Some interesting doctrines of LDS

[Hemidakota]

So you do know...so what is the problem? [laughter]

[Dear434]

So you do know...so what is the problem? [laughter]

you're kidding, right? Judea/Christian Theology is built around the sublime truth: Hear O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is ONE! (aka the Shema). God or the Godhead is not quorum of 3 distinct beings who were once mortal, lived an earthly life similar to ours and who died and were resurrected and ultimately exalted to the station LDS refer to as "Gods". The God, as revealed in both Old and New Testaments of the Bible was, is and forever will be One God, not 3 Gods. No amount of wordsmithing will ever change this.

[Hemidakota]

If you say so but again, if the veil was rented, your assumption maybe in jeopardy. If you have the desire to know the Godhead, it comes by sincere and humble prayer.

[Flyonthewall]

If you couple the vision of Stephen with the events at the baptism of Christ, and the statement Christ made to Mary after His resurrection, and it becomes clear that Stephen was not talking figuratively, but specifically. There are other statements made by Jesus that point out the difference between Himself and the Father.

It is such a simple concept of 3 distinct and individual personages that function together in one purpose.

There are also many statements throughout the Bible about becoming "one", but not literally.

[Dear434]

If you say so but again, if the veil was rented, your assumption maybe in jeopardy. If you have the desire to know the Godhead, it comes by sincere and humble prayer.

I have prayed about it and applied the promise in James and God has shown me that He is ONE God not 3 Gods.

[rameumptom]

Sorry for my call out on rameumpton, it wasn't done in the best of spirits. I deleted the message. Sorry.

No worries. We all get caught up in the heat of the moment. Vigorous debate is good, as long as we discuss the issues.

Unfortunately, some are focused on solely attacking without actually considering what is being discussed. Your actions show you are sincere in wanting to have a good discussion, and I appreciate that.

[Shadow]

RAM: No, the OT tells us that if a man prophesies and that prophesy does not come to pass, to not believe in the prophesy. Did you

know

that Jesus prophesied and expected the second coming to be in that very generation? Does that mean his 1 wrong prophesy makes Jesus a

false prophet? I don't think so.[\Quote]

Would you kindly reply with the verse in which he did?

You've misread D&C 87. Joseph Smith said that modern warfare would start with the Civil War, where the South would call upon England and

other nations for assistance. Later, England would call upon nations for help, at which time war would fall upon all nations. Looks like

Joseph Smith was correct, after all. I suggest you start looking at the actual prophecies and studying them, rather than picking up bad

info from anti-Mormon sites.[\Quote]

Actually England wasn't in the Civil War. It was between the North and the South. Also England was going to help the South win, but due to the South's loss at

the battle of SharpsBurg or Antietem, England refused help. Also did the Civil war become a World war ? No. If it did

World war 2 would be in-fact World War 3, correct?

Moses saw God "face to face" - does that mean Moses lied? I would suggest that the Bible is incomplete on its meaning. Joseph Smith

taught that a person could not see God, unless transfigured by the Holy Ghost; which is what occurred to Moses, when he saw God. Oh,

and Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which to me means that Stephen saw God the Father. Shall we continue this dance?

[\Quote]

Actually God himself told Moses could not see his face, so are you calling God a lier? God said that no man could see His face or he shall die.

It is in the Book of Exodus. Here is the verse:

Exo 33:20 : And he said,Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

In this verse:

not in Hebrew is "lo" and means: no, or never

see in Hebrew is "ra'ah and means: enjoy, have experience, gaze, percieve, see

So here God is basically saying, that man can never gaze upon the face of God and live. I believe this is

pretty easy to comprehend and it does say that Moses and God met face to face, but that we can say this was figuratively

because God himself a couple verses later states that no man can see his face and live. You can see his glory though, which

Steven and Moses did see.

You are only proving your poor and inconsistent knowledge of the Bible.[\Quote]

Hey, you don't need to shoot the messenger. All I am doing is presenting the facts. You assume many things in the Bible without

actually reading into what they mean for example you said, "Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which to me means

that Stephen saw God the Father", this is an assumption made by you will no other facts than, "to me", in which you

stated yourself. If you actually read the verse, it will state that Stephen saw the glory of God, which is completely

different then the "face of God", so once again, Joseph Smith was incorrect about teaching that one can see God's Face.

Because not one man in the Bible states that he saw the face of God.

RAM: The men that were on the road to Emmaus, when Jesus spoke with them incognito, stated after he disappeared, "did not our hearts burn

within us when he spake?" Elijah sought God, but did not find him in the earthquake or the fire, but in the "still, small voice."

A Still small voice? I fail to see in that sentence where it states that it comes from the heart.

And Paul

taught that the fruits of the Spirit are peace, joy, confidence, etc. Clearly, these are emotions that are involved, as Mormons claim that

the Spirit burns in the bosom or is a "still, small voice" that speaks to the heart of man.

How are the fruits of the spirit feelings? Like patience, or confidence, how is that a feeling? Also even love, Jesus stated

to love your neighbor as yourself, do you emotionally love yourself as you love your wife/Mother or father? No, there is different levels of

love as you have stated yourself.There are many verses that support that love is a verb not just an emotion.

As for demons, they can do many things, but the Bible doesn't specify what he can or can't do. It is a fool that trusts in his own heart,

but it isn't a fool that trusts in the witness of the Holy Spirit - there is a difference. I can tell the difference between my own

emotions and the power of the Holy Ghost within me.[\Quote]

True, but is the power of the holy spirit a good feeling?

RAM: How do you prove Jesus' miracles? How do you prove the dividing of the Red Sea? The only "historical documents" available are not

historical documents. It is the Bible and a few other Jewish documents that are still available. But the copies we have do not date back

to Jesus' day, much less back to Moses' day.

Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered, beaten, falsely imprisoned, and murdered for his faith. Sounds like Paul and the apostles of old

had nothing on Joseph Smith.

The splitting of the Red Sea actually can be proven as they have found Egyptian Chariot parts in almost the center of the lake. Now

there were actually quite a bit of them not just a single wheel. But there the Bible once again is proof as they are human

account of what happened.

Actually the New Testament was written during the 1st and 2nd generation after Christ, so the documents could in fact be very accurate. As

they are very accurate.

Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned? Are you talking about when he was imprisoned in Carthage? They had every right to imprison him. And

to end the whole thing there he died in a gun battle, with his six shooter and killed 2 men. So no he wasn't murdered, if he was killed

unarmed that would be murder. (This must be the one biggest myth of Joseph Smith.)

And there your are wrong, did any of the apostles kill any of their own executors or attempt to?

RAM: You can read it as you wish. To me, "co-heirs with Christ" means we will get exactly what Christ received. Is Christ "God" or "like

God?" Peter says we can partake of the divine nature of God. Does this mean God's exact nature, or something else? Who is twisting the

scriptural reading here? I don't think it is me.

I can read it as I wish? Did you not read the verse I gave you in Isaiah? It was put out in plain English. That there are none other than

I no, not one. How is partaking in the divine nature, becoming God? Could it not be meaning that we become divine in nature? Maybe

like angels, with pure bodies?

RAM: There is no God beside God. However, there are gods subordinate to him. In fact, Origen and Eusebius taught that Jesus was a

subordinate God to the Father. We will never be on the same level as God is. He is the one that saves and exalts us, and so we will

always be his children in the eternal family unit. Besides, Isaiah was discussing the God of Israel, and not the other divine council,

which were gods over the other nations. In some other nations they shared gods, or a god was overthrown by another, etc.

Again if you read the verse, the word besides, means "min" - meaning: above, after, among, at, because of[\b], by(reason of), from (among).

Because of is where God doesn't make other gods. You are not god because of him. In other words he doesn't exalt you as a god. Because

it would then be given that God made you a god, because of him.

RAM: The Trinity is not understandable. Just as with science, I cannot prove a theory, all I can do is disprove a theory; I can only tell

you what the Trinity is not. And I do not know of anyone that can deftly describe the Trinity, as the creed itself calls God "unknowable"

and "incomprehensible." If you pretend to understand the mystery of the Trinity, then you do not understand the creeds. And your

modalistic example you gave previously shows you do not understand it.

How can you say something is not, when you don't know what it is? Is God incomprehensible? I believe to a certain extent. Being that if we

could explain "God", could we not then be God ourselves? To explain "God" we would have to be all knowing, correct?

RAM: Because the Trinity is a Spirit, without body, parts or passions. That is what the creeds teach. I cannot explain the Trinity,

because I do not understand how God the Father can be without a body, and Jesus with a resurrected body, and still be one substance.

According to the creeds, anything that is not pure would defile God, this would include any physical substance. For God to take into

himself a physical body made from the impure materials of the earth would make God impure.

So are you saying what God created is impure to him? Are you saying that God cannot accept what he created? He created the "human" if you

will, and is it not sin that caused Adam and Eve to be separated from God? If so would it not be the human flesh, but sin that defiles

God?

The LDS view is that God is made of the same substance as we are. He has a physical body as we do, however his body has been purified

and glorified. So, both God the Father and Jesus have glorified physical bodies. They are one in the Godhead - one in purpose, unity,

and Agape love.

Yes, I do know the LDS view, but there are many places in the Bible that states that God the Father has "Other Parts" or "Characteristics"

that man does not. For example it states that God has wings, or that he can breath fire from his nostrils. So if you took every description

of God the Father and put it together would you not have something similar to a Dragon than a Human?

[Shadow]

RAM: I believe we are all to follow Christ as best we can. And yes, we should represent him in our lives. My point is, if the Trinity

is a mystery, it makes it more difficult to follow a mystery.

This wouldn't make it more difficult, because did not Christ come and tell us what we needed to do? Even before him did not the Jews have

contact with God to tell them what to do? Just because you don't understand one of many aspect of God that doesn't mean you can't follow

what he said.

RAM: Once again, if we want to toss out Joseph Smith for a prophecy you think is false (and it isn't), then we have to reject Jesus for

his false prophecy, as well. The Bible does warn about false prophets, but it does not state that one wrong prophecy makes a false prophet.

Actually it does. You can read-

Due 18:22 : When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor

come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously

thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Now lets go over the words in Hebrew so that there is not error in our own translation of the verse.

afraid in Hebrew is "gur" and means: to turn to him, to dwell, fear, and gather.

prophet in Hebrew is "nawbiy" and means: inspired man.

So it should be easily understood that we are not to listen to that man. Not to dwell or go to him. And yes if 1 false

prophecy comes, it makes him a false prophet. You stated that Jesus made a false prophecy, but could you give us the verse

so that we may see if you claim can be remotely true. I believe I know what verse you are talking about, but I would like

to know for sure.

Oh, Peter tells us in Acts 3:

Quote:

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets

since the world began.

IOW, the Second Coming cannot occur until there is a restitution of all things, which all the prophets had foreseen. Given that Peter was

not declaring that restitution had occurred, it must have been a future event. This restitution of all things is, in LDS belief, the

Restoration of the Gospel in the last days.

Aren't they talking there about the foretelling of the end times? If you continue to read the verses after it seems that they are talking

about the things to come, in Acts 3:24?

RAM: Once again, you are taking one verse out of the entire Bible and interpreting it differently than the Bible was meant to be read.

And you are saying you are not doing this? All you have showed my is this in fact and that you don't take the time to research

what the words actually mean in their original Hebrew. For example the verse in Isaiah, the verse in Exodus, and many others

that support these.

Isaiah knew and understood about the divine council, as he saw it in Isaiah 6. Margaret Barker and other non-LDS Bible scholars have

written on this.

Out of that whole chapter you referred to in Isaiah, there is only one verse that seems to point to more than "one god", but not a council,

as it also identifies the rest as to be serphims. Here is the verse:

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I send me.

But right here is where I believe it is the Trinity of; God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Also I don't see how you could

say here is proof of a council of "many gods" and give a number. (As you claim to be some 70)

I suggest you read a few scholarly sites, instead of the anti-LDS sites.

Wow, you think all I am doing is reading anti-LDS sites? First I am not doing so, but 2nd if I were, you can't even defend

that properly.

As I stated, the early Christian Fathers believed God and Jesus to be separate beings. How else are we to understand going to the Father

through Jesus? If they are the same being, then you automatically would go to the Father, with or without Jesus! Christ, as Origen and

others taught, is God, but subordinate to the Father. Stephen saw two separate beings, the Father and the Son - was Stephen lying to us,

or was God lying to Stephen? Or did Stephen tell us the truth?

Ok, here let me help you with this. I will try to go over everything I know about the Trinity. I hope this makes sense, and many other

Christians believe this too, so I am not the only one on this.

Here are 4 concepts that the Trinity tries to accomplish: (1) Jesus Christ is God in flesh, (2) God the Father is also God, (3)the Holy Ghost

is God, and (4) There is only one God.

Here are a couple of verses that support that there is one God and only one God.

Isaiah 43:10 - : Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen that ye may know and believe me,

and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God- In Hebrew is "ale" and means: any deity (notice that it is any, meaning of any kind)

Formed- In Hebrew is "yatsar" and means: make

After- In Hebrew is "achar" and means: beside, by, following, hereafter

Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.

one in Hebrew is - echod which means: alone, first, one, only

LORD in Hebrew is - y'hovah which means: self existent, eternal, Jehovah

Isaiah 44:6: Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; am the first, and I am the last;

and beside me there is no God.

First- In Hebrew is "ri'shon" meaning : in place, in time, order

Last- In Hebrew is "acharyon" meaning : later, uttermost

no- In Hebrew is "ayin" meaning : nothing, not exist, never

This is pretty simple to understand too don't you think?

Now you believe that God the Father is God so I won't have to prove that to you. But Jesus and the Holy Spirit being God

I may have to prove so I will do it right now.

Holy Ghost:

(Act 5:3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie4 to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of

the price of the land?

(Act 5:4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou

conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Here God in Greek is "theos" which means: A deity of supreme Divinity.

Jesus:

1 Tim 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the

Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

And for there to be only 1 God yet to be 2 different persons there is the Trinity. And that is what I have been trying to

say 3 persons as one being. They are 3 different beings, nor am I saying that they are the same thing, but they

are 3 persons as one being, as a shamrock or egg has three parts in one being.

Also for your information the Trinity was being taught during the 3rd century. You can look it up if you want to.

RAM: Or it can be taken literally that Moses saw God face to face. How is it that you are the chosen one to determine what is literally

correct, what is metaphor/simile, and what is incorrect?

This is actually kind of a sad statement. Because this question could be easily rephrased to state something like this: "How

is it that you are the chosen one to determine what is literal?" Also you can easily prove that it was not literal because

if you read just a couple more verses, God says to Moses that no man can see his face and live.

Clearly there is a disagreement in the Mosaic record, probably due to being

from two different sources. The early prophets had not problem with the idea of seeing God. Jacob called a place Peniel, because he saw

the face of God.

Could you supply the verse for this please?

Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (suggesting he saw God). Isaiah stood in the presence of God and

proclaimed he had unclean lips (Isaiah 6), but lived. Shall I go on, or are you going to stick with one verse to justify destroying the

testimonies of all these prophets?

Just because you cannot see Gods face doesn't mean that you cannot be in he presence don't you think?

[rameumptom]

Shadow, I'm finished with these discussions with you. Your interpretations of the scriptures and scholarly points I've made seem to go right past you. I think a few others have also tired of this. It isn't a discussion, as you are hitting a couple verses that seem to sound as you'd like, but then ignore the vast majority of scripture that I have shared. And the one evidence that I believe it was you that shared, about Joseph Smith making a false prophecy of the 2nd Coming, showed anti-Mormon all over it. You conveniently used half the statement, and ignored the part where Joseph said he did not know when it would occur.

So, as it is, I'm going to stop these discussions with you until you can play nicely.

[Snow]

I made no such implication. I simply asked "why?" Why was this "prophecy" not published sooner? And why in England of all places? The Civil War was in America, so wouldn't it make more sense to publish this "prophecy" in America?

One ought least have the courage to backup what one implies.

[Snow]

Due 18:22 : When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor

come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously

thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Now lets go over the words in Hebrew so that there is not error in our own translation of the verse.

afraid in Hebrew is "gur" and means: to turn to him, to dwell, fear, and gather.

prophet in Hebrew is "nawbiy" and means: inspired man.

So it should be easily understood that we are not to listen to that man. Not to dwell or go to him. And yes if 1 false

prophecy comes, it makes him a false prophet. You stated that Jesus made a false prophecy, but could you give us the verse

so that we may see if you claim can be remotely true. I believe I know what verse you are talking about, but I would like

to know for sure.

Would you then claim that Isaiah, or whoever wrote Isaiah was a false prophet that we ignore... on account of his many failed prophecies?

eg. Isaiah 19:5-7

And the waters of the Nile will be dried up, and the river will be parched and dry; and its canal will become foul, and the branches of Egypt's Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds and rushes will rot away. There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will dry up, be driven away, and be no more.

[Dear434]

One ought least have the courage to backup what one implies.

Explain to me how I implied Orson Pratt was being "dishonest" by publishing the so-called civil war prophecy. Basically, what you are doing is nothing more than mud-slinging. I simply stated a fact and you have yet to provide any response to refute the facts that I have stated.

[Dear434]

Would you then claim that Isaiah, or whoever wrote Isaiah was a false prophet that we ignore... on account of his many failed prophecies?

eg. Isaiah 19:5-7

And the waters of the Nile will be dried up, and the river will be parched and dry; and its canal will become foul, and the branches of Egypt's Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds and rushes will rot away. There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will dry up, be driven away, and be no more.

And when exactly was this prophecy supposed to have been fulfilled?

[Dear434]

Shadow, I'm finished with these discussions with you. Your interpretations of the scriptures and scholarly points I've made seem to go right past you. I think a few others have also tired of this. It isn't a discussion, as you are hitting a couple verses that seem to sound as you'd like, but then ignore the vast majority of scripture that I have shared. And the one evidence that I believe it was you that shared, about Joseph Smith making a false prophecy of the 2nd Coming, showed anti-Mormon all over it. You conveniently used half the statement, and ignored the part where Joseph said he did not know when it would occur.

So, as it is, I'm going to stop these discussions with you until you can play nicely.

So you believe falsely accusing our Savior Jesus Christ of a false prophecy is "play[ing] nicely"?

RAM: No, the OT tells us that if a man prophesies and that prophesy does not come to pass, to not believe in the prophesy. Did you

know that Jesus prophesied and expected the second coming to be in that very generation? Does that mean his 1 wrong prophesy makes Jesus a false prophet? I don't think so.

Do you really believe this is a "false prophecy"? Or is it more likely that you just don't understand how to interpret the passage in it's entire context.

[Snow]

Explain to me how I implied Orson Pratt was being "dishonest" by publishing the so-called civil war prophecy. Basically, what you are doing is nothing more than mud-slinging. I simply stated a fact and you have yet to provide any response to refute the facts that I have stated.

You are operating under the assumption that we are idiots. It's a wrong assumption.

[Snow]

And when exactly was this prophecy supposed to have been fulfilled?

It doesn't matter when. It was written over over 2000 years ago. It's a fail prophecy. One of many.

You can always resort to - gee, maybe if we wait another 3000 years then it will happen. If you are nebulous and generic enough, anyone can be a prophet... Some day New York City will turn into marshmallows and pig skin... Wow - lookee, I too can be a prophet.

[manxman]

The God of common Christianity is a false construction of men. An incomprehensible nothing. No wonder President Hinkley denied it. Study the doctrine/history of the doctrine of the Trinity, compare it to the scriptures you & I share, and prove to me that they are the same being! You cannot! It's impossible! Thank God for a living prophet, to declare the truth.

[Elgama]

The God of common Christianity is a false construction of men. An incomprehensible nothing. No wonder President Hinkley denied it. Study the doctrine/history of the doctrine of the Trinity, compare it to the scriptures you & I share, and prove to me that they are the same being! You cannot! It's impossible! Thank God for a living prophet, to declare the truth.

just because someone perceives God differently does not mean they do not know God - you can be an atheist and have Christ in your Countenance. As Latter Day Saints with all the advantages we have with the Gift of the Holy Ghost and our modern Day prophet still do not truly understand how the Godhead works I know my view of it is different to other Latter Day Saints.

-Charley

[manxman]

just because someone perceives God differently does not mean they do not know God - you can be an atheist and have Christ in your Countenance. As Latter Day Saints with all the advantages we have with the Gift of the Holy Ghost and our modern Day prophet still do not truly understand how the Godhead works I know my view of it is different to other Latter Day Saints.

-Charley

I did not say you did not know God, I said that President Hinkley justly did not believe in the God of common Christianity-the Trinity. I do not know that God either, and I don't want to, because I understand God as a very different being - as President Hinkley does. i do not necessarily have his level of understanding or familiarity, but I believe after a like manner.

[Elgama]

I did not say you did not know God, I said that President Hinkley justly did not believe in the God of common Christianity-the Trinity. I do not know that God either, and I don't want to, because I understand God as a very different being - as President Hinkley does.

I am LDS so no argument from me - however as far as I am aware there is only one God and most people worship Him. Your understanding may be greater of Him but the God of common Christianity is the same God you worship, we don't understand Him 100% either we just have greater light.

-Charley

[manxman]

We believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. Where there is translational failure/imperfection, there is always the Divinely attested accuracy of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and Latter-day revelation to provide certainty, according to the will of the Lord.

I'm sorry, I must dispute. The God of common Christianity shares the name and ultimate purposes of the God of the LDS, but they are radically different beings according to their form and other characteristics as taught by the proponents, though they should be the same.

[rameumptom]

So you believe falsely accusing our Savior Jesus Christ of a false prophecy is "play[ing] nicely"? Do you really believe this is a "false prophecy"? Or is it more likely that you just don't understand how to interpret the passage in it's entire context.

I believe that Jesus truly believed (as did several of his apostles) that the 2nd Coming would be in that generation. I do believe that the prophecies are true, with that exception.

You can claim I'm taking it out of context, but Occam's razor suggests the easiest reading is probably the correct one. When Jesus says it will all happen before that generation passed, I take him at his word.

I do not believe the mortal Jesus knew all things. For example, he did not know the exact time of the 2nd Coming, as he stated only the Father knew. Of course, if we're talking Trinity, then we have a problem with a being keeping secrets from himself....

[rameumptom]

We believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. Where there is translational failure/imperfection, there is always the Divinely attested accuracy of the translation of the Book of Mormon, and Latter-day revelation to provide certainty, according to the will of the Lord.

I'm sorry, I must dispute. The God of common Christianity shares the name and ultimate purposes of the God of the LDS, but they are radically different beings according to their form and other characteristics as taught by the proponents, though they should be the same.

If you believe them to be different Gods, then do you also believe that God the Father and Jesus do not hear and answer prayers of Catholics or Methodists? Is it no different than if they were praying to a tree or rock? I personally believe there is a difference, and that God answers sincere Catholic and Methodist prayers.

I think I must agree with Charlie. We all worship the same God, albeit imperfectly. Some more imperfectly than others, but while some may worship in a Celestial form, there's still room for worship on a lesser level of glory. In the last General Conference, Elder Holland disagreed with the Trinitarian creeds, but still insisted we are also Christian.

[Shadow]

Shadow, I'm finished with these discussions with you. Your interpretations of the scriptures and scholarly points I've made

seem to go right past you.

Yes, I will admit the point do go right passed me because I asked you to provided Bible verses that support your claims and

you fail to do so. You say that "it says it in the Bible", but fail to state in what verse. Until you add Bible verses to

your statements I will continue to by pass them, with your own saying, "its just your interpretation".

I think a few others have also tired of this. It isn't a discussion, as you are hitting a

couple verses that seem to sound as you'd like, but then ignore the vast majority of scripture that I have shared.

What scripture have you shared? I didn't see you reference any verses? Maybe I missed that, I know you stated a chapter, but

I had to read through it and find which verse you were talking about. Also you think I am "twisting" verses to support what

I say? I shared with you the Hebrew/Greek words along with their definition so that there would be not confusion. I did it

so that you could take it "literally". And there are many other verses that support that. I am yet to see any verses that

you have posted that stated how there are many Gods, how eternaty is just my own theology and how God is apart of time, how

Joseph Smith was right on how the US Civil War in D&C 87 was actually a World War, and Jesus's false prophecy. To me it seems

that you tend to state alot of facts, but you refuse to supply the verses that I am trying to kindly request of you.

And the one evidence that I believe it was you that shared, about Joseph Smith making a false prophecy of the 2nd Coming,

showed anti-Mormon all over it.

Is it anit mormon? If I try to make a statment of what I read and it disagrees with mormons is it anti mormon?

You conveniently used half the statement, and ignored the part where Joseph said he did

not know when it would occur.

Would you then kindly supply the other missing half of the statement and the verse reference to which I happend to miss?

So, as it is, I'm going to stop these discussions with you until you can play nicely.

I am not playing nicely? You have tried to frustrate me with your sarcasm, you have tried to attack me personally, and yet

I am not playing nicely? You also stated that Jesus made a false prophecy and still haven't gave the verse in which it states

that, and when the other poster got angry, you step back and say its our fault? My question is how are you playing nicely?

The God of common Christianity is a false construction of men. An incomprehensible nothing. No wonder President Hinkley

denied it. Study the doctrine/history of the doctrine of the Trinity, compare it to the scriptures you & I share, and prove

to me that they are the same being! You cannot! It's impossible! Thank God for a living prophet, to declare the truth.

Actually if you take all the verses where it states that God the Father is the only God and there

are none other (It He states of any kind, regardless of power and posistion) than Him, you must have the Trinity, because

Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. Yet, how can there only be one? That is why the Trinity is accepted by

many Theologians and Christians. Yes, you have eye witness accounts of many in the Bible that says that Jesus was at the

right hand of God, but when God himself is talking and stating that there are no other gods besides I, then I would go with

what God said, then what man said.

But the only theory of mormonism that is out there that is attempting to destroy the Trinity is the teaching that man could become God.

The reason it is not so is because if man becomes God, (1) God is not eternal, (2) God is not all knowing (as he had to

"progress"), (3) that there are millions of Gods (which then you must state why does God state the he knows of none

other?), (4) God created evil (it is stated by LDS that we are here on earth to expirence and go through trials), (5) then God states

good not because its good, but because he said (then you would have to question what is "good" and what is "bad".. is it all opinion?)

, (6) who was the first thing to become God and how was the "trials and qualifications" defined, and (7) where was he able

to learn through the trials? (If a planet there must have been something before him).

Also God being out of time could be read in the 1st chapter of Genesis, where it states the end of the first day. Because

if he created the first day then he must have been there before the 1st day correct? If so couldn't one conclude that Time

itself or the time for the human race was not applied to God before the 1st day? If so couldn't He still not be bound to out time?

*For a couple of verse, I have posted them in earlier posts.