior will allow those sealed portion of the BOM and other works be restored for man. Is this relevant to my edification? Yes! Will GOD, respond to the sincere questions that are not written within the scripture? I would say yes.

I do not want to sound supercilious but to merely point out some answer cannot be found in our current scriptures.

[Snow]

Also no it is not my thing to say you are not a Christian, but when you deny the Trinity you are denying one of the greatest aspects of God

and saying you believe in more than one God which is polytheism, which the Bible states that there in only 1 God and he knows

none other.

Do we have to believe in the nature of God as promulgated by the creed that came out of Nicea (a council called, organized, presided over, and participated in by a violent and ruthless pagan), or can we just believe what the Bible says about God?

[lilered]

To clarify a bit about the Priesthood.

Jesus was not the last person to hold the priesthood while he lived on the earth.

1

St. John 15:6 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my dname, he may give it you.

Heb. 7: 5, 11-12, 14, 24

5 And verily they that are of the sons of aLevi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

• • •

11 If therefore aperfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the apriesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

• • •

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

• • •

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

1 Pet. 2: 5, 9 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual chouse, an holy priesthood, to offer up piritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

• • •

9 But ye are a achosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous hlight:

Neh. 13: 29

29 Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites.

Ex. 40: 15

15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their canointing shall surely be dan eeverlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Num. 16: 10

10 And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?

Num. 18: 1

1 And the Lord said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father’s house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall abear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Num. 25: 13

13 And he shall have it, and his aseed after him, even the bcovenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was dzealous for his God, and made an eatonement for the children of Israel.

Josh. 18: 7

7 But the aLevites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the Lord is their binheritance: and Gad, and cReuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the Lord gave them.

Ezra 2: 62

62 These sought their aregister among those that were breckoned by cgenealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as dpolluted, eput from the priesthood.

Neh. 7: 64

64 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by agenealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as bpolluted, put from the priesthood.

[Aelswyth]

This is true you can't just say you believe you have to do what he says. But it doesn't say you are saved by them. For example if you

have faith in someone, you believe what he says correct? Well, if you don't do what he says can you really say you believe what he says?

No, you can't. That is why you do what he says, not as works, but because you believe what he said is true. You aren't saved by works,

you are saved by grace. You can't be saved by both, it then would not be grace would it?

Could you give me a list where it says there are more than one true God? And yes I believe I could be wrong, but you could very well be

too and you haven't given me any solid ground for me to consider, but what you feel and I am sorry, but that isn't enough. Also maybe

you were taught from when you were born, because I wasn't, I wasn't saved until my later years so I was taught and expirenced alot of things

before I was born.

Am I going way beyond the Bible? The whole spirit children and how Satan is Jesus's brother, and how we may one day become God is way

beyond the Bible and it seems that you except that as truth, but it isn't even spoke of in the Bible, it is actually spoken against.

What was the serpents temptationt Eve? You can become like god by eating the forbidden fruit, knowing both good and evil. Also you can't

believe wholly the LDS doctrine and the Bible as it contritdict like it is going out of style. I can give you a list if you want.

The reason they call it polytheism is because they are 3 seperate beings, I and many other christians believe the Trinity to be one

inseperatable being. It states it over and over in the Bible.

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Amen.

He says he is with us always. So he must have been there in the beginning and will be with us in the end. Jesus has been there always

and so has the rest of the Trinity. Jesus also states that you know God the Father through Christ and that God the Father and Jesus are

one.

So you are here saying that you believe in many Gods? Then why does it say that God knows no other gods, not even one, this it states in

Isaiah. Are you saying that God's knowledge is limited to just his own presence? If so then we would have to question what does he actually

know. Also the post made by Aweslthew (spelling may be wrong) says how I am going way outside the Bible, but the whole thing on how Yam fell

and was replaced by Baal and a Devine council that is equal with God is way beyond what I am saying and way outside of the text of the Bible.

Also you need to note that god the name is also given to men/creatures of great power, as Satan is considered the god/ruler of this world and

the kings of the earth and such have also been given the term "god". So this is where you might be mistake as there is a council of "gods".

Okay, dear Shadow, I'm done with this. I honestly don't think this can be a fruitful discussion, since you are adamant in your position and aren't interested in learning anything else; your sole reason for being here seems to be to "prove" that you're right and we're wrong, and your method of doing so is simply by regurgitating the usual Nicene-Christian interpretation of the Bible, all the while maintaining that it is NOT an interpretation but rather the ONLY RIGHT WAY to read the scriptures. You ignore mountains of extra-Biblical evidence that explains and expounds on various Biblical passages, because it does so in ways you don't like and don't agree with. You see only the parts you want to see, and you read into them only what you want to read there, and you willfully ignore things that support our position or deliberately misinterpret them in the most convoluted way possible. The fact remains that Biblical scholars have discovered many, many things to support LDS doctrines, things that show modern "mainstream" Christian doctrine to be at considerable variance with what the early church actually believed and practiced. So, if one person can only point to the Bible and their own interpretation of it, while another can point to the Bible, their interpretation of it AND mountains of extra-Biblical evidence to support it -- well, I know which side I'd be on. I don't find your tactics here to be a respectful position to take on an LDS forum. I'm currently on semi-bed-rest to stave off a threatened miscarriage, so I think I'll spare myself the aggravation and just say, thank you, I'm done.

P.S. As for what I've been taught from birth, I was raised in mainstream Nicene Christianity, as an active Anglican, and it never made even the slightest bit of sense. From a very early age I noticed many discrepancies between the beliefs and practices and what the Bible actually says. Since leaving home and church at 15, I've studied and/or practiced the following religious traditions: Reform Judaism, Karaite Judaism, Messianic Judaism, mainstream Islam, progressive Islam, Saivite Hinduism, Wicca, Ebionite Christianity, Sikhism, the Baha'i Faith, Swedenborgian Christianity, Catholicism, traditional Maori religion, Zoroastrianism, classical Greek paganism (Hellenismos), classical Roman paganism(Religio Romana), Stoicism, Taoism, Shinto, Norse Heathenry (Asatru), and finally, just before discovering the LDS Church, Anglo-Celtic Heathenry. Upon discovering the LDS Church, I had three dominating feelings: 1, this finally makes sense of the Bible; 2, this is in harmony with my deepest convictions; and 3, this gospel contains the best of every religion I've ever explored and puts them all together to make one beautiful tapestry of truth, showing that the world's religions are the confused but discernible remnants of what was once a universally-known truth. The LDS faith embraces the whole world in its arms, showing the original richness of God's plan and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in stark contrast to the oppositional stance of traditional Christianity. So, that is what I know.

[a-train]

The Hebrew term translated 'God' in our scriptures is a plural term. 'Eloheim' literally means 'Gods' or 'Great Ones'.

'In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.' Argue its implication all we want, but the 'im' which signifies plurality is there and its use is not uniformly singular throughout the Hebrew scriptures, for example Genesis 1:26.

-a-train

[Shadow]

Okay, dear Shadow, I'm done with this. I honestly don't think this can be a fruitful discussion, since you are adamant in your position

and aren't interested in learning anything else; your sole reason for being here seems to be to "prove" that you're right and we're wrong,

and your method of doing so is simply by regurgitating the usual Nicene-Christian interpretation of the Bible, all the while maintaining

that it is NOT an interpretation but rather the ONLY RIGHT WAY to read the scriptures. You ignore mountains of extra-Biblical evidence

that explains and expounds on various Biblical passages, because it does so in ways you don't like and don't agree with. You see only

the parts you want to see, and you read into them only what you want to read there, and you willfully ignore things that support our

position or deliberately misinterpret them in the most convoluted way possible. The fact remains that Biblical scholars have

discovered many, many things to support LDS doctrines, things that show modern "mainstream" Christian doctrine to be at considerable

variance with what the early church actually believed and practiced. So, if one person can only point to the Bible and their own

interpretation of it, while another can point to the Bible, their interpretation of it AND mountains of extra-Biblical evidence

to support it -- well, I know which side I'd be on. I don't find your tactics here to be a respectful position to take

on an LDS forum. I'm currently on semi-bed-rest to stave off a threatened miscarriage, so I think I'll spare myself

the aggravation and just say, thank you, I'm done.

Wow, I am sorry if you took my posts this way. The first thing I tried to keep in my mind was not to do what you are saying I am doing.And

well, apparently I have not bee too good to this and so I will try in later post to inquire more questions about what people say instead

of trying to point out the mistakes. So thank you for this post and I will try to be more respectful of other people positions.

If you still decide not to post anymore on this topic I would like to say thank you for your posts, I have enjoyed talking with you, and

I hope all goes well.

Also I really encourage you to research who Joseph Smith was as a man and a prophet, from the LDS, Christian, and 3rd party point of views.

The reason I am saying this is because the Book of Mormon pretty much lays on the shoulders of Joseph Smith and if he was right or wrong

is a pretty big deal, being that the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP are at stake here. Again I would really encourage

you to read the criticisms and facts (Both good and bad) about him so that you may really know who he was.

IOW, we should look at the entire Bible as a potential metaphor? Do not believe what the Bible says, because it really doesn't say

what it meant? Does this also mean that we should look at the entire Creation as metaphorical, since the Day thing is obviously a

metaphor? And if the Creation was a metaphor, how about the Fall of Adam, or the Atonement of Christ? After all, there were several

early Christian groups among the Gnostics that did consider the atonement a metaphor, and that Christ-God did not die on the cross

(only the mortal Jesus did). They believed that Christ entered Jesus at his baptism ("Today I have begotten/chosen you") and that he

left Jesus to die alone on the cross ("My God, why hast thou forsaken me?").

Hey hold on, I didn't say that the Bible was a metaphor, you kind of turned my simple example over the whole Bible. I used the example to attempt

to explain eternity. I am not saying that eternity itself or the Bible is a metaphor. You know what, this is what you can do,

explain to me what the essence of eternity, and what eternity consists of. Then maybe I can get a hold of where you are coming from.

Yes Shadow Jesus was there from the very beginning. He was known as Jehovah in the pre-existence and is spoken of many times in the

Old Testament. But of course we were there with him in the pre-existence too. And he will be with us to the end because he lives now.

He died and rose again and is alive today. All Biblical.

Can you please elaborate on the pre-existence. I have heard Mormon's speak on this and I am still not totally understanding where they

are coming from when they say this.

I wholeheartedly agree in facilitate ‘…not everything is in the bible.’ There are about 5000 scrolls [more or less], either were over

looked, considered not inspirational or not necessary by the earlier apostated church clerics. One I do enjoy and frequently read is

the Book of Enoch. I have great affinity to this man works. Another is two works by the Prophet Abraham.

There are a few gospel topics I had asked in the past most here would deem it ‘outside our salvation’ and would hesitate to ask the

FATHER. These questions or answer given will not be found in either scripture BOM or Bible. Perhaps, later when the Savior will allow

those sealed portion of the BOM and other works be restored for man. Is this relevant to my edification? Yes! Will GOD, respond to the

sincere questions that are not written within the scripture? I would say yes.

I do not want to sound supercilious but to merely point out some answer cannot be found in our current scriptures.

Could you please explain what answers that are not found in the Bible? Because any problems that I have had, the Bible has been able

to help explain what I should do.

Do we have to believe in the nature of God as promulgated by the creed that came out of Nicea (a council called, organized,

presided over, and participated in by a violent and ruthless pagan), or can we just believe what the Bible says about God?

Yes, we can believe what the Bible says, that is what we are debating over. Is it the Trinity or a council of gods? Because a "council"

of Gods sound a bit like Greek Mythology to me. And could you explain where in the Bible it states this?

To clarify a bit about the Priesthood.

Jesus was not the last person to hold the priesthood while he lived on the earth.

St. John 15:6 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your

fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Yes, he was not the last one as the Jews (and LDS) still use the Aaronic Priesthood. Now the Melchizedek Priesthood Christ is the one

who has it. He never died and so never passed it on correct?

The Hebrew term translated 'God' in our scriptures is a plural term. 'Eloheim' literally means 'Gods' or 'Great Ones'.

'In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.' Argue its implication all we want, but the 'im' which signifies

plurality is there and its use is not uniformly singular throughout the Hebrew scriptures, for example Genesis 1:26.

Yes, this is true. The thing is that you are not understanding what I beleive to be the Trinity, the best example that I was taught with

and many other too, is the Trinity is like an egg, you have the yolk, egg white and shell. All three are different, but one being.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I've heard it described as a shamrock leaf too with the three parts of the leaf but that is just being clever with imagery. It doesn't make it an accurate description of the three people I know as three totally separate individuals.

It's late now and I can't start going into all the Biblical references to the pre-existence but one which immediately comes to mind is when Jesus is asked 'who sinned this man or his parents that he was born blind?' Now I can understand the though that a blind child could have been born because the parents had done something wrong but unless we lived before birth how could the man's own sin have been the cause of him being born blind? Unless it is a reference to sin he may have committed in the pre-existence before he was born on earth. I will try to remember to come back to this tomorrow.

(Incidentally Jesus pointed out that it was nothing to do with being a punishment for sin.)

[lilered]

"Yes, he was not the last one as the Jews (and LDS) still use the Aaronic Priesthood. Now the Melchizedek Priesthood Christ is the onewho has it. He never died and so never passed it on correct?"

The response by Shadow, indicated Yes, to "that Jesus did not die, therefore did not pass it on!

I believe that Jesus did pass it on. And this is why!

The Savior said to the early Apostles, with Peter as the presiding head, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Peter, as President of the Church, directed the calling of a new Apostle, Matthias, .......

Mat. 16:19 - 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Pres. Hinkley on the subject: President Gordon B. Hinckley has provided the following instruction on this matter: “Each man who is ordained an Apostle and sustained a member of the Council of the Twelve is sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator. … Therefore, all incumbent members of the Quorum of the First Presidency and of the Council of the Twelve have been recipients of the keys, rights, and authority pertaining to the holy apostleship. … In this authority reside the powers of governance of the Church and kingdom of God in the earth. There is order in the exercise of that authority. It is specifically set forth in the revelations of the Lord. It is known to all of the Brethren and is observed by all.”

It follows then Peter as an Apostle and Head of the Church, had the Holy Priesthood as did other ordained to the office of Apostles, in the early establishment of Christs church,. However, as the Apostacy occurred, the Holy Priesthood was lost, which then required it to be restored.

[rameumptom]

Also I really encourage you to research who Joseph Smith was as a man and a prophet, from the LDS, Christian, and 3rd party point of views.

The reason I am saying this is because the Book of Mormon pretty much lays on the shoulders of Joseph Smith and if he was right or wrong

is a pretty big deal, being that the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP are at stake here. Again I would really encourage

you to read the criticisms and facts (Both good and bad) about him so that you may really know who he was.

Rameumptom: Most of us have done just that. We are very aware of who Joseph Smith is, including his flaws. In fact, Joseph was aware of his own flaws, and was chewed out by God on several occasions in the D&C. And I'm sure if Moses or Jesus lived in an age of documents, we would have thousands of articles critical of them, as well. The issue is that only God can reveal to the individual if He called Joseph Smith as a prophet or not. I have received a spiritual witness of him and of the teachings and revelations Christ has given us through Joseph Smith and his modern prophets.

Hey hold on, I didn't say that the Bible was a metaphor, you kind of turned my simple example over the whole Bible. I used the example to attempt

to explain eternity. I am not saying that eternity itself or the Bible is a metaphor. You know what, this is what you can do,

explain to me what the essence of eternity, and what eternity consists of. Then maybe I can get a hold of where you are coming from.

RAM: No, neither did I. But who should be the one to choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are symbolic? The scriptures primarily show God as anthropomorphic. Whose responsibility is it to tell us that the Bible was using metaphors, rather than being literal?

Can you please elaborate on the pre-existence. I have heard Mormon's speak on this and I am still not totally understanding where they

are coming from when they say this.

RAM: Prior to mortality, our spirits were literal created children of God the Father. We grew up as spirits in his presence, until the time came for us to be tested and to grow in greater knowledge. This required physical bodies to learn, and to be taken out of his presence in order to learn to "walk by faith" as Paul put it. In Hebrews, Paul calls God the "father of our spirits." God told Jeremiah that he knew him before he was formed in the womb. And we are told that our spirits return to Him who made us. This is one of the key things restored in the last days through prophets - the knowledge of our pre-mortal spiritual relationship with God.

Could you please explain what answers that are not found in the Bible? Because any problems that I have had, the Bible has been able

to help explain what I should do.

RAM: the Bible is an awesome guide for all of us in our lives. However, it is missing plain and precious teachings, or the teachings are not all that clear. The issue of pre-mortal existence is one example. To know that we lived with God before this life, is a wonderful thing that helps me feel closer to God and my spiritual roots. The concept of deification is also mentioned in the Bible, but not well spelled out, so that many Christians do not understand the concept - that we can co-heirs with Christ and reign with God on his throne. Finally, I've mentioned the divine council of Gods on a few occasions, and that is not well known from reading the bits and pieces left in the Bible, but are well known from the revelations of Joseph Smith

Yes, we can believe what the Bible says, that is what we are debating over. Is it the Trinity or a council of gods? Because a "council"

of Gods sound a bit like Greek Mythology to me. And could you explain where in the Bible it states this?

RAM: Just because it sounds like a Greek myth does not make it wrong. The Hebrew Bible obtained many of its teachings and beliefs from other cultures, including Greece. Did Paul not mention that the "Unknown God" was the God he worshiped among the deities of Greece? And while the Bible makes mention of the divine council, one must go to other ancient sources to pull it out of the Bible so that it makes sense. Job mentioned the sons of God and Satan going to challenge Yahweh. Isaiah 6 tells us about Isaiah before the divine council. Then we have God in Genesis saying, "let US make man in OUR image." Many non-LDS Bible scholars have written about the divine council, including Margaret Barker.

Yes, he was not the last one as the Jews (and LDS) still use the Aaronic Priesthood. Now the Melchizedek Priesthood Christ is the one

who has it. He never died and so never passed it on correct?

RAM: The Aaronic Priesthood was given to many individuals. Same with the Melchizedek Priesthood. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but not necessarily the only priest. Priesthood is an eternal concept. Revelation 1:6 tells us that Christ hath made us "kings and priests unto God and his Father." The promises of being kings and priests extend into the next life, and we obtain the same inheritance Jesus has, being heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. Being the case, then if Christ obtained the Melch Priesthood, so should we expect to also inherit it.

Yes, this is true. The thing is that you are not understanding what I beleive to be the Trinity, the best example that I was taught with

and many other too, is the Trinity is like an egg, you have the yolk, egg white and shell. All three are different, but one being.

RAM: Sadly, the example you give is NOT the Trinity as taught by the creeds. It is modalism, which was condemned by St Augustine as being a heretical teaching. To explain the Trinity correctly, you would have to state there is one specific yolk in three eggs at the same time. Yes, it doesn't make sense, but that's the mystery of the Trinity. The Trinity has 3 persons, not 3 substances, which is what your egg analogy suggests, and is condemned as modalism.

[Snow]

Yes, we can believe what the Bible says, that is what we are debating over. Is it the Trinity or a council of gods? Because a "council" of Gods sound a bit like Greek Mythology to me. And could you explain where in the Bible it states this?

It only sounds Greek to you because you are unfamiliar with the ancient Hebrew religion.

It isn't explicitly in the bible but it is in numerous ancient sources from the Bereshith rabba to the Midrash Tanhuma Pekude to the Song of Moses. All things that Joseph Smith had no way to know about. In light of all the modern discoveries of the ancient literature, scholars are now interpreting some the many bible passages that speaks of multiple gods to mean an assembly or council of the gods.

However, you are changing the subject. We don't worship the council of the gods. We worship God the Father, and my question of you was can we dispense with worshiping the Trinity and simply worship God of the bible and if the answer is yes, then what is the point of the Trinity.

[rameumptom]

I have no problem with some Trinitarian concepts. Others I have a problem with. But you know what? I know many Trinitarians that also have issues with some key Trinitarian concepts.

Shadow, your example of the egg to describe the Trinity is a perfect example of this. The egg metaphor does not describe the Trinity, but modalism. I've found that the vast majority of traditional Christians that are not scholars in the Trinity, view it in the same way you do. But for the Trinitarian creeds, modalism is a heresy, as much so as the LDS belief in the Godhead.

I don't know how a person can be saved believing in a heresy, unless such heretical views aren't important enough to matter to the Lord. Either most Christians will be damned for their heretical views of modalism, or they won't be. And if they aren't condemned for not believing in the actual Trinity, then why should Mormons be condemned for not believing the Trinity?

As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that all Trinitarians and modalists will be saved in a kingdom of heaven. Would it be better for us to have a greater understanding of God and His truths? Of course. But I believe that Christians have enough truth to be saved from Outer Darkness/hell.

[Shadow]

I've heard it described as a shamrock leaf too with the three parts of the leaf but that is just being clever with imagery. It doesn't

make it an accurate description of the three people I know as three totally separate individuals.

It's late now and I can't start going into all the Biblical references to the pre-existence but one which immediately comes to mind is

when Jesus is asked 'who sinned this man or his parents that he was born blind?' Now I can understand the though that a blind child could

have been born because the parents had done something wrong but unless we lived before birth how could the man's own sin have been the

cause of him being born blind? Unless it is a reference to sin he may have committed in the pre-existence before he was born on earth.

I will try to remember to come back to this tomorrow.

(Incidentally Jesus pointed out that it was nothing to do with being a punishment for sin.)

Could you give the verse for this? I heard and read it before, but I don't see it mentioning a pre-existence. Couldn't the apostles just

be referring to his earthly parents? And how would you be able to distinguish the difference?

I believe that Jesus did pass it on. And this is why!

The Savior said to the early Apostles, with Peter as the presiding head, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and

whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Peter,

as President of the Church, directed the calling of a new Apostle, Matthias, .......

Mat. 16:19 - 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in

heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

If you read the verses before that it seems that Jesus is referring not to Peter, but to something/someone else as if you read the verses the greek

word for Peter is "Petros" which is "rock" and when Jesus states that he will build upon this "rock" that word is "Petra" in greek. So

they are two different words so they couldn't be referring to the same thing as the word "Petra" is a feminine word for rock and I am not

sure, but I don't think Peter was feminine . In those verses isn't Jesus answering the statement in which Peter stated who Jesus is?

Rameumptom: Most of us have done just that. We are very aware of who Joseph Smith is, including his flaws. In fact, Joseph was aware of

his own flaws, and was chewed out by God on several occasions in the D&C. And I'm sure if Moses or Jesus lived in an age of documents, we

would have thousands of articles critical of them, as well. The issue is that only God can reveal to the individual if He called Joseph

Smith as a prophet or not. I have received a spiritual witness of him and of the teachings and revelations Christ has given us through

Joseph Smith and his modern prophets.

Sorry I was talking Aelswyth when I mentioned what I said. Also doesn't say that Jesus came into the world not to condemn it, but that it

may be saved through him? So I don't think if he were living on earth that he would write thousands of articles to criticize people. Also

didn't you say that Joseph Smith being a prophet couldn't be reasoned with a just answer, but a personal question? I am not sure if it was

you or another, but why can't you reason with a just answer and facts stating if Joseph Smith was a prophet or not?

RAM: Prior to mortality, our spirits were literal created children of God the Father. We grew up as spirits in his presence,

until the time came for us to be tested and to grow in greater knowledge. This required physical bodies to learn, and to be taken

out of his presence in order to learn to "walk by faith" as Paul put it. In Hebrews, Paul calls God the "father of our spirits." God

told Jeremiah that he knew him before he was formed in the womb. And we are told that our spirits return to Him who made us. This is

one of the key things restored in the last days through prophets - the knowledge of our pre-mortal spiritual relationship with God.

Doesn't it say in John that Jesus Christ is the only beggotten son of God? So how could we be too? Aren't we created in his own image as it

is sayed in Genesis? Also I have read the verse you are talking about (In Jeremiah), but I would kind of have to disagree with this because

couldn't you say an architect when constructing a building "knows" of the building before it is built, but that doesn't mean it was there

always, right?

RAM: the Bible is an awesome guide for all of us in our lives. However, it is missing plain and precious teachings, or the teachings are

not all that clear. The issue of pre-mortal existence is one example. To know that we lived with God before this life, is a wonderful

thing that helps me feel closer to God and my spiritual roots. The concept of deification is also mentioned in the Bible, but not well

spelled out, so that many Christians do not understand the concept - that we can co-heirs with Christ and reign with God on his throne.

Finally, I've mentioned the divine council of Gods on a few occasions, and that is not well known from reading the bits and pieces

left in the Bible, but are well known from the revelations of Joseph Smith[\Quote]

I do have some questions of the pre-mortal existence. (1) Where is it mentioned in the Bible , and (2) how is the critical to our salvation

or I mean, how is this a problem that needs understanding?

Being that we were "created" in Gods image, not beggotten, how could we have a pre-mortal existence? Also could you show me where

the Bible mentions Deifications of man and the council of Gods?

RAM: Just because it sounds like a Greek myth does not make it wrong. The Hebrew Bible obtained many of its teachings and beliefs

from other cultures, including Greece. Did Paul not mention that the "Unknown God" was the God he worshiped among the deities of

Greece? And while the Bible makes mention of the divine council, one must go to other ancient sources to pull it out of the Bible so

that it makes sense. Job mentioned the sons of God and Satan going to challenge Yahweh. Isaiah 6 tells us about Isaiah before the divine

council. Then we have God in Genesis saying, "let US make man in OUR image." Many non-LDS Bible scholars have written about the divine

council, including Margaret Barker.[\Quote]

Yes, it seems that were you pull out the "Divine Council", I and many other Christians(Non LDS) take it as the Trinity. Also being that you say

a Divine Council there must be more than 3 Gods I take it? Where in the Bible does it mention more than the Trinity?

RAM: The Aaronic Priesthood was given to many individuals. Same with the Melchizedek Priesthood. Christ is a priest after the order of

Melchizedek, but not necessarily the only priest. Priesthood is an eternal concept. Revelation 1:6 tells us that Christ hath made us

"kings and priests unto God and his Father." The promises of being kings and priests extend into the next life, and we obtain the same

inheritance Jesus has, being heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. Being the case, then if Christ obtained the Melch Priesthood, so

should we expect to also inherit it.[\Quote]

Yes, this is true, but this is because we are one with Christ you can read that in 1 Peter and I believe Corinthians it states that a couple

of times. And that we share what Chirst has. But would you disagree that Christ is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and

that there is only one High Priest?

RAM: Sadly, the example you give is NOT the Trinity as taught by the creeds. It is modalism, which was condemned by St Augustine as being

a heretical teaching. To explain the Trinity correctly, you would have to state there is one specific yolk in three eggs at the same time.

Yes, it doesn't make sense, but that's the mystery of the Trinity. The Trinity has 3 persons, not 3 substances, which is what your egg

analogy suggests, and is condemned as modalism.[\Quote]

Well, since you know the Christian Creeds better than a Christian does, would you mind explaining what the Trinity is? And no it is an example I am not saying that God is an egg.

Yes the Trinity has 3 persons, but one essence. Isn't that why Jesus said," that God the Father and I are one, if you have seen me you have seen God the

Father, if they were different how could he say these things?

[Shadow]

However, you are changing the subject. We don't worship the council of the gods. We worship God the Father, and my question of you was

can we dispense with worshiping the Trinity and simply worship God of the bible and if the answer is yes, then what is the point of the

Trinity.

Well, thats the deal. Jesus says that no one can come to the Father except through me. So Jesus must have some importance than just the

Father correct? What should you do then in honoring that?

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Yes the Trinity has 3 persons, but one essence. Isn't that why Jesus said," that God the Father and I are one, if you have seen me you have seen God the

Father, if they were different how could he say these things?

"I am one who is old enough to have grown up with the presence of Elder McConkie at all my youthful general conferences. He was blunt, he might have been one of the last of the "old fashioned" apostles as far as not being media conscious is concerned. He told it the way it was. I had his son for a religion class at BYU 2 decades ago, and have to say that Brother McConkie was the best religion teacher I ever had. If the son was like the father, then the father was certainly a heck of a guy." -from another thread,"Elder McConkie?"

I have heard on many other counts that the son was like the father. We know they are two seperate people but yet we say if we saw his son then we saw the father. It was even said in comparison of Elder Bruce R. McConkie to his father.

"If you've heard Bruce you've heard the father..." -Elder John. K Carmack

[Dear434]

Do we have to believe in the nature of God as promulgated by the creed that came out of Nicea (a council called, organized, presided over, and participated in by a violent and ruthless pagan), or can we just believe what the Bible says about God?

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?

[Dear434]

To clarify a bit about the Priesthood.

Jesus was not the last person to hold the priesthood while he lived on the earth.

1

St. John 15:6 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my dname, he may give it you.

Heb. 7: 5, 11-12, 14, 24

5 And verily they that are of the sons of aLevi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

• • •

11 If therefore aperfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the apriesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

• • •

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

• • •

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

1 Pet. 2: 5, 9 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual chouse, an holy priesthood, to offer up piritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

• • •

9 But ye are a achosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous hlight:

Neh. 13: 29

29 Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites.

Ex. 40: 15

15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their canointing shall surely be dan eeverlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Num. 16: 10

10 And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?

Num. 18: 1

1 And the Lord said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father’s house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall abear the iniquity of your priesthood.

Num. 25: 13

13 And he shall have it, and his aseed after him, even the bcovenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was dzealous for his God, and made an eatonement for the children of Israel.

Josh. 18: 7

7 But the aLevites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the Lord is their binheritance: and Gad, and cReuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the Lord gave them.

Ezra 2: 62

62 These sought their aregister among those that were breckoned by cgenealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as dpolluted, eput from the priesthood.

Neh. 7: 64

64 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by agenealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as bpolluted, put from the priesthood.

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.

[Dear434]

"Yes, he was not the last one as the Jews (and LDS) still use the Aaronic Priesthood. Now the Melchizedek Priesthood Christ is the onewho has it. He never died and so never passed it on correct?"

The response by Shadow, indicated Yes, to "that Jesus did not die, therefore did not pass it on!

I believe that Jesus did pass it on. And this is why!

The Savior said to the early Apostles, with Peter as the presiding head, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Peter, as President of the Church, directed the calling of a new Apostle, Matthias, .......

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?

[rameumptom]

I am not sure if it was

you or another, but why can't you reason with a just answer and facts stating if Joseph Smith was a prophet or not?

RAM: We can discuss issues, both pros and cons about facts on Joseph Smith. But in the long run, it can't "prove" or "disprove" anything. Can we "prove" the miracles and resurrection of Jesus? Of course not. Somewhere along the way, it takes getting an answer to Jesus' divinity that human minds cannot obtain on their own. We find that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10), therefore suggesting that testimonies of Jesus' divinity can only come through the spirit of prophecy. And so it is with any religious claim. While I can load you up with evidences of the Book of Mormon and other LDS claims, only a spiritual confirmation from the Holy Spirit can assure a person of its actual veracity. Otherwise, we get a variety of conclusions about Joseph Smith (or Jesus, for that matter). Dan Vogel calls him a pious fraud, Harold Bloom considered Joseph Smith a genius with some spiritual insight, some call Joseph an imbecile, others consider him a genius. Of course, LDS consider him a prophet of God. After looking at the evidence, how does one "prove" whether the witnesses of the Book of Mormon really saw gold plates, rather than some tin plates that Joseph put together?

Then again, how does one prove Jesus' miracles or his resurrection? Perhaps it was all made up by Paul and a few other eager Christians. Only a spiritual witness, can suffice. And in Paul's case, that is exactly what it required to convert him.

Doesn't it say in John that Jesus Christ is the only beggotten son of God? So how could we be too? Aren't we created in his own image as it

is sayed in Genesis?

RAM: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God IN THE FLESH. We are begotten spiritually of God. In Hebrews, Paul calls God the "father of our spirits." As for the Jeremiah quote, I gave evidence, but as you can see it was no "proof" for you. Answers can be given, but the individual can accept or reject the interpretation. I choose a more literal translation of Jeremiah's experience, while you make it allegorical. When an architect designs a building, he has a vision of what it is, but that does not mean he "knows" it. God stated that he "knew" Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. God did not state that he envisioned Jeremiah, or planned for Jeremiah before his birth. God stated that he "knew" him. You can allegorize it all you want, but I'll take the literal translation. Once again, this is reason for going to God for a spiritual answer to spiritual questions. If Joseph Smith really was God's prophet, and you had a spiritual witness of it, then this reading from Jeremiah would already be answered for you. If you spiritually knew that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, the quote in Jeremiah still would not be answered, as my reading still could be correct.

I do have some questions of the pre-mortal existence. (1) Where is it mentioned in the Bible , and (2) how is the critical to our salvation

or I mean, how is this a problem that needs understanding?

RAM: I have given many examples of this recently. The divine council is a major discussion for Biblical scholars today. I suggest you read some of Margaret Barker's writings on line: Margaret Barker

She is a Methodist preacher, and top Old Testament scholar in England. Job 1 and Isaiah 6 show us the premortal divine council. Jeremiah 1:6 as mentioned, shows a premortal Jeremiah. I'm beginning to feel you aren't serious about the discussion, because I've mentioned these several times before, but you seem to have ignored it all.

This is critical, because it helps us understand our place with God. Knowing we are his spirit children means we are not created ex nihilo, and that we are of the same substance as God is. This means that all the biblical writings and early Christian writings about us becoming divine, are correct. The Platonic idea that God is of a different substance than man means we cannot ever be like God. But the earliest Jews and Christians did not think that. Paul taught we should think like Christ, that it was not robbery to be like God, and that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. John the Revelator states we are made kings and priests unto God, and to reign with him forever. Peter says that we are of the divine nature.

Post Nicene Christians lost this understanding, as they did not understand the pre-mortal existence and our tie with God. Instead, they accepted the Greek idea that God is of a different substance than everything, and so we can never be like God. Unfortunately for them, that is not what the scriptures teach.

See the next post for the rest of the answer....

[rameumptom]

Shadow:

Being that we were "created" in Gods image, not beggotten, how could we have a pre-mortal existence? Also could you show me where

the Bible mentions Deifications of man and the council of Gods?

RAM: We are begotten spiritually of God. Remember that Paul, in Hebrews, called God the 'father of our spirits.' Paul states that we are co-heirs with Christ.

Yes, it seems that were you pull out the "Divine Council", I and many other Christians(Non LDS) take it as the Trinity. Where in the Bible does it mention more than the Trinity?

RAM: The divine council was traditionally a council of 70 sons of Elohim, including Yahweh. Check Margaret Barker's writings at her website for more info.

Yes, this is true, but this is because we are one with Christ . And that we share what Chirst has. But would you disagree that Christ is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and

that there is only one High Priest?

RAM: I believe that you are playing with words. Christ holds the highest form and place in the Melchizedek Priesthood. No one has his qualifications. Can there be others that are called as High Priests? Yes, just as there were several high priests in the Aaronic Priesthood. But that does not mean all high priests are equal.

Well, since you know the Christian Creeds better than a Christian does, would you mind explaining what the Trinity is? And no it is an example I am not saying that God is an egg.

Yes the Trinity has 3 persons, but one essence. Isn't that why Jesus said," that God the Father and I are one, if you have seen me you have seen God the

Father, if they were different how could he say these things?

[\Quote]

RAM: I cannot explain the Trinity. It is a mystery. Part of the description in the creeds is that the Trinity is "incomprehensible" and "unknowable", so why should I even try to explain that which is not explainable? Still, I must understand it better than those Trinitarians who describe the Trinity in a modalistic manner. Otherwise, they would cease attempting to describe it in heretical modalistic fashion.

Jesus prayed that his disciples may become one even as Jesus and God are one (John 17). If we read this as the Trinity is understood, then somehow we need to change our understanding of the resurrection to one where we are absorbed into one another and then into Christ.

The Trinity also confuses the resurrection of Jesus. How can Jesus be resurrected, yet be without a physical body? He cannot have a physical body in the Trinitarian ideal, because God cannot be impurified by outside substance, which that physical body is. Yet, in Luke 24, Jesus told his disciples to touch and feel his body, because a spirit/ghost does not have a physical body as he had. Then in Acts 1, the angels told the disciples that Jesus would return in the same way he left - which I presume would include his physical body!

Early Christians understood that God and Jesus were separate beings. Origen said that Jesus was subordinate to the Father. Arius went further and said that since there is only one God, Jesus was Lord, but not God! The Trinity didn't get its legs until the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, and then still almost faltered for another century. Even after that, the docetic Chalcedon creed had to be established to state that Jesus had two personalities: one divine and one human; because God's persons could not be contaminated by earthly substance, according to the Trinity and Platonic view of God.

LDS teach that Jesus has one, and only one, personality. He is both human and divine, because they are not mutually exclusive. Humanity is like an acorn to the divine oak, or like a baby compared to an adult human. The acorn and baby do not have all the qualities or abilities of the adult, but that doesn't mean they are not of the same substance. God, Jesus and we are of the same substance, which means we CAN obtain the divine nature of God. I cannot fathom how we can be like Christ or God if we are of a different substance and nature, and there's nothing that can make us that pure.

Jesus and God are one, in that they are one in the Godhead (a word used by Paul, whereas Trinity does not show up in the Bible). The Godhead is a relationship of intense Agape love, where what one does, the others also do. Jesus stated he does the things he has seen his Father do. That wouldn't make sense if they were the same being. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - was Stephen deceived by the Trinitarian God? Or are they actually individual beings? Jesus prayed to the Father, stating they had separate wills - something one would not have from the same Being.

All of these are major problems with the Trinity. I have yet to find a Trinitarian who can explain them beyond the idea that it is all a mystery. But that is a non-answer. Jesus told us that eternal life is to KNOW God and Jesus (John 17:3). Yet, if they are a mystery, we can never obtain to eternal life.

If you can answer these issues of the Trinity, I'd be very glad to understand them. However, I've listened to the same answers for decades, and have yet to find a cogent answer. And as it is, most non-scholar Trinitarians do not believe in creedal Trinitarianism, as they explain God in a modalistic form. If you guys and girls who claim to be Trinitarians can't formulate a workable answer of what you worship, how can you expect me to understand and accept it? As you can see, the LDS Godhead is easily explainable and backed up by scripture. I can know the Godhead. I could never begin to understand the mystery of the Trinity.

[rameumptom]

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.

It is my understanding that Catholic priests are ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood, suggesting that if they are correct in their claim of priesthood lineage, the early Christian Church DID pass on the priesthood along the way.

Our view is that at some point there was a loss of the priesthood, probably a gradual loss, until the fulness was lost. This required a restoration of the fulness of the priesthood.

BTW, we do view Christ as the Great High Priest, and that there are none greater than he. Since he is not currently active on the earth, he has called others to represent him and has shared his priesthood power with them (LDS).

[Shadow]

RAM: We can discuss issues, both pros and cons about facts on Joseph Smith. But in the long run, it can't "prove" or "disprove" anything.

Can we "prove" the miracles and resurrection of Jesus? Of course not. Somewhere along the way, it takes getting an answer to Jesus'

divinity that human minds cannot obtain on their own. We find that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10),

therefore suggesting that testimonies of Jesus' divinity can only come through the spirit of prophecy. And so it is with any religious

claim. While I can load you up with evidences of the Book of Mormon and other LDS claims, only a spiritual confirmation from the Holy

Spirit can assure a person of its actual veracity. Otherwise, we get a variety of conclusions about Joseph Smith (or Jesus, for that

matter). Dan Vogel calls him a pious fraud, Harold Bloom considered Joseph Smith a genius with some spiritual insight, some call Joseph

an imbecile, others consider him a genius. Of course, LDS consider him a prophet of God. After looking at the evidence, how does one

"prove" whether the witnesses of the Book of Mormon really saw gold plates, rather than some tin plates that Joseph put together?

Actually doesn't the Bible state that you can tell a prophet as a true one or not by if they false prophesied 1 time? Joseph Smith did.

He prophesied that the Civil war would become a world war. That didn't happen and according to the Bible all it takes is one strike. Also

no man can see God the Father, God told Moses that, so Joseph Smith had to have lied on that. If you say Joseph Smith did do that then

wouldn't you be calling God a lier to Moses?

Also you state that it has to be a conviction to know the truth or it seems some type of feeling. First doesn't the Bible state that only a

fool trusts in his own heart? Also can't demons tempt people with a "good feeling"? Or can they only do tempting through pain?

Then again, how does one prove Jesus' miracles or his resurrection? Perhaps it was all made up by Paul and a few other eager Christians.

Only a spiritual witness, can suffice. And in Paul's case, that is exactly what it required to convert him.

Actually you can prove it through historical documents of the time. The resurrection could be a little more tough, but most of it could

be proven. Also the apostles were not killed in the best way. One was crucified, one flayed alive, another headed, one was burn (and lived)

, so I would have to say it would take some character to make it up and then be treated this way, and still preach it. Paul lists all of

the stuff he went through and so no I think this is kind of sad on your part to state this.

RAM: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God IN THE FLESH. We are begotten spiritually of God.

Would you please show me where in the Bible it states this?

This is critical, because it helps us understand our place with God. Knowing we are his spirit children means we are not created

ex nihilo, and that we are of the same substance as God is. This means that all the biblical writings and early Christian writings about

us becoming divine, are correct. The Platonic idea that God is of a different substance than man means we cannot ever be like God. But

the earliest Jews and Christians did not think that. Paul taught we should think like Christ, that it was not robbery to be like God, and

that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. John the Revelator states we are made kings and

priests unto God, and to reign with him forever. Peter says that we are of the divine nature.

Actually we can become "like" God, but not "God", this is where the confliction is. You seem to be saying that we can become God. And

that has to be false and I will tell you why.

Please read this verse:

Isa. 44:8

Fear ye not, neither be afraid. have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a

God beside me? yea, there is no God, I Know not any.

Here are the definitions for the underlined words:

declared- In the original Greek it is "Nawgad" - meaning : To stand boldy out, to announce

God - In the original Greek it is "eloah" - meaning: a deity

besides - In the original Greek it is "min" - meaning: above, after, among, at, because of, by(reason of), from (among)

no - In the original Greek it is ay-yin - meaning: To be nothing or not exist; non-entity

So by reading this verse (and many others) I would have to say that it is pretty laid out right here that there are no other Gods

or deities above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among) than God the Father (The Trinity). But you say there

are some 70? Would you like to elaborate on this?

RAM: I cannot explain the Trinity. It is a mystery. Part of the description in the creeds is that the Trinity is "incomprehensible"

and "unknowable", so why should I even try to explain that which is not explainable? Still, I must understand it better than those

Trinitarians who describe the Trinity in a modalistic manner. Otherwise, they would cease attempting to describe it in heretical

modalistic fashion.[\Quote]

So you cannot explain the Trinity, but you can state that I am wrong? To state that I am wrong you must have some understand of what

you believe the Trinity is, or are you just stating this to cause a conflict?

The Trinity also confuses the resurrection of Jesus. How can Jesus be resurrected, yet be without a physical body? He cannot have a

physical body in the Trinitarian ideal, because God cannot be impurified by outside substance, which that physical body is. Yet, in

Luke 24, Jesus told his disciples to touch and feel his body, because a spirit/ghost does not have a physical body as he had. Then in

Acts 1, the angels told the disciples that Jesus would return in the same way he left - which I presume would include his physical body!

You say that he cannot have a physical body in the Trinity? Why, can't he, and why are making statements on something you confess that

you cannot explain, while you are in so doing that? Also isn't it sin that defiles God? So if you were flesh that never sinned do you defile God?

BTW, we do view Christ as the Great High Priest, and that there are none greater than he. Since he is not currently active on the earth,

he has called others to represent him and has shared his priesthood power with them (LDS).

So only certain individuals can represent Christ? I an many other Christian believe that every Christian has to take the responsibility to

represent Christ in our everyday lives. Thats why the sayings such as WWJD has come about.

Our view is that at some point there was a loss of the priesthood, probably a gradual loss, until the fulness was lost. This required a

restoration of the fulness of the priesthood.

Who stated that the priesthood had to be restored? Joseph Smith? Well by his 1 false prophecy wouldn't this make him a false prophet and

so wouldn't you have to discredit what he said, in upholding what the Bible states about false prophets?

Jesus and God are one, in that they are one in the Godhead (a word used by Paul, whereas Trinity does not show up in the Bible). The

Godhead is a relationship of intense Agape love, where what one does, the others also do. Jesus stated he does the things he has seen

his Father do. That wouldn't make sense if they were the same being. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - was Stephen

deceived by the Trinitarian God? Or are they actually individual beings? Jesus prayed to the Father, stating they had separate wills -

something one would not have from the same Being.

Heres my question to this. If you can't get to the Father except through Christ and Christ stated that he was God, which one is more important?

(Being that you need one to get to the other.) And if you recognize them both as God you are now worshiping "many" Gods. Which in Isaiah

states that there are no other.

[darrel]

Snow you are not right. While you have a wisdom of words and the gift of persuasion your arguments won't hold up. Many instances of this are given in scripture.

(Isa 29: 13-14) Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, But have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Therefore behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

The Marvelous work spoken of is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. You of all people know that your arguments will not change the will of the Lord. This True Gospel has been restored for the last time to never be taken again from the Earth. Nothing you can do or say will slow it down. :)