Some questions for Mormons

[xanmad33]

Hmm.. I was unable to find any answers to my questions. Could you be more specific?

Jesus of Nazareth is the Alpha and Omega. Jesus is the beginning and the end, He is all powerful and all knowing. As is mentioned in Psalm 139, the presence of His spirit cannot be escaped, and in Isaiah 40 'there is no searching of His understanding.' He has indeed always existed as God.

Was he not once as we are now?

Was He not born on the earth in the same manner whereby we have been?

Did he not receive a body of flesh and bone through the vessel of the Virgin?

Did He not endure childhood and manhood?

Did He not physically die?

Did He not physically rise from the grave?

Did He not show the prints of the nails in His hands and in His feet to His disciples and did they not feel them?

Did He not say to them: 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.'? (Luke 24:39)

Did He not ascend into heaven having been received into the clouds accompanied by angels?

Did He not partake of exaltation?

Did He not so rise to sit enthroned in yonder heavens?

-a-train

Surely you are well read on the subject

But to clarify a little more...

We believe in ONE God, he reveals himself to man in 3 ways, as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. We believe God became man so that He could do the sacrificing instead of us. That is the Jesus of the Bible, and the "trinity" is just the word used to describe the complexity that is God because our small minds could never grasp the totality of who God is...It is completely Biblical.

You are probably focusing on Jesus' death details becasue those are probably the ONLY points we agree on.

here is a good read for you:

" The Jesus of the Bible is the only begotten Son (in the Hebrew "begotten" means heir, not off-spring) and He is God the Son. John 1:1 reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." John 1:14 goes onto say "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Clearly the Bible, particularly the Gospel According to John, is telling us the story of Jesus. Jesus is described as the "Word." The "Word" is called God. Not "A God" but God! The Gospel of John then says that this God, known as the "Word" became flesh, real, temporal and tangible and lived among us. We know Jesus did this and this is afterall, the Gospel of Christ according to John. More evidence shows that Jesus called Himself God and the Jews tried to stone him for it, John 10:30-33. "We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Clearly the Jews understood Jesus' meaning, else why would they attempt to stone Him? Is. 44:6, God of the Old Testiment says "I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." Rev. 1:18, Jesus says, "I am the Alpha and Omega the First and the Last." Which of the two is lying? They both can't be first and last unless they are one in the same. Is. 43:10 God says, "Before me there were no gods formed, nor will there be after." If Jesus is "A" God, then this scripture would have to be wrong because Jesus' very existence, given the Mormon position that Jesus is A god but not Father God, would be evidence of another God. Therefore, God was wrong that there would be no other gods. And being wrong would make Him imperfect. And if He is imperfect, He is therefore not God. By contrast, if Jesus "IS" God, then this scripture remains true and consistent with his claims of deity in John 10, Rev. 1 and the claims of Isaiah's prophecy of the coming Savior in Is. 9:6 where Isaiah calls him "Wonderful, Counselor, All Mighty God, the Everlasting FATHER, the Prince of Peace." NOTE: This scripture was the basis of Handel's Messiah sung every Christmas by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in Salt Lake City. Finally, only God can forgive sins and yet on several occasions in the gospels we see Jesus forgiving sin. Matt. 9:2, Lk. 7:48.

I hope that clears some confusion

[a-train]

Surely you are well read on the subject

But to clarify a little more...

Mormons believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God, indeed the LORD God, even Yaweh, the Great I Am. Are you saying you agree and that Jehovah did indeed do all those things that I asked about?

-a-train

[xanmad33]

....QUOTE]

Christians agree on the basic and fundamental foundation of our faith.

We may disagree about other matters of faith but since it is not essential to our salvation, it appears God has allowed it.

Whatever your judgements about me or my claims, I cant help. I would only ask you to hold your own doctrine and absolute truths to the same flame. Look at your own church, look at the division within your own house.

And you just asked me about baptism, I havent had time yet to organize my thoughts, but I will.

[Misshalfway]

The truth is that I am not really judging you or your beliefs. You actually seem like a true believer and that your sincerity is real. I don't usually join conversations like this one because it usually ends in a stalemate. I can see how you are looking at our doctrine and how it differs from what your understanding is. I appreciate that. For whatever reason, you are here discussing my faith and putting my faith under a microscope. And I am trying to understand your faith and your logic. Your community may have inconsistency with the bible. Apparently that is ok... unless you are a mormon. It is fine if you believe that. It is just hard to hear that everything I believe is evil because it deviates from the main, but you all can deviate and somehow it is ok. Perhaps it is ok to deviate as long as you don't go too far. And I know, mormons have gone too far. You don't have to tell me again. And when you say that all Christianity believes the same fundamentals, all I can say is that I just don't see it. In the end the question of who is wrong and who is right can't be settled on an appeal to the Bible alone. It just can't be. If it could, then all the arguing amongst all who claim to believe in Christ would cease. And we could all be in peace over all these questions. If the Old Testament could settle things, the Jews and Muslims and Christians would be able to come together. Mormonism is different than mainstream Christianity. You have illustrated that beautifully. For me, I can't believe mainstream Christianity because it conflicts with the bible. And if I were to align myself with one of your churches, how on earth would I be able to choose. The Bible alone hasn't been able to help me in my search. It gets me part of the way there, but leaves me with big unanswered questions. And you feel the same way. God is the only one who could settle such a debate.

[xanmad33]

Mormons believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God, indeed the LORD God, even Yaweh, the Great I Am. Are you saying you agree and that Jehovah did indeed do all those things that I asked about?

-a-train

I guess at this point I'm left wondering if you are just refusing to acknowledge our doctrinal differences with regard to Jesus/God?

I agree that Jesus (God) did those things. Did you read my other post about WHO that person/deity is to each of us

I guess if your basing your claim that we believe the same about Jesus on him dying alone, then I would submit to you that you do not know your own church's teachings on the subject very well.

We believe Jesus is the ONE and ONLY God.

But I will get some facts together from your church's doctrines and teachings on the subject to verify that for you and post them later... as for me, I will be back tomorrow to follow up with any other questions I was unable to adress today, please don't think I am ignoring anybody, however I do have a real life

I know it doesnt seem like it :)

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Jesus did not say that 'whoever believes but is not baptized shall not be save.' If baptism were necessary for salvation, there are many many significant verses which should be amended to read 'you are saved through faith and baptism.' However it is clear in the Bible that faith in Jesus Christ is what saves a person (Acts 16:30-31; Eph. 2:8-9).

Baptism is a distinct act of obedience, apart from salvation. Baptism with the Spirit places believers into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), while water baptism merely signifies to others that a person has professed Christ.

'you are save through faith and baptism.' Think of it like this, If we understand baptism to be an act of faith, then why do we need to write it? It is enough to say that we are saved, or rather exalted, by faith. Because it is implied that baptism would be a part of it.

Does not obedience add up to Salvation? A simple confession of Christ is not going to have any weight with Him will it? I say "I believe and am one of your followers, but I have lied and stolen from my neighbors whom I didn't really love and done other manner of wickedness." Those acts would be contrary to His teachings. Why will He feel a need to let you into the Kingdom of God if you did contrary to what He taught? Salvation is a blessing. There is a law(eternal) required for blessings. We have to abide the law appointed for that blessing to gain the blessing.

Baptism by Spirit puts believers into Christ's Church because the Holy Ghost acts as a seal. It seals the truth of the act done(baptism) in Heaven so that it counts for us in the eternities. That is why there has to be authority. The Holy Ghost is given, by authority, to those are baptized. Acts 8:17-18 The power is also the authority. Who has the power and authority to act in heaven as well as on Earth? Not just anybody. Not just believers, but those with the power and authority given them.

[Dale]

Was Jesus a ghost?

"And Jesus when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matthew 27:50)

"a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

Was Jesus spirit body created?

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." (Colossians 1:15)

I am aware of the common claim the word firstborn means priority, or pre-eminence. To me the explanation was invented by those who did not any part of the pre-mortal Jesus created. The Jesus and Lucifer are brothers idea is right there. Did only the Son have anything to do with creating the angels? Did the Father have no role in the creation of spirits?

Was this created spirit subordinate to God? What did Jesus spirit look like? Was his spirit actually a formless Ghost, or spirit?

"I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

I hear the argument that this means only the man Jesus is subordinate to God. But if the 2nd person of God has a body then his spirit is as much subordinate to God as his man part. Does not the brain of Jesus control what the spirit within him does? Or does he have no control of anything but his man parts?

Are the persons of God mere roles of God? Are they mere distinctions? Ar the three like the dumb persons of an actor in a play? Or are they as smart as three individual men?

"When we talk of God as a person, we naturally think of God as a person. But theologians like Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word 'person' with a different meaning. The word 'person' derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor's face-mask-mask-and, by extension, the role he takes in a play."

"all three major roles in the drama of human redemption are played by one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor:God."

"So when we talk of God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word."

I selected the above quotes from my copy of Understanding the Trinity by Allister E. McGrath.(Zondervan,1988 pages 130,131)

"Isaiah 43:10:b---"before me there was no God formed,neither shall there be after me." There was no Father God, or any other God, before the biblical God. There is not now and never will be, any other God! There are three person's, repeatedly declared to be God, forming the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. One God, with three eternal distinctions, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith by Floyd Mcekveen pg. 15.

To me the evidence for the three persons not being mere roles of God is overwhelming. The persons on not three mere roles played by God. The three are aware of each other. The persons an actor plays are not aware of each other like the persons of an actor are? an actor can play only one role at a time. The three are the three all the time.

Why cannot we view the three as like three humans? The only reason i keep finding given is the idea of one God would fall apart. The social Trinity idea goes against the Bible idea of one God, so we can't do it. Even if one rejects the persona term it still insults the intelligence of the three by denying they are persons. That denial exists inspite of their awareness of each other which is a trait of three humans.

What is the replacement word for persona since it is misleading when used in regards to God? See you have to deny the three are like humans. But i know of know word but the modern definition of persons that acknowledges the intelligence of the three. Any other definition of non-persons still teaches the three are like the dumb persons of an actor. So the creeds might as well keep persona as no other word protects the New Testament from the charge it mixes the idea of a social Trinity with mono-theism.

To me the Bible has to a hundred percent fit the creeds, or it fits the Anti-Trinitarian position better. I read someone like Floyd cite Isa.43:10 and think since i regard the persons as being defineable as persons it contradicts the New Testament as much as the idea of Gods. Try as i might to see the latin word persona as teaching true doctrine i see it instead as a cheap harmonization ploy. The persons seemed like three actor's, but Tertullian could not have that, so adopted that bogus word persona to insult the intelligence of the three. Very clearly the latin word persona denies the three no more have intelligence than the dumb persons an actor pretends to be. The actor God can be the only intelligence, or the New Testament wandered away from strict mono-theism.

I see a lot of mono-theistic verses in the Old and New Testaments. I even see some as fitting the Trinity idea well. But i see a certain number unless one puts a persona sticker on them that blatantly teaches God and Christ are two persons. I read at one time, or another every commentary thats supposed to harmonize these difficult passages with the crees. Rather than try and answer Isa.43:10 i simply honestly confess the scriptures contradict themselves when the New Testament got into the idea of three persons being God.

I have a hard time seeing Jesus in John 17:21,22 saying the three were pretend one in purpose. His use of the word "we" suggest he accepted the "us" and "our" of Genisis 1:26,27 literally. He certainly did not see them as mere plural of majesties. Even though the oneness of the three goes beyond one in purpose it presents further problems for them being mere roles of God. One cannot be one in purpose with oneself.

Plus if Jesus has a created spirit body that overly separates the essence of God. Unless their was an essence wearing that spirit body it would be like i would put my hand in a glove. This is basically all the omni-present God could do with Jesus body is wear it like a glove.

[a-train]

I agree that Jesus (God) did those things. Did you read my other post about WHO that person/deity is to each of us

I guess if your basing your claim that we believe the same about Jesus on him dying alone, then I would submit to you that you do not know your own church's teachings on the subject very well.

We believe Jesus is the ONE and ONLY God.

I will continue to show you the courtesy of asking you about your beliefs rather than telling you what you believe. Could you do the same for me? Please refrain from telling me what I believe. I am quite aware of my beliefs.

So, just so I can clarify: You believe that the ONE and ONLY God was physically born of a mortal woman in Palestine and grew from infancy to manhood on this earth, died, was resurrected with an immortal body of flesh and bone, and ascended to heaven to sit in His throne. Correct?

-a-train

[Dale]

I have in front of me a book entitled Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church: Is It Christian? by Carol Hanson. The book is also online as her ministry put it up. It had a good chapter 5 entitled Rejection of Biblical Reliability. I plan on taking sections out of it for discussion. I can't cite the title of the sections exactly as it does have a Copyrite on it. So i will make crude notes of what i am reading.

I will only make comments on page 59,60 tonight.

Proverbs 30:5,6-I see these verses as allowing scribes to tamper with God's flawless words. But that he would rebuke them and call them liar's. It can also mean if a person interprets added words, and meaning not in the Bible one can get a similar rebuke.

To me i don't have a low view of the Bible but an accurate view.

I would like Joseph Smith trust the original auto-graphs over the text as is now. Without seeing the lost original Bible books i see no absolute test of the reliability of the copies we have now. Joseph Smith 3rd once made a statement i agree with "We do not consider...the Bible infallible. We do not consider anything that passes through human hands to be infallible. We do not believe in the plenary [full] inspiration of the Bible" (Joseph Smith 3rd, President of the RLDS Church.) He did not even consider our own editions of the Book of Mormon in english, or french, ect infallible.

How many parts did Nephi feel got removed from the Bible? I feel David had many wives. But i think he had only seven. What many parts was Nephi thinking of when he made that statement? He may have counted a small stack of changes as many changes? Depending on what he meant by many it leaves room for much of the copies to be mostly just fine.

I know an Evangelical who will not use the NIV. He told me its corrupt producers were into works for salvation. I did not agree with him on his example. But i have had similar bad experiences with modern Bibles. Modern theological views can effect the form of translation. If Nephi, and God were being very picky they could count many changes Bible scholars would not. ( 1 Nephi 13) I think my friend was a KJV only believer. Maybe Nephi was an original Auto-graph only kind of believer.

[Elgama]

OK this is just a summary from what you have said please forgive me if its wrong but I really struggle with mainstream Christianity as a belief as much as I love it in someways, I hope you don't take them as a personal attack - they are not just I had many reasons for rejecting mainstream Christianity and was very relieved when my missionaries showed up:

Baptism is not essential for salvation? - or is the form of baptism is unimportant?

The model of the trinity you worship is also unimportant? - even though sometimes individual members of the Godhead are seen as much less important ?

What is Faith to you? I define it as Christ working within us - yot?

Someone who performs Good works with another belief and a sincere and real relationship with God - must be worshiping a different one? So who is the other God if he produces nothing but good?

Have you sincerely investigated other religions? Why did you reject them?

If you received divine revelation from God in a prayer if it told you a different interpretation of a scripture from that you already knew would you change it?

Would experience with God change your religious beliefs if they went against the Bible?

Does your interpretation of scripture change overtime?

How do you know the God you worship is real?

How do you know Paul, Moses and Abraham weren't fakes? - people living in their day didn't automatically recognise them as prophets, they rejected them like you do Joseph Smith or Thomas S Monson

Why do you go with the Jesus story in Christianity and not say the Pagan Mithras, Hindu Krishna, or Jesus the Islamic Prophet? or why go with Jesus at all and not be a Jew???? I just don't understand from your posts why you have so firmly gone with a book where one of the major prophets abandoned a wife and son to die, another killed hundreds of people, one had God kill children, two of the patriachs lied to save themselves and put their wife in danger, another denied Christ three times etc? - when you then go on and insist prophets in my Faith are perfect?

-Charley

[xanmad33]

Baptism is not essential for salvation? - or is the form of baptism is unimportant?

No, I don't believe so. Forgiveness of sins COMES BEFORE the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38). The gift of the Holy Ghost COMES BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:43-48).

Therefore, forgiveness of sins COMES BEFORE water baptism.

Jn. 3:5. states the whole purpose of the book of John being written, so that we "might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." , Christian baptism is ONLY referred to in the beginning of chapter 4 in this Gospel, with no connection with salvation. John's Gospel de-emphasizes water baptism. Conversely, it emphasizes TRUST IN JESUS ALONE FOR SALVATION.

We should always go with the full weight of scripture in times of confusion, and in it it's clear what is needed for salvation.

If this remains a problem for someone then I would suggest just going ahead and getting baptized, and be done with it! Run yourself a bath say a prayer and move on...

I am baptized, however mine was an act of obedience, not something I could do to save myself. Jesus' work on the cross, did everything for me, that's why he said "it is finished"

That's why Jonh 3:16 tells us that "whosoever believes" shall not perish.

The model of the trinity you worship is also unimportant? - even though sometimes individual members of the Godhead are seen as much less important ?

It is all very important, that's why it's so important to recognize Jesus as God. God sent himself down in the form of a man to relate to us (because it's all about relationship!)

because NOTHING we could ever do would make ourselves worthy to a holy and perfect God.

He gave us the law and we continually broke it, he did that to show us, we can NEVER keep his law! We can never be perfect. We will never be able to do it alone and we truly need him. He gave us the law because we wanted it, we wanted to prove that we could uphold his laws and be made ritcheous by our own works. He gave it to us to show us that nothing we could ever do could unite a HOLY god to sin. Nothing. It is not in his nature, it is impossible. So for us to be united to him for eternity, he made a new covenant and sent himself down in the form of a human, to conquer that which Adam failed.

The Bible says that Jesus came "at the fullness of time", that means we humans were finally ready for a savior, we finally figured out that we could never keep his law. We needed a savior and we were ready to hear what he had to say, we had matured to a point where it was time. It wasn't that God suddenly had to find another way, he knew what he would do all along, he was just waiting for us to mature and to get to a level of understanding where we could learn and grow in him. He is our Father and we are his children, he loves us enough to allow us to learn and grow (a huge part of the Bible is the lesson of reaping and sewing) He loves us enough that through our selfish arrogance he provided a way for us to be redeemed so we may be joined to a Holy God. There simply was no other way, his nature is perfect and it cannot ever be joined with sin.

In his deep love for us and his perfection he formulated his plan before he laid the foundations of the Earth. He crushed the power sin had over us and joined an imperfect mankind to a Holy God through atonement for our sins through the blood of Christ.

What is Faith to you?

Belief in something I cannot see. Belief That God is big enough to have made certain his Word would stand as he promised. and sooo much more

I define it as Christ working within us - yot?

Someone who performs Good works with another belief and a sincere and real relationship with God - must be worshiping a different one? So who is the other God if he produces nothing but good?

Have you sincerely investigated other religions? Why did you reject them?

Yes, I have investigated sincerely other religions, I rejected them for many reasons.

The God of the Bible is unique among all religions. He is the only loving God, who only askes you to love him back. He has given free will to all and pursues each and every one of us.

Good works are good, but they do not grant salvation.

Belief in the one and only true God does.

If you read what his word says, it warns us about things that seem "good"

it tells us of the deceptive nature of satan, and all the cunning and decietful ways he pulls our attention away from God because he knows your salvation is dependant on WHO God is.

I think too much we assume Satan is only working on the people who are obviously "bad" people who are on drugs, or murderers, etc.

But we need to remember, Satan comes disguised as an ANGEL OF LIGHT.

He will trick many of Gods people. We need to understand the very real implications of that.

If you received divine revelation from God in a prayer if it told you a different interpretation of a scripture from that you already knew would you change it?

According to the Bible that's exactly what Satan does. No, I would assume that becasue Satan can come as an "angel of LIGHT!" That I need to RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of God and search the scriptures.

There are many people throughout this world who claim just that, that "god" gave them a revelation, some murderers, some cultists, some regular joes. Are those all from God?

How do you really know? What is your litmuss test?

Would experience with God change your religious beliefs if they went against the Bible?

Does your interpretation of scripture change overtime?

I experience God all the time, we talk daily :)

My UNDERSTANDING od scripture is always gaining, because I read his word.

The Bible calls it the LIVING WORD becasue he speaks to us through it. But nothing he would ever say would be in conflict with what he has already said.

How do you know the God you worship is real?

How do you know Paul, Moses and Abraham weren't fakes? - people living in their day didn't automatically recognise them as prophets, they rejected them like you do Joseph Smith or Thomas S Monson

There are many reasons, if you are willing to watch this video, I think you will understand my position better. Its about 45 min long but well worth it! (the first 5 min is a scripture reading,)

The Reason For God Go down to where it says "sermons and studies" and click on the one titled: "Exclusivity: How can there be just one true religion?"

Why do you go with the Jesus story in Christianity and not say the Pagan Mithras, Hindu Krishna, or Jesus the Islamic Prophet? or why go with Jesus at all and not be a Jew???? I just don't understand from your posts why you have so firmly gone with a book where one of the major prophets abandoned a wife and son to die, another killed hundreds of people, one had God kill children, two of the patriachs lied to save themselves and put their wife in danger, another denied Christ three times etc? - when you then go on and insist prophets in my Faith are perfect?

-Charley

If you watch the above video, it actually talks specifically about that.

In short, thats all the more reason to believe

p.s. I never insisted your prophet be perfect, I just asked how you hold him accountable? The prophets of the Bible were all held accountable to his Word.

There are sooo many other good questions and I will be popping in and out as best I can, but I am only one peron and I may not be able to get to everything.

I chose to answer this becasue I think it touches on a lot of other questions posted here for me already.

and a-train, im sorry for offending you, it was late, and I was just feeling like you were here to fight with me, because you kept writing the same thing, and I thought I answered it because to me the differences were obvious. I will take some time later to thouroughly go over your question with the respect it deserves, thanks for your patience, and I really am sorry for my snippy attitude :)

[xanmad33]

'you are save through faith and baptism.' Think of it like this, If we understand baptism to be an act of faith, then why do we need to write it? It is enough to say that we are saved, or rather exalted, by faith. Because it is implied that baptism would be a part of it.

Does not obedience add up to Salvation? A simple confession of Christ is not going to have any weight with Him will it? I say "I believe and am one of your followers, but I have lied and stolen from my neighbors whom I didn't really love and done other manner of wickedness." Those acts would be contrary to His teachings. Why will He feel a need to let you into the Kingdom of God if you did contrary to what He taught? Salvation is a blessing. There is a law(eternal) required for blessings. We have to abide the law appointed for that blessing to gain the blessing.

No. God KNOWS the heart, you cannot fool him.

With the logic you just presented here, Christ died in vain.

If it was not enough, why did he die?

If salvation was something to be earned, then why did Christ come?

He is the namesake of your church, but what did he do for that honor?

Good works are a result of grace, not a way to achieve it (Gal. 5:22-23 and Eph. 2). One doesn't earn or pay for a gift. That grace however is not a license to sin, those who truly love God will want to please Him.

Salvation comes only by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), it is not based on our righteous works (Titus 3:3-5). If we could attain salvation by obeying the law, then Christ dieath was in vain (Galatians 2:21). We can be righteous before God only on the basis of the righteousness of Christ. Though Christ was without sin, he paid the penalty due our sin so that we would be declared righteous before God (2 Corinthians 5:21, Ephesians 2:1-5).

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4).

"I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21).

"He saved us not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to his mercy" (Titus 3:5).

[Elgama]

I did have a thought about this thread whilst I was praying last night - over the years I haven't needed to do it much I now know which is Satan and which is God but during a period when I was unsure I used to ask the spirit if it was evil to leave in the name of Jesus Christ - now Jesus ain't scared of His own name - and actually all bar once when I was unsure the spirit left or changed.

My next question is why do you think Jesus got baptised?

-Charley

[xanmad33]

My next question is why do you think Jesus got baptised?

-Charley

Christ was not in need of Baptism, at all...

He submitted Himself to Baptism as He left His parents and community and claimed God as His Father. It was a huge statement in Jesus' day.

By voluntarily getting baptized He not only offered an example, but He became and fulfilled all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). Also, because He completely emptied Himself and “became like us in all things but sin”, the baptism was a manifestation of His humanity (Phil. 2:7)

Also we need to remember that Christ had not yet died upon the cross, so the salvific action and redemptive work of the Crucifixion and Resurrection had not yet occurred; that being the case, Christ’s remission of our sins through his death, was not yet possible for the folks whom John was baptizing.

[Elgama]

Christ was not in need of Baptism, at all...

He submitted Himself to Baptism as He left His parents and community and claimed God as His Father. It was a huge statement in Jesus' day.

By voluntarily getting baptized He not only offered an example, but He became and fulfilled all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). Also, because He completely emptied Himself and “became like us in all things but sin”, the baptism was a manifestation of His humanity (Phil. 2:7)

Also we need to remember that Christ had not yet died upon the cross, so the salvific action and redemptive work of the Crucifixion and Resurrection had not yet occurred; that being the case, Christ’s remission of our sins through his death, was not yet possible for the folks whom John was baptizing.

Do you not view the atonement as eternal covering before and after the event?

[xanmad33]

So, just so I can clarify: You believe that the ONE and ONLY God was physically born of a mortal woman in Palestine and grew from infancy to manhood on this earth, died, was resurrected with an immortal body of flesh and bone, and ascended to heaven to sit in His throne. Correct?

-a-train

my beliefs about Jesus:

There is only one true God, Who is revealed in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the Word (Logos) of God. The Word was with God in the beginning, which states His pre-existence as one with God. "By Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth" (Colossians 1:16), therefore making Jesus the Creator. Jesus Christ is the Purpose of God found in all of creation. He is the Father's delight and desire, and the Father is looking for the reflection of His Son in all created things. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. In the beginning, it was the ultimate purpose of God for all things to be summed up in Christ (Ephesians 1:10).

Jesus Christ, Who pre-existed with God in the form of God, emptied Himself to become fully a man that He might be the propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Through His propitiatory sacrifice made on the cross, all who believe in Him and His sacrifice have their sins remitted and are restored to the fellowship with God lost by man's transgression.

Jesus was born of a virgin, by the seed of the Holy Spirit. His virgin birth is a testimony that only the Spirit can beget that which is Spirit. Those of the new creation are not solely of human origin, but are born from above by the Holy Spirit. The resurrection of Jesus' physical body after His crucifixion was literal.

"There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Timothy 2:5). All who seek restoration and fellowship with God must go through Jesus and cannot approach God through any person, spirit or doctrine. It is also a supreme presumption for any person or institution to seek to be mediator for others in place of Christ Jesus Himself.

[xanmad33]

Do you not view the atonement as eternal covering before and after the event?

Yes, but my example earlier was that prior to the atonement there was temple sacrifice and worship etc. for the remittance of sins--and that believing in God was counted to them as ritcheousness--

When Jesus died, the Bible tells us that he went down to the bowels of the earth and preached to the people who were held there...

There were people who's judgement was being withheld until the atonement, and after he was crucified, he went and he led them out of hell.

I hope that helps...if not I will have to come back later cause I'm exhausted!:)

[a-train]

OK,

So you DO believe God (Jesus specifically) 'emptied Himself' and became 'fully a man' on this earth. Correct?

And, you believe that God (Jesus) DOES have a body of flesh and bone. Correct?

Mormons also believe that Jesus created all things, that He is the Alpha and Omega, the Pleasing Son of the Father, the Beginning and the End, etc.

Further, it is Mormon doctrine that Jesus Himself is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind and only in and through Him can man be saved from sin and death and be at one with God.

You said in post 27:

'The Bible teaches That God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God —He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37).

the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).'

This sounds like you are saying that God (Jesus) does NOT have a body of flesh and bone and the Mormon belief that He does is unbiblical and untrue. Don't you believe He has a body of flesh and bone?

Further, it sounds as though you are saying that any expression that God (Jesus) is a man is unbiblical and untrue. But the verse you just quoted (1 Tim. 2:5) says exactly that: 'The man Christ Jesus.' Do you believe that indeed God 'emptied Himself' and became 'fully a man' or not? I cannot tell exactly what your position is.

-a-train

[Dale]

Xan-Do you have an alternative to the latin word persona? The idea of the persons being non-persons makes no sense to me. They seem as smart individually like three humans. Do you feel they are not smart, so can be defined as three non-persons? Of course the Trinity idea is not saying they are dumb. God is smart. But to define the three as non-persons is to say they are dumb otherwise they are three smart individuals.

I think the idea of three distinct centers of consciousness within God comes close to Tri-theism. The latin word persona, and other similar words if they exist are the only valid defense the creeds have against the idea it mixes the idea of God with persons who are like Gods. It seem like the creeds were written by theologians who wanted mono-theism, but also distinct persons within God. So they blended together ideas that were contradictory by adopting the latin word persona to pretend everything they were saying about God and the Godhead (Trinity) made sense.

[xanmad33]

OK,

So you DO believe God (Jesus specifically) 'emptied Himself' and became 'fully a man' on this earth. Correct?

And, you believe that God (Jesus) DOES have a body of flesh and bone. Correct?

Mormons also believe that Jesus created all things, that He is the Alpha and Omega, the Pleasing Son of the Father, the Beginning and the End, etc.

Further, it is Mormon doctrine that Jesus Himself is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind and only in and through Him can man be saved from sin and death and be at one with God.

You said in post 27:

This sounds like you are saying that God (Jesus) does NOT have a body of flesh and bone and the Mormon belief that He does is unbiblical and untrue. Don't you believe He has a body of flesh and bone?

Further, it sounds as though you are saying that any expression that God (Jesus) is a man is unbiblical and untrue. But the verse you just quoted (1 Tim. 2:5) says exactly that: 'The man Christ Jesus.' Do you believe that indeed God 'emptied Himself' and became 'fully a man' or not? I cannot tell exactly what your position is.

-a-train

It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to ever stop being God.

What I mean when I say: "emptied himself" and became "fully a man"

is that God became human for a season, he never stopped being God. But he himself halted if you will, his rights and priveledges as God, for a time so he could become our high priest.

He allowed himself to be tempted as we are, suffering as we are, and going through all the strife that we go through.

He subjected himself to that--on purpose, for a purpose, for a season and for a reason. He said "you have seen me you have seen the father" What Jesus did, even though he and the father were one in the same was to become like us in all ways but sin, to conquer it and to redeem us.

------------

Here is some further clarification of Mormon doctrine on God

--Joseph Smith taught: "I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345);

--Joseph Smith continues: "God himself...is a man like unto one of yourselves...God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth...You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves" (Times and Seasons, vol.5, pp.613-614); "Here then is eternal life---to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves...the same as all Gods have done before you...To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.346-347).

--Brigham Young taught: "He [God] ...was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being...It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God was once been a finite being" (Journal of Discourses, vol.7, p.333); "The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself" (Journal of Discourses, vol.3, p.93).

--Here is Joseph Smith's revelation about Mormons attaining to the celestial kingdom: "These are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized...who have received of his fullness, and of his glory...they are gods" (Doctrine and Covenants 76: 51-58).

--James Talmage explains: "We believe in a God who is Himself progressive...whose perfection consists in eternal advancement...a Being who has attained His exalted state"(A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.430, 1952).

--Heber C. Kimbal wrote: "We shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on" (Journal of Discourses, vol.5, p.19); "our God is a natural man...where did he get his knowledge from? From his father, just as we get our knowledge from our earthly parents" (Journal of Discourses, vol.8, p.211).

--Orson Pratt wrote: "The Gods who dwell in heaven...were once in a fallen state...they were exalted also, from fallen men to celestial Gods" (The Seer, p.23); "our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; "He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another" (The Seer, p.132).

--Milton R. Hunter wrote: "God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became a God" (The Gospel Through the Ages, p.104);"there was a time when the Deity was much less powerful than He is today...He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He became a God by absolute obedience..." (The Gospel Through the Ages, p.114-115).

--Bruce McConkie states: "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorious, exalted, immortal, resurrected man" (Mormon Doctrine, p.642-643); "God...is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man...an anthropomorphic entity" (Mormon Doctrine, p.250); "as the Prophet [Joseph Smith] also taught, 'there is a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'" (Mormon Doctrine, p.322, 1966).

--Joseph Fielding Smith stated: "God is an exalted man...our Father in Heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man...The Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on...promises are made to us that we may become like him" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, p.10-12).

Mormon leaders have continued to teach this doctrine, as is evident by a few quotes from recent President and Prophet Spencer W. Kimball in official LDS periodicals:

-"Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose that 225,000 of you may become gods" (from a speech published in The Ensign, November 1975, 1980).

-"In each of us is the potentiality to become a God" (Tribune, Oct. 7, 1974).

-"Man can transform himself, but he has in him the seeds of Godhood that can grow. He can lift himself by his very bootstraps" (Tribune, Sept. 18, 1974).

-"In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the [LDS] Church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is God once was; as God is, man may be'" (James Talmage in The Articles of Faith, a widely circulated LDS doctrinal book).

No matter how hard one tries to read between the lines of scripture, these claims can never be supported.

[xanmad33]

Xan-Do you have an alternative to the latin word persona? The idea of the persons being non-persons makes no sense to me. They seem as smart individually like three humans. Do you feel they are not smart, so can be defined as three non-persons? Of course the Trinity idea is not saying they are dumb. God is smart. But to define the three as non-persons is to say they are dumb otherwise they are three smart individuals.

I think the idea of three distinct centers of consciousness within God comes close to Tri-theism. The latin word persona, and other similar words if they exist are the only valid defense the creeds have against the idea it mixes the idea of God with persons who are like Gods. It seem like the creeds were written by theologians who wanted mono-theism, but also distinct persons within God. So they blended together ideas that were contradictory by adopting the latin word persona to pretend everything they were saying about God and the Godhead (Trinity) made sense.

My brain is hurting

Really, I think this could go on forever, but in short, I think the opposite of what you said

I think it's IMPOSSIBLE for man to comprehend God, it says as much in scripture.

I think the more we try to fit him in some small human rationalle the more we miss the entire point .

He has come as one of us, to relate to us more, thats what it's all about...RELATIONSHIP! Becasue we can NEVER understand the fullness of who God is, he comes in many ways. He reveals himself through his word, both written and incarnate, he is revealed to us as the father, the son and as the holy spirit.

He is bigger than each individual part, that is why the father always points to the son and the son always points to the father and likewise the holy spirit, this is because he is too large to be contained. His attemts to show us that truth, and to relate to us as his creation, is shown through those distinct parts of his charachter,

I hope I said that right, as it is in my head

[Misshalfway]

No matter how hard one tries to read between the lines of scripture, these claims can never be supported.

Honey, Look. You are right. These ideas don't come directly from the Bible. They come from revelation. Which I think lots of folks are trying to explain is one of the foundations of our faith. We love the Bible. But it is the revelation/testimony about the truthfulness of the Bible and the Savior that is most important to a Latter-day Saint. You yourself said that God is something that we can't really understand... our wee little brains. So as far as you know, we could be right. We argue that God is something we can understand... because we are literally like him. We are children of God and that just as human children grow into adults, if we are obedient to eternal law, we will receive all that the Father has. Becoming a God sounds scary.... like we are exalting ourselves. It is not really that. We believe in progression and that we can become a God just like a child becomes an adult. Godhood in this sense is like spiritual maturity. But having said that, Our Beloved Father in Heaven will always be our Father. We could never exceed him. I know that these concepts are disturbing to the Christian world. I don't expect them to be easy concepts to accept. But, I do know that believing that accepting Christ and then becoming saved and then spending the rest of earth life and the eternities singing praises seems pretty meaningless to me. Worshiping God is an important concept. But to what end? God is already perfect and glorious. He has no need of my worship. The process of worshipping is an exercise for the discipline and education of the children of men. We are here to learn.... to make our mistakes in hopes that we will become wiser. And because of our Savior, we can literally overcome sin and death and become resurrected and have perfect a body just the same as the Lord's. Gaining a resurrected body is part of our inheritance. That blessing will come to every soul who was born on the earth regardless of faith. Why else is there good news? Why else would Christ return to show his body to the twelve and let them feel the prints in his hands and feet? The spiritual blessings of exaltation will only come to those who obey eternal law and who progress in all the Christ-like nature. In this way, each will be judged fairly on the heart, and given a just reward.

Again, if you want to understand the mind of a mormon, you must understand that we rely on revelation to discover the mysteries of God. And we believe in progression.

[a-train]

It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to ever stop being God.

What I mean when I say: "emptied himself" and became "fully a man"

is that God became human for a season, he never stopped being God. But he himself halted if you will, his rights and priveledges as God, for a time so he could become our high priest.

He allowed himself to be tempted as we are, suffering as we are, and going through all the strife that we go through.

He subjected himself to that--on purpose, for a purpose, for a season and for a reason. He said "you have seen me you have seen the father" What Jesus did, even though he and the father were one in the same was to become like us in all ways but sin, to conquer it and to redeem us.

Listen, I appreciate your efforts, but I am VIVIDLY aware of Mormon doctrine and the writings and words of LDS leaders. You will not require lengthy quotations of LDS leaders to educate me on the matter. I am a lifelong Mormon and I personally own and have studied all my life the books from which you are quoting.

Let us take one of those quotes: 'God is an exalted man...our Father in Heaven at one time passed through a life and death and is an exalted man...The Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught that our Father had a Father and so on...promises are made to us that we may become like him.'

Is Jesus NOT our Father in Heaven?

Is He not exalted?

Did He not live on this earth in every way a man?

Did He not pass through life and death?

Does He not have a Father in Heaven like us?

Do we not have any promise from Him that we may become like Him?

Are not these questions answered plainly in the Bible?

-a-train

[Maya]

Hi Xanmad..your problem is you are jumpping over some steps here... be careful or you loose the balance...

You believe in God that is good, we do to. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost? We dont say God the Father, God Jeus, God HG.... As it is Father who is God Allmighty. You should learn the basics first...

What we in all simplicity believe is written in our scriptures. What prophets or anyone said IS NOT DOCTORINE unless it can be found in our scriptures. We are allowed to think to ponder, to dream... to develope. Our religion is not death but living. People who are brave and have a great understanding make it live, not alter but live. Dont worry about what someone said unless you find it in the scriptures. And if you find it in the scriptures....

The fall for trinity in my opinion is that I dont think Jesus called to himself when he was hanging on the cross and said Eli Eli lama sabaktani... neither did He pary for himself to Himself but God the Father, who was in the heven and sitl is.

About mistakes or wrong translations, lost parts... My grandfather was in the translation comedy of the bible in to my language... It is amazing to read all teh discusitons of words which should be used and where and how much they.. just a word can alter the menaing. I often ahve a bible i 3 languages in front of me ... and EACH and evey one of them has used a word that has a completely diferent meaning. OH I just red something in those 3 and as I red the KJV...I finally undertood WHY the LDS believe as they do in that... but unfortunately I cant remember what it was... but the bible is FULL of such things. Anyway the KJV IS SAID to be the best (not a doctorine though). So I think that is great.. even my bible in my language is not as accurate as the KJV!

I also noticed that they left out and cahnged some words in the latest translation, which turns the meaning completely... and not to favour of LDS... Also the part where theybt alk about babtizing the death has been under discusition to take away... just imagine how easy it then is to say that there is NO mentoining of babtizing for the death in the Bible... of course not as it is taken away...

Take a step at the time... dont hurry and ty to understand it all right away, dont leap over the steps... I was a protestant before, now I understand the Bible better.

This is just my humble opinion... Peace with you friend. Good night.

[Hemidakota]

Interesting post.