are the latter-day-saints actual christians or just looney?

[the_last_gunslinger]

God did not author the Book of Mormon. He did not give it to mankind. There is no other testament of Jesus Christ!

Clearly we disagree on this. I don't see any reason to to debate this point. You've already made up your mind regarding this issue and I have as well. You can't prove one way or the other its validity.

Study things out in our minds? Well, Holy Spirit is our teacher. We aren't to rely on our own fleshly thinking and understanding to know the truth. God warns us about the flesh. We need to not pray 'eventually' but pray FIRST before even opening His word, that Holy Spirit would teach us and reveal to us the truth of any matter and show us the lie.

I don't think I ever claimed that I relied on the flesh. I agree with the Spirit as teacher. What does a teacher do? He instructs. And a student listens, studies so he can come to a firmer grasp of gospel principles. Of course the Spirit ought not be left out of the equation. It would be foolish to do so. I've followed the admonition to pray continuously, constantly striving communion with God to the point where I don't merely have faith in the church, but a certainty of its truthfulness.

I do that, and He tells me in no uncertain terms that LDS is a false religion---big time. I will not argue with God about that. He told me that way back in 1969, when a couple of Mormon missionaries handed me the Book of Mormon when my mother was at work and I was home for the summer holidays. I asked the Lord to show me if it was the truth first, then I opened it and began to read. Immediately I was made aware of the awkward language and even grammatical errors there, and knew that my God did not author that book---that a mere man NOT anointed by the Spirit of God did. I showed my mother the book and she gave it back to the missionaries who came by the next day to speak to me. She headed them off before they could get to the door. They told her I was a very smart young girl. They were right, and it was because of the grace of God, although I don't know why they would say that in light of their being spurned.  I am still that discerning person, thank God Almighty.

All the missionaries can do is present you with the gospel. If you choose to reject that, well, that's your prerogative and I hopefully you're content with your spiritual path. I'm not going to argue over whether or not God made this known to you, but I'm skeptical since He's revealed the exact opposite to me in much clearer terms than simply "feelings." But it seems to me like you were put off because of the way the book was written, which doesn't make a lot of sense. The Bible's one of the clunkiest things I've ever read, but that doesn't make it untrue. Just because a prophet wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit doesn't mean he was necessarily a good writer. As far as grammatical errors, I recall you mentioning that before, yet you were unable to give a single example of one. You do realize that the Bible is full of incorrect grammar, don't you? Does that change your opinion of the Bible as well?

The missionaries probably commended your intelligence because they are servants of the Lord and are taught to love and see the goodness in everyone, even if disagreements regarding religion are prevalent.

[Lively Stone]

All the missionaries can do is present you with the gospel.

I had the gospel already, being a born again Christian. These people do not offer the gospel, as proven by the fact that they gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon, and not the Bible.

If you choose to reject that, well, that's your prerogative and I hopefully you're content with your spiritual path. I'm not going to argue over whether or not God made this known to you, but I'm skeptical since He's revealed the exact opposite to me in much clearer terms than simply "feelings."

Holy Spirit tells us in no uncertain terms what is false. I didn't rely on feelings even then.

But it seems to me like you were put off because of the way the book was written, which doesn't make a lot of sense. The Bible's one of the clunkiest things I've ever read, but that doesn't make it untrue.

The way it was written with errors and awkward, uneducated syntax is a good rule of thumb it was not inspired by God. The Bible is an anointed, supernaturally alive book, inspired by God.

Just because a prophet wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit doesn't mean he was necessarily a good writer. As far as grammatical errors, I recall you mentioning that before, yet you were unable to give a single example of one. You do realize that the Bible is full of incorrect grammar, don't you? Does that change your opinion of the Bible as well?

If it was anointed and God-inspired, there would be Holy Spirit power and truth coming from it. Instead, there was deadness.

How could you expect me to remember the grammatical errors I came across back in 1969? The Bible doesn't contain incorrect grammar.

The missionaries probably commended your intelligence because they are servants of the Lord and are taught to love and see the goodness in everyone, even if disagreements regarding religion are prevalent.

We were grateful to God that they were impressed by a teenager's faith.

[the_last_gunslinger]

I had the gospel already, being a born again Christian. These people do not offer the gospel, as proven by the fact that they gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon, and not the Bible.

I'm sure you honestly believe that. I still maintain that the fulness of the gospel can only be found in the LDS religion. This isn't even a question to me that the church is true. The same mechanism you used to discard the religion brought me to it.

Holy Spirit tells us in no uncertain terms what is false. I didn't rely on feelings even then.

Yes, which is how I know that Mormonism is the only church that does possess the truth; the Spirit has allowed me to perceive the errors in the uninspired teachings of the rest of Christianity. I can see the good that they all have, but without the fulness of the gospel and the authority of God's priesthood, they are useless to me.

The way it was written with errors and awkward, uneducated syntax is a good rule of thumb it was not inspired by God. The Bible is an anointed, supernaturally alive book, inspired by God.

And what is your rationale for this? And why do you hold the Book of Mormon to a standard the Bible can't pass?

If it was anointed and God-inspired, there would be Holy Spirit power and truth coming from it. Instead, there was deadness.

This is based off of your observations and experiences. The Spirit is strongest with me when actively engaged in the reading of the Book of Mormon. I know it's true beyond any doubt. It's not even a question of belief for me anymore.

How could you expect me to remember the grammatical errors I came across back in 1969? The Bible doesn't contain incorrect grammar.

I don't expect you to produce them, mainly because I don't believe your claim for one very good reason. The Book of Mormon authors wrote in an amalgamated script in shorthand upon the plates, using a language that is lost to Man. Tell me how you could detect grammatical errors in a lost language for which you do not know or understand the rules of grammar as pertaining to this language. Certainly the Book of Mormon doesn't mirror perfectly English grammar or syntax, but the prophets of this scriptural book didn't speak English so there is obviously going to be some discrepancies.

And yes, there are grammatical errors in the Bible. Do a quick google search. There are tons of them. In the Revelation of John, there are numerous instances where the wording represents incorrect Greek grammar. This doesn't mean John wasn't inspired, only that the translation process from one language to the next is inexact.

[Lively Stone]

I had the gospel already, being a born again Christian. These people do not offer the gospel, as proven by the fact that they gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon, and not the Bible.

I'm sure you honestly believe that. I still maintain that the fulness of the gospel can only be found in the LDS religion. This isn't even a question to me that the church is true. The same mechanism you used to discard the religion brought me to it.

There is no religion that contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus hates religion. There is no 'church' that is true except the Church of Jesus Christ, His Body, made up of all believers and followers of Jesus Christ and followers of His holy word.

Holy Spirit tells us in no uncertain terms what is false. I didn't rely on feelings even then.

Yes, which is how I know that Mormonism is the only church that does possess the truth; the Spirit has allowed me to perceive the errors in the uninspired teachings of the rest of Christianity. I can see the good that they all have, but without the fulness of the gospel and the authority of God's priesthood, they are useless to me.

Holy Spirit doesn't tell one person that a religion is false and another that it is true. There is only ONE CHURCH, and it doesn't bear the name LDS. You have been deceived by a deceiving spirit.

The way it was written with errors and awkward, uneducated syntax is a good rule of thumb it was not inspired by God. The Bible is an anointed, supernaturally alive book, inspired by God.

And what is your rationale for this? And why do you hold the Book of Mormon to a standard the Bible can't pass?

The Bible IS the standard!

If it was anointed and God-inspired, there would be Holy Spirit power and truth coming from it. Instead, there was deadness.

This is based off of your observations and experiences. The Spirit is strongest with me when actively engaged in the reading of the Book of Mormon. I know it's true beyond any doubt. It's not even a question of belief for me anymore.

That is not Holy Spirit moving. The problem is that it is a matter of UNBELIEF for you.

How could you expect me to remember the grammatical errors I came across back in 1969? The Bible doesn't contain incorrect grammar.

I don't expect you to produce them, mainly because I don't believe your claim for one very good reason. The Book of Mormon authors wrote in an amalgamated script in shorthand upon the plates, using a language that is lost to Man. Tell me how you could detect grammatical errors in a lost language for which you do not know or understand the rules of grammar as pertaining to this language. Certainly the Book of Mormon doesn't mirror perfectly English grammar or syntax, but the prophets of this scriptural book didn't speak English so there is obviously going to be some discrepancies.

That is a story of Satanic origin. If the Book of Mormon was inspired by God, it would have been produced without grammatical error, and it wouldn't read like an eighth grader's essay, and it would be noted by Christians the world over that it is alive with Holy Spirit power.

It isn't.

And yes, there are grammatical errors in the Bible. Do a quick google search. There are tons of them. In the Revelation of John, there are numerous instances where the wording represents incorrect Greek grammar. This doesn't mean John wasn't inspired, only that the translation process from one language to the next is inexact.

Translation can be slightly off, and copyists have made some minor mistakes, but the written word of God is correct, perfect and divinely inspired, powerful to change lives and to produce great things. God's word is perfect and is complete! The Book of Mormon is a Johnny-come-lately manuscript that pretends---poorly---to be another gospel message.

It isn't.

[the_last_gunslinger]

There is no religion that contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus hates religion. There is no 'church' that is true except the Church of Jesus Christ, His Body, made up of all believers and followers of Jesus Christ and followers of His holy word.

Jesus only hates man-made religions. Christ formed a religion while on earth. This idea that religion is evil is just asinine.

Holy Spirit doesn't tell one person that a religion is false and another that it is true. There is only ONE CHURCH, and it doesn't bear the name LDS. You have been deceived by a deceiving spirit.

Or maybe you were deceived by an evil spirit.  I agree there is only one true church...That's why I'm in it.

The Bible IS the standard!

This isn't an answer. I asked why you hold the Book of Mormon to a standard the Bible can't pass. The same criticism you leveled at the BoM would condemn the Bible also.  Your answer is entirely devoid of meaning in this context and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

That is not Holy Spirit moving. The problem is that it is a matter of UNBELIEF for you.

I can say the same of you. I don't believe you have the Holy Spirit with you, so naturally I don't believe your claims that the Spirit told you the church was wrong.

That is a story of Satanic origin. If the Book of Mormon was inspired by God, it would have been produced without grammatical error, and it wouldn't read like an eighth grader's essay, and it would be noted by Christians the world over that it is alive with Holy Spirit power.

It isn't.

I give you sound logic and rather than addressing the issue, you counter with another ill-begotten answer. Where is this rule that says any scripture must be in perfect modern English grammatic structure in order to be from God? What about the fact that grammar and syntax rules change over time? The KJV of the Bible is fraught with incomplete sentences, and incorrect punctuation. So you must doubt the Bible as well. If not, we're back to your double standard regarding the level of scrutiny placed on scriptures.

Saying the Book of Mormon reads like an 8th grader's essay is a new one and directly conflicts with the often believed notion that the Book of Mormon is in fact far too complex for Joseph Smith to have written by himself, and the belief that he must have had the help of a trained theologian. Both positions can't be right.

And for the record, close textual studies of the Book of Mormon indicate that many complex Hebrew literary styles were employed throughout, like its use of the poetic form, chiasmus. Chiasmus is a form of poetic parallelism  in which related or contrasting ideas are placed in juxtaposition for emphasis. Chiasmus uses "inverted parallelism," and takes its name from the Greek letter chi (χ) which looks like an English "X". There are many complex examples of this in the Book of Mormon and what's really impressive is that there is a very low probability Joseph Smith would have been aware of this style and no chance of him being able to reproduce it so fully for so long.

There is also amble evidences of "hebraisms," throughout the text, meaning that the language and grammar of the words is consistent with how Hebrew speaking people would have understood it. So claiming the Book is overtly simplistic shows that one either did not read it or does not understand the rich complexities existent therein.

Translation can be slightly off, and copyists have made some minor mistakes, but the written word of God is correct, perfect and divinely inspired, powerful to change lives and to produce great things. God's word is perfect and is complete! The Book of Mormon is a Johnny-come-lately manuscript that pretends---poorly---to be another gospel message.

That still doesn't address the issue, though. I'm not just speaking about translations. The Book of Revelations uses incorrect grammar numerous times. By your logic, then, the Bible can't be divinely inspired because of its grammar. For the record, I reject your premise and don't believe for a minute that God literally made the writer's write in perfect grammar. If you forgot to put a period at the end of a sentence for a school essay, it doesn't mean that the content is wrong.

I agree, though that God's word is perfect and complete. Unlike you, however, I don't have the audacity to tell God that He cannot reveal more to us if he so chooses, which is the position you take when claiming that all God's truth is contained within the Bible. Where does that belief even come from, because the Bible certainly doesn't state it.

It isn't.

It is.

[Lively Stone]

There is no religion that contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus hates religion. There is no 'church' that is true except the Church of Jesus Christ, His Body, made up of all believers and followers of Jesus Christ and followers of His holy word.

Jesus only hates man-made religions. Christ formed a religion while on earth. This idea that religion is evil is just asinine.

Yes, Jesus hates all religion, because they are man-made, and that included Mormonism. Jesus didn't come to suffer and die the way He did to start a religion! He came to give us salvation and freedom---eternal life!

Holy Spirit doesn't tell one person that a religion is false and another that it is true. There is only ONE CHURCH, and it doesn't bear the name LDS. You have been deceived by a deceiving spirit.

Or maybe you were deceived by an evil spirit.  I agree there is only one true church...That's why I'm in it.

That is a deception of the first order. I obey God who tells me not to allow myself to be deceived. A Mormon has not obeyed that command and has allowed some teachings of errant men to cloud their spiritual sight.

The Bible IS the standard!

This isn't an answer. I asked why you hold the Book of Mormon to a standard the Bible can't pass. The same criticism you leveled at the BoM would condemn the Bible also.  Your answer is entirely devoid of meaning in this context and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.[/quote]

The Bible IS the standard!

That is not Holy Spirit moving. The problem is that it is a matter of UNBELIEF for you.

I can say the same of you. I don't believe you have the Holy Spirit with you, so naturally I don't believe your claims that the Spirit told you the church was wrong.

Holy Spirit lives in me by the promise of God to all those who have experienced the rebirth. The word of God is my authority and it teaches me that you are in dire deception believing in the teachings of the Mormon church. God is not a part of any of it.

That is a story of Satanic origin. If the Book of Mormon was inspired by God, it would have been produced without grammatical error, and it wouldn't read like an eighth grader's essay, and it would be noted by Christians the world over that it is alive with Holy Spirit power.

It isn't.

I give you sound logic and rather than addressing the issue, you counter with another ill-begotten answer. Where is this rule that says any scripture must be in perfect modern English grammatic structure in order to be from God? What about the fact that grammar and syntax rules change over time? The KJV of the Bible is fraught with incomplete sentences, and incorrect punctuation. So you must doubt the Bible as well. If not, we're back to your double standard regarding the level of scrutiny placed on scriptures.

Saying the Book of Mormon reads like an 8th grader's essay is a new one and directly conflicts with the often believed notion that the Book of Mormon is in fact far too complex for Joseph Smith to have written by himself, and the belief that he must have had the help of a trained theologian. Both positions can't be right.

And for the record, close textual studies of the Book of Mormon indicate that many complex Hebrew literary styles were employed throughout, like its use of the poetic form, chiasmus. Chiasmus is a form of poetic parallelism  in which related or contrasting ideas are placed in juxtaposition for emphasis. Chiasmus uses "inverted parallelism," and takes its name from the Greek letter chi (χ) which looks like an English "X". There are many complex examples of this in the Book of Mormon and what's really impressive is that there is a very low probability Joseph Smith would have been aware of this style and no chance of him being able to reproduce it so fully for so long.

There is also amble evidences of "hebraisms," throughout the text, meaning that the language and grammar of the words is consistent with how Hebrew speaking people would have understood it. So claiming the Book is overtly simplistic shows that one either did not read it or does not understand the rich complexities existent therein.

I stand by what I have said. the Book of Mormon is a book written with demonic intelligence and a simpleton like Joseph Smith has submitted his life to that demonic force and has been a tool to deceive far too many.

Translation can be slightly off, and copyists have made some minor mistakes, but the written word of God is correct, perfect and divinely inspired, powerful to change lives and to produce great things. God's word is perfect and is complete! The Book of Mormon is a Johnny-come-lately manuscript that pretends---poorly---to be another gospel message.

That still doesn't address the issue, though. I'm not just speaking about translations. The Book of Revelations uses incorrect grammar numerous times. By your logic, then, the Bible can't be divinely inspired because of its grammar. For the record, I reject your premise and don't believe for a minute that God literally made the writer's write in perfect grammar. If you forgot to put a period at the end of a sentence for a school essay, it doesn't mean that the content is wrong.

I agree, though that God's word is perfect and complete. Unlike you, however, I don't have the audacity to tell God that He cannot reveal more to us if he so chooses, which is the position you take when claiming that all God's truth is contained within the Bible. Where does that belief even come from, because the Bible certainly doesn't state it.

I have no boldness to tell God anything. He tells us that His word is complete and that there is no other gospel or further revelation!

Jesus Christ is the Word, and He, as God's Son, has given Himself and there is no further revelation from Him.

Excerpted from: http://www.bible-teaching-about.com/specialrevelation.html :

Revelation 22:18-19
And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

Not to seek new revelation

1. First, there is a general biblical taboo against seeking new revelation (Isaiah 8:19-20; 19:3; 29:4; 47:12, 13; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:4; 1 Samuel 28:8ff.). Though this does not prove that revelation has ceased, it does give a general warning against seeking new revelation. The Bible says: "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:31).

Many books such as the Book of Mormon claim to be revelation from God. That church also claims to receive continuing revelation from God on a regular basis. Pagan religions make the same claim to receive revelation through their priests. Unfortunately, many Christians seek information from God through fortune tellers or seek to communicate with the spirits and devils – or speak to the dead through séances.

As can be seen from the selected verses above, we are forbidden to seek new revelation. The reason why is easy: God said He would not give more revelation, and secondly, the demons deceive and lead many astray...1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.

False prophets

2. Secondly,We have clear warning that many false prophets will come and try to add to the Bible, but that the church should carefully guard against such perversion. The idea is that since there is such a strong warning against false prophets, we should not expect new revelation and also we need to stoutly resist such alleged new revelation. The following verses document this point.

"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect" (Matthew 24:24).

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse thing to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert... And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" - underlines mine (Acts 20:28-32).

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrines; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3, 4).

To summarize: we learn that many false teachers and prophets will come. They will give new "revelations" that are false and they will even try to confirm these false doctrines with signs and wonders. Their goal is to lead the people of God astray. The ultimate source of motivation for these people is Satan.

Christians are to be on guard, on the alert for such perversions and vigorously resist the constant attempt to undermine the Bible. We should not expect any new revelation. Our entire basic orientation is to defend and proclaim that revelation which was given through the Apostles, not to seek and take in new, continuing revelation.

Some ways, historically, that alleged new revelation has come from God to humanity is by religious leaders claiming that God is speaking through them and then they write those revelations down in some book.

Christ's promises

3. Third, the nature of Christ's promises of future revelation offer proof that Revelation ceased with the New Testament. He told of coming revelation that the Holy Spirit would reveal to the disciples (John 16:13, 14; 14:26). The Apostles acknowledged receiving that revelation (1 Corinthians 2:10-13). Finally, Jesus said revelation was then final (Revelation 22:18-20).

Revelation ended with the Bible

4. Fourth, there are Bible statements that indicate revelation is terminated (1 Corinthians 2:9, 10; Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:1-4; John 17:4, 8; 15:15; Jude 3).

Paul wrote, "but just as it is written, 'Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him.' For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God" underling mine (1 Corinthians 2:9, 10).

The word "revealed" in the Greek tense (aorist) is important. One commentary states, "The aorist points to a definite time when the revelation took place, viz. to the entry of the Gospel into the world." Regarding who received the revelation, the theologian Hodge writes, "unto those to whom this revelation was made, viz. 'the holy apostles and prophets,' Ephesians 3, 5." ("viz." means "that is".).

What does all this mean? From a study of the grammar we learn that the revelation of the New Testament was given at a definite time to the Apostles and Prophets, to no one else, and that it is not continuing, but finished. The Greek has a separate tense, perfect, for actions in the past that still continue today, but that tense is not used in this Scripture verse.

[the_last_gunslinger]

Yes, Jesus hates all religion, because they are man-made, and that included Mormonism. Jesus didn't come to suffer and die the way He did to start a religion! He came to give us salvation and freedom---eternal life!

Yes, the Bible is clear that he came to offer salvation, but where is it written that he hates religion? I've heard that a dozen times on this board by various posters, yet have not seen a single shred of biblical proof for this. Look up the definition of religion in the dictionary, and you'll find that what Christ taught and started was a religion.

That is a deception of the first order. I obey God who tells me not to allow myself to be deceived. A Mormon has not obeyed that command and has allowed some teachings of errant men to cloud their spiritual sight.

What exactly is the deception here? I'm merely pointing out that your own biases may be clouding your viewpoint. You accuse me of being deceived by evil spirits and so forth, and I merely pointed out the possibility that it is YOU who has been so deceived. I know I haven't.

The Bible IS the standard!

Merely restating this answer doesn't make it any more pertinent to the question at hand.

Holy Spirit lives in me by the promise of God to all those who have experienced the rebirth. The word of God is my authority and it teaches me that you are in dire deception believing in the teachings of the Mormon church. God is not a part of any of it.

Clearly I don't agree with you here. Unless you had hands laid upon you by authorized priesthood holders for the gift of the Holy Ghost, you do not have it. I'm not trying to be difficult, but that's the doctrinal position I subscribe to. I believe God is the final authority as well, and he has made it clear to me in no uncertain terms that I'm right with him. I don't believe you are in any position to judge my salvation or my relationship with Christ.

I stand by what I have said. the Book of Mormon is a book written with demonic intelligence and a simpleton like Joseph Smith has submitted his life to that demonic force and has been a tool to deceive far too many.

Just because you believe strongly in a falsehood doesn't make it any more true.

I have no boldness to tell God anything. He tells us that His word is complete and that there is no other gospel or further revelation!

Jesus Christ is the Word, and He, as God's Son, has given Himself and there is no further revelation from Him.

You absolutely are trying to speak for God. You are saying it is beyond his ability to reveal more of his word. Where does the Bible ever say that everything he intended for us to know is in the sixty-six books of the Bible?

Revelation 22:18-19
And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

The fact that you used this verse to discredit the church shows how little you understand about it. This warning first off, is referring specifically to the Book of Revelation. The Bible wouldn't even be compiled as is for another three hundred years. In fact, it is generally assumed that Revelation wasn't even the last book of the Bible to be written.

But even if it was intended to be applied to the entire Bible, there is no issue. It forbids only the additions or subtractions by people. It says nothing about whether God can add to His word.

1. First, there is a general biblical taboo against seeking new revelation (Isaiah 8:19-20; 19:3; 29:4; 47:12, 13; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:4; 1 Samuel 28:8ff.). Though this does not prove that revelation has ceased, it does give a general warning against seeking new revelation. The Bible says: "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 19:31).

I don't see the relevance here. Members of the LDS church don't 'seek' divine manifestations. God chooses to reveal his word on his timetable, not man's. Nor do Mormons turn to 'mediums or spiritists. I find it ironic, however, that you are using revelations from God to disprove revelations from God, though.

Many books such as the Book of Mormon claim to be revelation from God. That church also claims to receive continuing revelation from God on a regular basis. Pagan religions make the same claim to receive revelation through their priests. Unfortunately, many Christians seek information from God through fortune tellers or seek to communicate with the spirits and devils – or speak to the dead through séances.

And Mormons condemn fortune telling, communicating with devils and participating in seances. I seriously don't understand what you're getting at. We don't claim revelation through these venues. Revelations come from God. As the Prophet Amos wrote, surely the Lord will do nothing unless he first reveals his secrets unto his servants, the prophets.(Amos 3:7).

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse thing to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert... And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" - underlines mine (Acts 20:28-32).

Yes, this has happened. It was called the Great Apostasy, where Men killed the holy apostles and perverted the true gospel to suit their own goals, thus necessitating a restoration.

Christians are to be on guard, on the alert for such perversions and vigorously resist the constant attempt to undermine the Bible. We should not expect any new revelation. Our entire basic orientation is to defend and proclaim that revelation which was given through the Apostles, not to seek and take in new, continuing revelation.

Where again does the Bible say there is to be no more revelation? What kind of cruel God would close the heavens and leave Man to fend for himself in these perilous times?

Christ's promises

3. Third, the nature of Christ's promises of future revelation offer proof that Revelation ceased with the New Testament. He told of coming revelation that the Holy Spirit would reveal to the disciples (John 16:13, 14; 14:26). The Apostles acknowledged receiving that revelation (1 Corinthians 2:10-13). Finally, Jesus said revelation was then final (Revelation 22:18-20).

Revelation ended with the Bible

None of these verses says anything about revelations ending after the New Testament. Most of them refer only to revelation received by the power of the spirit. And the one verse you use to support your position, from the book of Revelation has nothing to do with revelations ending. Again, it is a warning against MAN adding to God's word. Nowhere does it say there is to be no more.

Fourth, there are Bible statements that indicate revelation is terminated (1 Corinthians 2:9, 10; Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:1-4; John 17:4, 8; 15:15; Jude 3).

I don't see anything in these verses either that denote an end to revelation. And I'm sure that's not what was intended as there are recorded revelations later than these in the Bible.

What does all this mean? From a study of the grammar we learn that the revelation of the New Testament was given at a definite time to the Apostles and Prophets, to no one else, and that it is not continuing, but finished. The Greek has a separate tense, perfect, for actions in the past that still continue today, but that tense is not used in this Scripture verse.

If there is to be no more revelation, why did John see two prophets in the last days prophesying? Why are we told that the church has as its foundation that of prophets of apostles? If you remove prophets you are essentially removing the foundation of the church. If the Bible alone contains sufficiently all that is needed, why is there such widespread disagreement about the most basic of tenets? And most importantly, why would God feel that we no longer need revelation to guide us today, to meet the unique challenges of this generation? You may believe that God has forsaken his children, left them to wander through the darkness on their own, but I know better than that.

[Alan]

Yes, Jesus hates all religion, because they are man-made, and that included Mormonism. Jesus didn't come to suffer and die the way He did to start a religion! He came to give us salvation and freedom---eternal life!

Yes, the Bible is clear that he came to offer salvation, but where is it written that he hates religion? I've heard that a dozen times on this board by various posters, yet have not seen a single shred of biblical proof for this. Look up the definition of religion in the dictionary, and you'll find that what Christ taught and started was a religion.

You're not grasping scripture very well then. What is it you think Jesus was doing with the Pharisees whom were extremely religious?

[the_last_gunslinger]

You're not grasping scripture very well then. What is it you think Jesus was doing with the Pharisees whom were extremely religious?

He was condemning them for their religiosity, yes. But he did not condemn religion. Jesus Christ taught a specific set of doctrines believed by many, then organized various ministerial offices (apostle, bishop, elder, etc.) to watch over the members, and commanded his apostles to baptize in his name while also instituting the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. So he taught doctrines and a way of life, organized religious instructors and teachers who led the church and gave them rituals to perform. How is this NOT a religion?

[willieH]

You made me laugh lol and what's with the name, you really don't want to do such a thing (get married) trust me lol

I don't know what the "latter-day-saints" are, but will tell you what saints/remnant of God are. They will not be any denomination, for a denomination can't keep commandments, but individuals can, the end times people will be those who keep the commandments of God and have faith in Jesus:

This is a misquote and effectively changes the TRUE WORDING and meaning conveyed in the text unto which you refer...  Here is the text:


Rev 14:12 -- Here is the patience of the saints :  Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the FAITH ...OF [not "in"] JESUS


The text does not say FAITH "IN" JESUS... it says FAITH "OF" JESUS... big difference! 


Modern Christianity in general, in its SELF-CENTEREDNESS credits themselves with faith IN JESUS... but the TRUTH is that JESUS authors and finishes FAITH -- Heb 12:2 -- and those in whom this occurs have the FAITH OF JESUS in them.


If JESUS has "authored" your FAITH, then you have the FAITH OF JESUS -- and you are KNOWN by HIM... however,

If it is YOU which has generated your faith... then YOU have faith IN JESUS... and you shall find in the end with MANY others that HE will say to you -- "I never KNEW you" -- Matt 7:22-23



PEACE...  ...willieH

[KiwiChristian]

Mormonism says there are many Gods and that you can become one, they say Jesus and satan are brothers, they say Jesus did NOT make atonement on the cross. They say God the father was once a MAN who had to EARN His way to become a God. They say you must learn secret handshakes and passwords and wear special underwear in order to live with God the father when you die. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. In no way can mormonism be classed as "Christian"

[the_last_gunslinger]

Mormonism says there are many Gods and that you can become one, they say Jesus and satan are brothers, they say Jesus did NOT make atonement on the cross. They say God the father was once a MAN who had to EARN His way to become a God. They say you must learn secret handshakes and passwords and wear special underwear in order to live with God the father when you die. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. In no way can mormonism be classed as "Christian"

Please learn what Mormons actually believe before criticizing them.

I see you have made a couple other posts as well. It's late, but in the next couple of days, I will address those in order to dispel the myriad ways you misunderstand our faith.

[notreligus]

"The Book of Mormon:   Another Testament of Jesus Christ"

The above is all anyone needs to know about Mormon doctrine to understand that the Mormon Church is a cult.   

Jesus told the Jews that everything they needed to know about Him was revealed by Moses.   They rejected what Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had said about Him.   They composed another book too, one that started out as oral teaching but became a written text which is considered by many Jews to be more authoritative than the Holy Scriptures.    That book is the Talmud.   With Sidney Rigdon's help (if he did not write all of it) Joseph Smith, inspired by his own devious mind, came up with another text which is called "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and Mormons, at the very least, put this book on equal footing with the Bible.   

The Mormons have secret ceremonies.   They want their own membership to be aware of what goes on in their temples on a "need-to-know" basis. 

Mormons encourage married couples to have multiple children so that the many souls in waiting may be released.   

Mormons deny the deity of Jesus Christ.   

The Mountain Meadows Massacre.   Everyone ought to know that this is about.   It's even mentioned in Mormon publications and on Mormon web sites, but they don't tell the truth about it.  The truth is that Mormons attacked a wagon train and they wore Indian garb and pretended to be Indians as they massacred men, women, and children, and this included Methodist missionaries.    This is a link to articles with more detailed information:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_mountainmeadosmassacre.html

Google "Mountain Meadows Massacre memorial" and you'll find a great number of photos of the physical memorial which was built as reminder of what happened.   

[the_last_gunslinger]

The Book of Mormon:   Another Testament of Jesus Christ"

The above is all anyone needs to know about Mormon doctrine to understand that the Mormon Church is a cult.   

Please define "cult."

Jesus told the Jews that everything they needed to know about Him was revealed by Moses.   They rejected what Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had said about Him.   They composed another book too, one that started out as oral teaching but became a written text which is considered by many Jews to be more authoritative than the Holy Scriptures.    That book is the Talmud.   With Sidney Rigdon's help (if he did not write all of it) Joseph Smith, inspired by his own devious mind, came up with another text which is called "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and Mormons, at the very least, put this book on equal footing with the Bible.

So, am I to understand that you denounce all Scripture that came after Moses? It's good to know that you despise the New Testament as well, since Moses already gave us everything we know.

And please, stop with the Rigdon stuff. Last time you brought that up, I thoroughly debunked it. It has zero credibility and ignores basic history like the fact that Rigdon was living in Ohio (not New York where Joseph Smith lived) during the Book of Mormon's translation and publication. To continue to push this shows your willingness to engage in deceitful activity in order to prove your point. It's unbecoming. It really is.

The Mormons have secret ceremonies.   They want their own membership to be aware of what goes on in their temples on a "need-to-know" basis.

Sacred, not secret. Don't cast pearls before swine, remember.

Mormons encourage married couples to have multiple children so that the many souls in waiting may be released.   

Chapter and verse in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants, please.

Mormons deny the deity of Jesus Christ. 

Outright lie. I've also explained this to you, yet you refuse to listen. What would it take for you to stop believing Anti-Mormon drivel and admit that Mormons do, in fact, accept Christ as God. Don't believe me? I'd be happy to share a dozen or so verses from the Book of Mormon which states this.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre.   Everyone ought to know that this is about.   It's even mentioned in Mormon publications and on Mormon web sites, but they don't tell the truth about it.  The truth is that Mormons attacked a wagon train and they wore Indian garb and pretended to be Indians as they massacred men, women, and children, and this included Methodist missionaries.    This is a link to articles with more detailed information:

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_mountainmeadosmassacre.html

Google "Mountain Meadows Massacre memorial" and you'll find a great number of photos of the physical memorial which was built as reminder of what happened.   

Yeah? Relevance? Are you willing to judge the totality of a faith based on the horrid actions of a few committed over 150 years ago? How unfortunate for Christianity.

[KiwiChristian]

Please define "cult."
 
A group of people surrounding around one persons interpretation of the Bible that differs significantly from historic, Biblical Christianity.

So, am I to understand that you denounce all Scripture that came after Moses? It's good to know that you despise the New Testament as well, since Moses already gave us everything we know.

A living prophet trumps a dead one remember, so you mormons denounce the whole Bible AND joe smith then.


Sacred, not secret. Don't cast pearls before swine, remember.

And yet we Christians keep casting our pearls at you guys, huh?

If its not secret, please tell me what the "sure sign of the nail" is, please.




Outright lie. I've also explained this to you, yet you refuse to listen. What would it take for you to stop believing Anti-Mormon drivel and admit that Mormons do, in fact, accept Christ as God. Don't believe me? I'd be happy to share a dozen or so verses from the Book of Mormon which states this.

Ahh, the old "anti-mormon" card, huh?

Pathetic.

If we are "anti-mormon" because we speak out against your teachings, then you guys are anti-Christian by the same logic

Yeah? Relevance? Are you willing to judge the totality of a faith based on the horrid actions of a few committed over 150 years ago? How unfortunate for Christianity.

[the_last_gunslinger]

A group of people surrounding around one persons interpretation of the Bible that differs significantly from historic, Biblical Christianity.

You mean the historical Christianity that took centuries to nail down, dozens of ecumenical councils that produced such absurd doctrines as the trinity? Your definition is flawed until you can define what "historical" Christianity is. In actuality, it is YOU who has rejected original Christianity. It is YOU who follow the false teachings put forth centuries after Christ, embracing a hellenized version of Christianity far removed from what Jesus established.

It's interesting also that by this definition, Jesus and his followers were members of a cult. They flocked around one person (Jesus) and interpreted Scripture in radical different ways from the accepted standards of the time. You are just like the Pharisees.


Also, by the way, you aren't actually a Christian, but in fact, you belong to a cult. See, a cult member is someone who rejects Joseph Smith as prophet, reject the divinity of the Book of Mormon and disputes the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

See how ludicrous it is when you start randomly making up definition? Why is your definition of a cult more valid than mine?

A living prophet trumps a dead one remember, so you mormons denounce the whole Bible AND joe smith then.

False and you know it. Living prophets are more important to the people at that time because they have been called to warn them of the dangers of their day. Was Noah saved from the flood because of the revelations Adam received?  Did Peter know to extend the gospel to gentiles by studying the teachings of Enoch? Given that the Bible is explicit that prophets are the foundation of the church, your rejection of them is further confirmation that you reject the Bible.

And yet we Christians keep casting our pearls at you guys, huh?

If its not secret, please tell me what the "sure sign of the nail" is, please.

How easily you set aside the teachings of Jesus. It was Jesus who tells us not to cast pearls before swine, or give sacred things to the dogs. It's not my fault that you disagree with Jesus. That's between you and him.

But, did not Jesus withhold certain teachings from those spiritually unprepared to hear them? Did Jesus not teach many things in secret that were not written?  In your mind, though, Jesus was an Unchristian cultist.



Outright lie. I've also explained this to you, yet you refuse to listen. What would it take for you to stop believing Anti-Mormon drivel and admit that Mormons do, in fact, accept Christ as God. Don't believe me? I'd be happy to share a dozen or so verses from the Book of Mormon which states this.

Ahh, the old "anti-mormon" card, huh?

Pathetic.

What's pathetic? You make an outright false claim and I called you on it. You said Mormons deny the deity of Christ. That is false and the kind of thing you get from Anti-Mormons who have no desire to be truthful in their criticism. To test this, now that I've corrected you, are you willing to admit that Mormons DO accept the divinity of Christ?

If we are "anti-mormon" because we speak out against your teachings, then you guys are anti-Christian by the same logic

Given that Mormons ARE Christians, it would be absurd to be Anti-Christian. That would be self defeating.

[KiwiChristian]

Book of Mormon relates that at the tower of Babel the Jaredites had their separate language (Esther 1:34-35). The Bible, however, plainly states that "the whole earth was of one language" (Genesis 11:1). Apparently, the writer of the Book of Mormon mistakenly thought there were many different languages and that God confounded them while sparing the language of the Jaredites. The
fact is, there was only one language and God confounded the people by creating different languages.

[KiwiChristian]

The Bible relates that at the crucifixion there were three hours of darkness (Luke 23:44). However, the Book of Mormon states there was darkness "for the space of three days" (Helaman 14:20,27). Of course, this is a big difference. Which one is true? Can God be responsible for conflicting statements such as these?

[KiwiChristian]

Given that Mormons ARE Christians, it would be absurd to be Anti-Christian. That would be self defeating.

you deny the Biblical Jesus and teach the heavenly father was once just a man.

[the_last_gunslinger]

you deny the Biblical Jesus and teach the heavenly father was once just a man.

Your first claim is untrue. We accept the Bible as the Word of God and accept what it says about Jesus.

Your second claim is not Official doctrine, but there are many who believe it. It's a nice doctrine because it illustrates the exultant power of the gospel, to think that someone who had once been mortal is now exalted and created everything around us.

But no, we don't "teach" this because it is not laid out in Scripture.

[KiwiChristian]

No. You believe that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, that they are One Being, whatever that means.

And YOU believe there are MANY Gods, making you polytheistic!

[KiwiChristian]

Well this stands to reason. The Bible's been translated hundreds of  times. The Book of Mormon underwent one. This is hardly enough reason to discredit someone as a Christian. The Holy Bible never makes such a claim.

But the book of mormon has had THOUSANDS of changes in it. We are NOT talking spelling or grammer, either.

Is the book of mormon available in other languages? If so, THEY are translations.

The only thing here that is official doctrine is that God has a body of flesh and bones. "Mormon Doctrine" wasn't even written by an apostle and the Journal of Discourses is a series of non-canonical lectures that haven't been accepted as officially binding.

Yes, you believe that God the father has a body of flesh and bones. The Bible says NO. Thank you for FINALLY admitting something that is totally anti-Christian.

The Bible also teaches multiple Gods. Remember, god is merely a title that denotes power and authority.

Here you go again, being deceitful. Why use the word "God" and then in the the very next instance use the word "god".

So, you are now ADMITTING that you believe there are multiple Gods?

So, show me where there are multiple Gods. Not gods, Gods.


Also a biblical doctrine. In fact, two of the kingdoms are mentioned by name. Remember, there are many mansions in the Father's kingdom, and we will each be rewarded according to our works. Hard to be rewarded according to our works if there is no differential between rewards. Even if the doctrine's wrong, you still cannot show how three levels of heaven will keep Mormons from obtaining salvation.

The Bible clearly explains the three "heavens".
The Hebrew word for "heavens" is shamayim, it is in a plural form, meaning "heights," "elevations."
The First Heaven is the Earths atmosphere. Deut. 11:17, Deut. 28:12, Judges 5:4, Acts 14:17
The Second Heaven is outer space. Psalm 19:4, 6, Jeremiah 8:2, Isaiah 13:10.
The Third Heaven is God's dwelling place. 1 Kings 8:30, Psalm 2:4, Matthew 5:16.

It has NOTHING to do with seperate levels in heaven. joe LIED to you.

Mormons believe in the virgin birth; it is attested to numerous times in the Book of Mormon. You again quoted from the Journal of Discourses which is NOT official scripture.

Again with the deceitfulness.  You use the TERM "virgin birth" and like the term "salvation" you have re-defined the word.

You believe that Jesus was produced by natural, PHYSICAL means.

CARM is an absolutely terrible organization for ascertaining information about the LDS church. They intentionally deceive and misrepresent to accomplish their sordid goals. I'd be careful using them as a source in the future.

But, do you ever check the official SOURCES they use? They lead RIGHT BACK to your cult!

[KiwiChristian]

I am done with this gunslinger fool.

I am sick of his deceitfulness and outright lies.

I have used NOTHING but mormon sources which he denies.

It must be good to be in a cult where you can pick and chose what things your apostles/prophets/seers/revelators  say are "official" or not.

I point people to this fact: "Sixth: The prophet does NOT have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture." - https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

Now, if anyone would like HONEST, TRUTHFUL facts about the mormon cult WITH official sources and references, feel free to message me.

[KiwiChristian]

It's Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?_r=0


Seen for the first time in a century: Mormon church releases photos of 'seer stone' allegedly used by religion's founder to decode 'Egyptian scripts' that became the Book of Mormon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185574/Mormon-church-releases-photos-seer-stone-used-founder-Joseph-Smith-translate-scripture.html

[KiwiChristian]

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God...Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him. He brought one of his wives with him. Who is he? He is Michael...He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought it into existence. Then he said: 'I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle, or a dwelling place as mine has' and where is the mystery?" (Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family...I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51)

"There is but one God that pertains to this people, and he is the God that pertains to this earth--the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world..." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 1)

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later ... the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51).


"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This [i.e., Brigham Young's teaching on Adam], however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel." (p. 6 of McConkie's letter)

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent It out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

[KiwiChristian]

Mormon prophets have taught that Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse (physical union) between God the Father and Mary:
Brigham Young taught: "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood---was begotten of his Father as we were of our fathers" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.115); and "when the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness [flesh and blood]. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.50).
Brigham Young insisted: "I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ...he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses vol.8, p.211); "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses, vol.1, p.51).
Orson Pratt (LDS apostle) taught: "the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife...as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity" (The Seer. p.158, 1853).
Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit" (Religious Truths Defined, p.44).
This teaching persists today:
Bruce McConkie (LDS apostle) states: "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547, 1979).
Carfred Broderick (Mormon author) writes: "God is a procreating personage of flesh and bone...latter-day prophets have made it clear that despite what it says in Matthew 1:20, the Holy Ghost was not the father of Jesus...The Savior was fathered by a personage of flesh and bone" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn, 1967, p.100-101).

[KiwiChristian]

The bom title page states "...to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations.". But, that would mean mormons think Jesus is the eternal God, and mormons believe in an eternal God which they do not.


"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,... It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6).

  "It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being" (Deseret News, Nov. 16, 1859, p. 290).

   "Our father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47).

"I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions...Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman" (Deseret News, Church News, Sept. 19, 1936, p. 2).

"The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same" (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64)

Joseph Smith: "I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years."

Joseph Smith: "The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth."

Bruce McConkie states: "Three separate personages---Father, Son, and Holy Ghost---comprise the Godhead...As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us...these three are the only Gods we worship" (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-7).


So, sorry, mormonism does NOT teach that God the Father is eternal and everlasting.


ONE GOD: DEUTERONOMY 6:4, DEUTERONOMY 4:35,39, DEUTERONOMY 32:39, 2 SAMUEL 7:22, 1 KINGS 8:60, 2 KINGS 5:15 , 2 KINGS 19:15,  NEHEMIAH 9:6,  PSALM 18:31 ( Which also states Jesus is God ),  PSALM 86:1, ISAIAH 37:16,20, ISAIAH 43:10,11, ISAIAH 44:6,8, ISAIAH 45:21, ISAIAH 46:9, HOSEA 13:4, MARK 12:29-34, ROMANS 3:30, 1 CORINTHIANS 8:4-6, 1 TIMOTHY 2:5.

[AVZ]

Your first claim is untrue. We accept the Bible as the Word of God and accept what it says about Jesus.

Your second claim is not Official doctrine, but there are many who believe it. It's a nice doctrine because it illustrates the exultant power of the gospel, to think that someone who had once been mortal is now exalted and created everything around us.

But no, we don't "teach" this because it is not laid out in Scripture.

In all fairness, is it not up to you to clear the air here?
If there are many in your church who believe that God once was a man, then is that doctrine being rectified or is it allowed/condoned?

If you have 2 groups in your church and one group says: "God was a man"...and the other group says "God was not a man", should we not say that since you are not clear about this part, how can you be clear about any other part that defines divinity?

If God was not a man, then it does no longer logically follows that He is limited to our earthly/natural observations. He could easily be 3-in-1.
If God however was a man, then the question arises why He deserves our worship. After all He is just a man with a lot of power.

[the_last_gunslinger]

I am done with this gunslinger fool.

I am sick of his deceitfulness and outright lies.

I have used NOTHING but mormon sources which he denies.

Do you know what the definition of irony is? You came onto an LDS forum, threw out wild accusations and outright falsehoods, I called you on them, and I'm the one that's being deceitful? Sorry, but no. What happened is our debates didn't go as you thought they would. You thought you'd come on here, slander my faith and beat its adherents over the head with what we supposedly "really" believe. Instead, I thoroughly refuted every point you made, exposing your lies and your agenda. And since you can't win the argument, you're essentially taking your ball and going home.

You have no idea what Mormons teach or believe, or how it operates. You still have not conceded the many points you were wrong on. You claimed falsely that we deny the divinity of Jesus. You claimed falsely that we deny the atonement on the cross. You claimed falsely that Mormons teach God had to earn his position. You sited as proof two hundred year old quotes from a source the church does not accept as scripture or as reflecting our current understanding of doctrine. Your ignorance of Mormon belief and practice is not my fault. You should have done your research before starting a theological battle with someone better equipped than you.

I would have been delighted to engage in an honest discussion and reasonable debate about the tenets of Mormonism, but you didn't want that. That's not my fault. You are the proverbial bully who picks a fight and cries foul when he gets beat up instead. You need to humble yourself, learn some Christ-like compassion, understand that your lies and falsehoods are unbecoming of a follower of Christ. I sincerely wish our exchanges could have been more amicable, but you made that impossible and refuse to accept that you were wrong. Why you thought you knew more than a twenty year member of the church is beyond me.

[the_last_gunslinger]

In all fairness, is it not up to you to clear the air here?
If there are many in your church who believe that God once was a man, then is that doctrine being rectified or is it allowed/condoned?

As best I can, yest. Admittedly, Mormon doctrine is difficult to grasp from a non-Mormon perspective. Because we are a church that believes in modern day prophets and apostles that lead and guide us, that leads some (such as kiwichristian) to erroneously assume that we must accept every utterance from every apostle as binding doctrine. We don't believe in apostolic infallibility and believe that they also have their own interpretations and opinions, and sometimes they are not always clear on when they are speaking presumptuously. So I can see the confusion from the outside.

As for whether it's allowed or condoned, I'd say yes, to a degree. As I stated earlier, our official doctrine is contained only within the four books we accept as Scripture. In them, the idea that man can become like God is thoroughly laid out. As such, that has led many, including church leaders to infer that, according to the law of eternal progression, God must have also been like us. This, however, is not found or expanded upon in any of those four books. It's a logical assumption, if we accept that man can become like God, but it's far from doctrine. And since the church does not take an official stance one way or the other, members are free to hold whichever belief they would like on the matter. So you'll get some who believe what Kiwichristian said, that God was once a sinner like us who obeyed the laws of his father in heaven to become God. You'll find others who believe that God was once a mortal man, but was still perfect, sinless and divine, who carried out a similar mission to Jesus Christ. They will, in part, base this on Jesus's saying that he has only done that which he has seen the father do. Still others reject the whole premise and believe God the father has always been God. People in all three camps are still considered members in good standing. Yet, we are still cautioned about teaching publicly things that are speculative in nature, so we don't get a lot of preaching as to how God came to be God.

If you have 2 groups in your church and one group says: "God was a man"...and the other group says "God was not a man", should we not say that since you are not clear about this part, how can you be clear about any other part that defines divinity?

No, because the Scriptures are clear on who God is, what his relationship is to Christ and the Holy Ghost, and what their role is in our salvation. Everything we need to know about God that is pertinent to our salvation is in the Scriptures. How God came to be God, however,r isn't really that important to whether or not we worship him, or accept Christ as our savior, or really to our salvation at all.

If God was not a man, then it does no longer logically follows that He is limited to our earthly/natural observations. He could easily be 3-in-1.
If God however was a man, then the question arises why He deserves our worship. After all He is just a man with a lot of power.

Not sure if I totally agree with this dichotomy. If God never was a man, but we are still literally his offsrping, destined to become like Him, I believe it would be in his power to allow us to know him. Given that, in our theology, we are technically of the same "species" for lack of a better term as God,  we can know him in a deeply personal way, through revelation. If your three in one comment is a reference to the Nicean idea of the Trinity, I'd say, no, because God has given us knowledge about his nature through the Scriptures that do not conform to this idea.

As for your second point, I'd also say no. Whether God was once a man, or whether he has always been God, it doesn't change the fact that He is still God, the creator of the universe and our eternal father. This would be akin to saying that children shouldn't respect their parents because their parents used to be children also.

[AVZ]

As best I can, yest. Admittedly, Mormon doctrine is difficult to grasp from a non-Mormon perspective. Because we are a church that believes in modern day prophets and apostles that lead and guide us, that leads some (such as kiwichristian) to erroneously assume that we must accept every utterance from every apostle as binding doctrine. We don't believe in apostolic infallibility and believe that they also have their own interpretations and opinions, and sometimes they are not always clear on when they are speaking presumptuously. So I can see the confusion from the outside.

As for whether it's allowed or condoned, I'd say yes, to a degree. As I stated earlier, our official doctrine is contained only within the four books we accept as Scripture. In them, the idea that man can become like God is thoroughly laid out. As such, that has led many, including church leaders to infer that, according to the law of eternal progression, God must have also been like us. This, however, is not found or expanded upon in any of those four books. It's a logical assumption, if we accept that man can become like God, but it's far from doctrine. And since the church does not take an official stance one way or the other, members are free to hold whichever belief they would like on the matter. So you'll get some who believe what Kiwichristian said, that God was once a sinner like us who obeyed the laws of his father in heaven to become God. You'll find others who believe that God was once a mortal man, but was still perfect, sinless and divine, who carried out a similar mission to Jesus Christ. They will, in part, base this on Jesus's saying that he has only done that which he has seen the father do. Still others reject the whole premise and believe God the father has always been God. People in all three camps are still considered members in good standing. Yet, we are still cautioned about teaching publicly things that are speculative in nature, so we don't get a lot of preaching as to how God came to be God.


No, because the Scriptures are clear on who God is, what his relationship is to Christ and the Holy Ghost, and what their role is in our salvation. Everything we need to know about God that is pertinent to our salvation is in the Scriptures. How God came to be God, however,r isn't really that important to whether or not we worship him, or accept Christ as our savior, or really to our salvation at all.

Not sure if I totally agree with this dichotomy. If God never was a man, but we are still literally his offsrping, destined to become like Him, I believe it would be in his power to allow us to know him. Given that, in our theology, we are technically of the same "species" for lack of a better term as God,  we can know him in a deeply personal way, through revelation. If your three in one comment is a reference to the Nicean idea of the Trinity, I'd say, no, because God has given us knowledge about his nature through the Scriptures that do not conform to this idea.

As for your second point, I'd also say no. Whether God was once a man, or whether he has always been God, it doesn't change the fact that He is still God, the creator of the universe and our eternal father. This would be akin to saying that children shouldn't respect their parents because their parents used to be children also.

Thanks for your response. Appreciated.
Of course I have a whole bunch of objections, so here they are.

You say that a Prophet is not infallible, and I agree. But how about his prophesies? If a Prophet can make both fallible and infallible declarations, then how do you decide which part is and which part is not true? Is this not the reason why you have such diversion of opinions in your church?

So then, if a third of the people in your church claim God was human, a third of the people claim God was not human, and a third of the people claim something else...and on top of that the church does not make a statement in any shape or form which is true, then what do you believe?
It seems to me that believing all is acceptable, but believing none is acceptable too!

This then raises the question: Why even have a church? If a church says "We believe there is a God, but it is also OK to believe there is no God"...then what's the use of having a church?
Same goes for having a Prophet of who it is not clear which of his prophesies are presumptuous and which are not. Who is to say that not all of his "prophesies" are presumptuous?


The other objection is based on your statement:
God must have also been like us. This, however, is not found or expanded upon in any of those four books. It's a logical assumption, if we accept that man can become like God, but it's far from doctrine.

This seems to be a self-contradictory. How can you say "God must have also been like us" and at the same time say that this is "a logical assumption, if we accept that man can become like God"
That's a lot of assumptions. First you must assume that man can become like God before you can accept the logical assumption. And only then you can assume that God must have been like us...even though your own scripture does not make any reference to it.
In addition, your church does not hold to any doctrinal truth, because the Prophet and his scriptures do not describe what the truth is.


My next comment would be on this statement by you:
So you'll get some who believe what Kiwichristian said, that God was once a sinner like us who obeyed the laws of his father in heaven to become God. You'll find others who believe that God was once a mortal man, but was still perfect, sinless and divine, who carried out a similar mission to Jesus Christ. They will, in part, base this on Jesus's saying that he has only done that which he has seen the father do. Still others reject the whole premise and believe God the father has always been God.

Then you proceed to say:
- No, because the Scriptures are clear on who God is
- I believe it would be in his power to allow us to know him
- we can know him in a deeply personal way, through revelation
- I'd say, no, because God has given us knowledge about his nature through the Scriptures that do not conform to this idea (Trinity).

How can you claim that it is clear who God is, if you admit that your Prophet may have been presumptuous and your scripture does not reveal who God is?
And if your scriptures do not reveal who God is, or what He is, then how can you have a deeply personal relationship with Him?
Both your Prophet and your scripture and your church admit that the exact nature of God is not revealed, then how can you argue that He cannot be a Trinity? And even if your Prophet would have said "God is not a Trinity", he could have spoken presumptuously.


My final question is: How do you know God is God?
Your argument against the Trinity is that not all members in the Trinity can be God.
Then similarly not all Mormons can become God either. If there are 1000 Mormons in heaven, which of them is God?
But lets say of the 1000 Mormons there is 1 who is just a little bit more powerful than the other 999, then he would be God and the others would not.
Which then leaves the question, since this one Mormon God still is less powerful as the father God...then the father God would be God.
Alternatively you could say that the one Mormon God would be more powerful than the father God...but then God cannot be God to start with because the whole premise is that there is nobody as powerful as God.

[the_last_gunslinger]

You say that a Prophet is not infallible, and I agree. But how about his prophesies? If a Prophet can make both fallible and infallible declarations, then how do you decide which part is and which part is not true? Is this not the reason why you have such diversion of opinions in your church?

This is a good, thoughtful question, actually. When it comes to foretelling of future events, I can't think of a prophecy that can be definitively called a failure. Some have been fulfilled in unique ways, others, the language is  figurative or were spoken in broad generalities. I don't know if it addresses your issue exactly, but I would quote first from President Joseph Fielding Smith who said,

"An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be."

And secondly, from Elder Dallin H. Oakes:

"Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit."

And lastly President Wilford Woodruff:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

It comes down to faith. We expect that our leaders are mere men who are subject to mistakes and errors. As individuals, we rely upon the Holy Ghost to bear witness of all truth that they speak. We also have faith that, even when our leaders err, they will never take us down a path that the Lord doesn't want us to be. That's good enough for me.

So then, if a third of the people in your church claim God was human, a third of the people claim God was not human, and a third of the people claim something else...and on top of that the church does not make a statement in any shape or form which is true, then what do you believe?
It seems to me that believing all is acceptable, but believing none is acceptable too!

Not exactly. We have official doctrines and beliefs, they are found in our scriptures. But there are some things not clearly spelled out, thing that God has not fully revealed to us. In such matters, the church does not dictate what its members should believe, because we have no direct answer from God. And the church isn't going to proclaim one position more correct than another unless revealed by God. There is some flexibility regarding unofficial or speculative doctrines. But to say that a lack of consensus on one issue means there is no consensus on any issue is false, in my opinion. Out of curiosity, I assume you attend a church. Do you think that every member of your congregation interprets everything in the Bible the exact same way you do? Just look at this forum; there is a diversity of opinions on a number of topics, but that doesn't negate the fact that the majority are still unified in their acceptance of the Bible as Scripture and Christ as Savior. It is no difference within our church.

This then raises the question: Why even have a church? If a church says "We believe there is a God, but it is also OK to believe there is no God"...then what's the use of having a church?

If we taught that, then you would have a point. But we're not talking about a foundational teaching of the church. How God came to be God has zero impact on the church's mission or our salvation. We have a church because we believe it is where the authority to perform binding, saving ordinances is had, where we can increase in understanding of God, and experience fellowship with others, to to learn the gospel. There are many things a Mormon must believe to be considered "orthodox." Before one can even be baptized, they must accept that God is real, that Christ is our savior, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that Thomas S. Monson (or whoever is our president at the time) is our prophet today, and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. We believe and teach what is in the Scriptures. I admit, I'm not quite sure I understand your criticism that since some areas are "mysteries" spawning a variety of opinions, that there is no consensus on anything. That is not the case in my experience.

Same goes for having a Prophet of who it is not clear which of his prophesies are presumptuous and which are not. Who is to say that not all of his "prophesies" are presumptuous?

A witness of the truthfulness comes from the Holy Ghost. It always has. So far, it hasn't let me...or the church down.

This seems to be a self-contradictory. How can you say "God must have also been like us" and at the same time say that this is "a logical assumption, if we accept that man can become like God"

It's logical given how we currently understand eternal progression. We understand that the purpose of mortality is to learn and grow and become "like God." We accept this as an eternal truth. Therefore, logically, we could assume that it applies to God. But, it's just that, an assumption. We don't know if the process worked differently for him, if he instituted the current laws regarding eternal progression, or if he is subject to it also. Human logic can only carry us so far, and since the Scriptures are silent on how God became as he is, we can speculate. It's interesting, but not very useful.

That's a lot of assumptions. First you must assume that man can become like God before you can accept the logical assumption. And only then you can assume that God must have been like us...even though your own scripture does not make any reference to it.

Man becoming like God isn't actually an assumption on our part. That's clearly spelled out in the Doctrine and Covenants, and we believe, the Holy Bible.  Did God undergo the same process? Who knows? You're right. It's a big assumption to make.

In addition, your church does not hold to any doctrinal truth, because the Prophet and his scriptures do not describe what the truth is.

I must flatly refuse this idea. We absolutely hold to doctrinal truth. I think I must be communicating poorly in my attempts to show what it is. Doctrinal Truth is found within the four books of Scripture (The Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price). We accept these as unmitigated truth. We can also receive personal witnesses of truth as the Spirit bears witness. Every General Conference I experience this. If you are speaking about establishing doctrine, there is a prescribed method for that. The president of the Church (the prophet) will receive revelation. It will be declared as revelation from God by the joint voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (those who hold the keys to receive revelation to guide the church) and it will be sustained by the General membership of the church. My thoughts on this are that there are too many 'checks' in place to prevent incorrect doctrine from becoming official. The prophet would have to be mistaken, as would both of his counselors, as would all twelve members of the Quorum of apostles. So too, would the rank and file members of the church have to be mistaken. The Holy Spirit works in every step of the process. I believe this is the case because things that have gone through this process have endured and continue to be taught. Things that have not fall by the wayside, becoming obscure foot notes in the history of the church. I simply have faith that the system works.

How can you claim that it is clear who God is, if you admit that your Prophet may have been presumptuous and your scripture does not reveal who God is?

Because our Scriptures clearly teach who he is, as it pertains to our salvation. And our Scriptures are NOT presumptuous. They are the very measuring stick against which we measure all truth. Again, if you and a friend disagreed on some biblical detail, does that mean the Bible in its entirety ceases to be true?  Not knowing every detail about God doesn't mean we still can't have a personal relationship with him. I don't know every last detail about my earthly father's early years, the experiences that made him who he is, but my relationship is no less real or personal because of it.

And if your scriptures do not reveal who God is, or what He is, then how can you have a deeply personal relationship with Him?

I'm not understanding your point here. Our scripture ARE clear, in terms of what we need to know about him. They reveal God to be all powerful, full of mercy, love and tenderness. He is a being of infinitely great power, but loves each of us in an intimately personal way. He is our creator, the author of our salvation, the one who gives us strength and sustenance. He gives us purpose and direction, and I am confident that when we die, he will welcome us home in a reunion more sweet than I can fathom. I don't need to understand every facet of his existence to know these things. The Scriptures plainly teach them, and the Holy Spirit has borne witness that these things are true.

Both your Prophet and your scripture and your church admit that the exact nature of God is not revealed, then how can you argue that He cannot be a Trinity? And even if your Prophet would have said "God is not a Trinity", he could have spoken presumptuously.

God's nature IS canonical Scripture. From the Doctrine and Covenants:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

This speaks of the distinct physical nature of all three personages of the Godhead. The Scriptures teach additional principles that conflict with the notion of the Trinity. They teach that the father is greater than the son, so they are not co-equal. They teach that we are literally the spirit ofspring of God, destined to become like him so they are not one God on account of their substance, for we are of the same substance as them. And in our doctrine, we believe we have always existed, so we are all co-eternal with God. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are indeed One God in our Scriptures, but that oneness is understood differently in light of modern revelation which, as I've stated prior, came through the proper channels.

My final question is: How do you know God is God?

The same way Peter knew Jesus was the Christ, not by flesh and blood, but by my father in Heaven.

Your argument against the Trinity is that not all members in the Trinity can be God.

Actually, we DO believe all three members are God. Where we differ from Trinitarians is how we understand their "oneness."

Then similarly not all Mormons can become God either. If there are 1000 Mormons in heaven, which of them is God?

God the Father will always be our God. Just like me becoming an adult and having children of my own doesn't mean I have supplanted my own parents or do not give them deference.

But lets say of the 1000 Mormons there is 1 who is just a little bit more powerful than the other 999, then he would be God and the others would not.

I don't believe that's how it would work. But even if it was, it wouldn't matter. If we qualified for exaltation, we too would be one with each other,, unified in purpose and will, just at the Father and Son are.

Which then leaves the question, since this one Mormon God still is less powerful as the father God...then the father God would be God.

There's a Mormon theory I've heard that I am remiss to mention because I feel it might muddy the waters further, and I don't know if I understand it well enough to delve into it, but I'll state it anyways. The way we use the term God, is that it is a singular noun used to denote a plural. As an example, there are three personages in the Godhead (father, son and holy ghost). Each are a god, by virtue of them being separate beings that are on their own still divine, but they are still called collectively "God." I have heard it argued before that when we become "gods," and invited to partake of the divine nature, that we would enter into a unity (in thought, purpose and will, not in substance) with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and thus, become one God. In this view, God, with an upper case is simply used to denote the state of all exalted beings.

I might be treading into non-doctrinal issues, though, so I want to make it clear that this might not actually be a fully accurate explanation of how we view the idea of One God.

Thoughtful line of questioning, though. Hopefully, my answers are making some sense.

[KiwiChristian]

Mormon doctrine is NOT hard or difficult to understand.

its just plain ANTI-CHRISTIAN.

Some mormons imply that if someone does not believe mormonism or think it is anti-Christian, that must mean we dont UNDERSTAND mormonism.

this is of course simply rediculous.

since mormons use the term anti-mormon, we can use the term anti-Christian.

[AVZ]

This is a good, thoughtful question, actually. When it comes to foretelling of future events, I can't think of a prophecy that can be definitively called a failure. Some have been fulfilled in unique ways, others, the language is  figurative or were spoken in broad generalities. I don't know if it addresses your issue exactly, but I would quote first from President Joseph Fielding Smith who said,

"An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be."

And secondly, from Elder Dallin H. Oakes:

"Revelations from God . . . are not constant. We believe in continuing revelation, not continuous revelation. We are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality. Fortunately, we are never out of our Savior's sight, and if our judgment leads us to actions beyond the limits of what is permissible and if we are listening, . . . the Lord will restrain us by the promptings of his Spirit."

And lastly President Wilford Woodruff:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

It comes down to faith. We expect that our leaders are mere men who are subject to mistakes and errors. As individuals, we rely upon the Holy Ghost to bear witness of all truth that they speak. We also have faith that, even when our leaders err, they will never take us down a path that the Lord doesn't want us to be. That's good enough for me.


Not exactly. We have official doctrines and beliefs, they are found in our scriptures. But there are some things not clearly spelled out, thing that God has not fully revealed to us. In such matters, the church does not dictate what its members should believe, because we have no direct answer from God. And the church isn't going to proclaim one position more correct than another unless revealed by God. There is some flexibility regarding unofficial or speculative doctrines. But to say that a lack of consensus on one issue means there is no consensus on any issue is false, in my opinion. Out of curiosity, I assume you attend a church. Do you think that every member of your congregation interprets everything in the Bible the exact same way you do? Just look at this forum; there is a diversity of opinions on a number of topics, but that doesn't negate the fact that the majority are still unified in their acceptance of the Bible as Scripture and Christ as Savior. It is no difference within our church.
If we taught that, then you would have a point. But we're not talking about a foundational teaching of the church. How God came to be God has zero impact on the church's mission or our salvation. We have a church because we believe it is where the authority to perform binding, saving ordinances is had, where we can increase in understanding of God, and experience fellowship with others, to to learn the gospel. There are many things a Mormon must believe to be considered "orthodox." Before one can even be baptized, they must accept that God is real, that Christ is our savior, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, that Thomas S. Monson (or whoever is our president at the time) is our prophet today, and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. We believe and teach what is in the Scriptures. I admit, I'm not quite sure I understand your criticism that since some areas are "mysteries" spawning a variety of opinions, that there is no consensus on anything. That is not the case in my experience.
A witness of the truthfulness comes from the Holy Ghost. It always has. So far, it hasn't let me...or the church down.

It's logical given how we currently understand eternal progression. We understand that the purpose of mortality is to learn and grow and become "like God." We accept this as an eternal truth. Therefore, logically, we could assume that it applies to God. But, it's just that, an assumption. We don't know if the process worked differently for him, if he instituted the current laws regarding eternal progression, or if he is subject to it also. Human logic can only carry us so far, and since the Scriptures are silent on how God became as he is, we can speculate. It's interesting, but not very useful.

Man becoming like God isn't actually an assumption on our part. That's clearly spelled out in the Doctrine and Covenants, and we believe, the Holy Bible.  Did God undergo the same process? Who knows? You're right. It's a big assumption to make.
I must flatly refuse this idea. We absolutely hold to doctrinal truth. I think I must be communicating poorly in my attempts to show what it is. Doctrinal Truth is found within the four books of Scripture (The Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price). We accept these as unmitigated truth. We can also receive personal witnesses of truth as the Spirit bears witness. Every General Conference I experience this. If you are speaking about establishing doctrine, there is a prescribed method for that. The president of the Church (the prophet) will receive revelation. It will be declared as revelation from God by the joint voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (those who hold the keys to receive revelation to guide the church) and it will be sustained by the General membership of the church. My thoughts on this are that there are too many 'checks' in place to prevent incorrect doctrine from becoming official. The prophet would have to be mistaken, as would both of his counselors, as would all twelve members of the Quorum of apostles. So too, would the rank and file members of the church have to be mistaken. The Holy Spirit works in every step of the process. I believe this is the case because things that have gone through this process have endured and continue to be taught. Things that have not fall by the wayside, becoming obscure foot notes in the history of the church. I simply have faith that the system works.

Because our Scriptures clearly teach who he is, as it pertains to our salvation. And our Scriptures are NOT presumptuous. They are the very measuring stick against which we measure all truth. Again, if you and a friend disagreed on some biblical detail, does that mean the Bible in its entirety ceases to be true?  Not knowing every detail about God doesn't mean we still can't have a personal relationship with him. I don't know every last detail about my earthly father's early years, the experiences that made him who he is, but my relationship is no less real or personal because of it.
I'm not understanding your point here. Our scripture ARE clear, in terms of what we need to know about him. They reveal God to be all powerful, full of mercy, love and tenderness. He is a being of infinitely great power, but loves each of us in an intimately personal way. He is our creator, the author of our salvation, the one who gives us strength and sustenance. He gives us purpose and direction, and I am confident that when we die, he will welcome us home in a reunion more sweet than I can fathom. I don't need to understand every facet of his existence to know these things. The Scriptures plainly teach them, and the Holy Spirit has borne witness that these things are true.
God's nature IS canonical Scripture. From the Doctrine and Covenants:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

This speaks of the distinct physical nature of all three personages of the Godhead. The Scriptures teach additional principles that conflict with the notion of the Trinity. They teach that the father is greater than the son, so they are not co-equal. They teach that we are literally the spirit ofspring of God, destined to become like him so they are not one God on account of their substance, for we are of the same substance as them. And in our doctrine, we believe we have always existed, so we are all co-eternal with God. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are indeed One God in our Scriptures, but that oneness is understood differently in light of modern revelation which, as I've stated prior, came through the proper channels.


The same way Peter knew Jesus was the Christ, not by flesh and blood, but by my father in Heaven.
Actually, we DO believe all three members are God. Where we differ from Trinitarians is how we understand their "oneness."
God the Father will always be our God. Just like me becoming an adult and having children of my own doesn't mean I have supplanted my own parents or do not give them deference.
I don't believe that's how it would work. But even if it was, it wouldn't matter. If we qualified for exaltation, we too would be one with each other,, unified in purpose and will, just at the Father and Son are.

There's a Mormon theory I've heard that I am remiss to mention because I feel it might muddy the waters further, and I don't know if I understand it well enough to delve into it, but I'll state it anyways. The way we use the term God, is that it is a singular noun used to denote a plural. As an example, there are three personages in the Godhead (father, son and holy ghost). Each are a god, by virtue of them being separate beings that are on their own still divine, but they are still called collectively "God." I have heard it argued before that when we become "gods," and invited to partake of the divine nature, that we would enter into a unity (in thought, purpose and will, not in substance) with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and thus, become one God. In this view, God, with an upper case is simply used to denote the state of all exalted beings.

I might be treading into non-doctrinal issues, though, so I want to make it clear that this might not actually be a fully accurate explanation of how we view the idea of One God.

Thoughtful line of questioning, though. Hopefully, my answers are making some sense.

Let me capture the first big chunk of your reply as a starter.
I see some circular reasoning in the reply that handles prophesy. You divide prophesy in 2 categories, those that came true and those that are yet to become true.
But I dare to submit that you have a third category: the utterances which did not come true, and which you then have declared non-prophesies.
So you are correct that you do not know of any failed prophesies, but that is only because you declared that those prophesies were not prophesies after all.
Then the logical question arises, which of the prophesies that you hold to become true in future will also turn out to become non-prophesies in future?

You appeal to the fact that your present Prophets are guided by the Holy Spirit to declare truth. But that same goes for Joseph Smith, he also was guided by the Holy Spirit and yet he made prophesies that you have declared fallible utterances.
So why would the truths declared by your Presidents not be fallible utterances as well?

I don't see it in any other way than that you really do not know which revelation is true and which revelation is not true.
So then why would you believe the revelation by Joseph Smith that all men can become God? That clearly is a prophesy that falls in the category that could become true...but could also be a fallible utterance.


You asked me the question: "Out of curiosity, I assume you attend a church. Do you think that every member of your congregation interprets everything in the Bible the exact same way you do"
Fair question, but it presumes the lack of doctrine. See, my church has a doctrine of God and who He is. My church also has a doctrine of who humans are and how they therefore cannot be God.
Unlike your doctrine of who God is, our doctrines do not allow for opposites to be true.
For example: my church has a doctrine about the Trinity, that it is true. We do not hold a doctrine that declares the Trinity both true and false.


Again I sense a contradiction in your argumentation:
- We understand that the purpose of mortality is to learn and grow and become "like God."
- We don't know if the process worked differently for him, if he instituted the current laws regarding eternal progression, or if he is subject to it also.

If the purpose of mortality is to learn and grow to become God, then God must have been mortal to learn and grow to become God as well. In that case God must have been a mortal man at some point in time.
On the other hand if God became God without having been mortal, then you have no reason to believe that your mortality will make you reach the point where you will be God.


You make a very interesting statement: "God the Father will always be our God. Just like me becoming an adult and having children of my own doesn't mean I have supplanted my own parents or do not give them deference."
That's very true, but there is one thing that you cannot become: your own parent.
You are actually making a point that you cannot become God. It is rationally impossible to have more than one all powerful God.
What you can have rationally is more than one imperfect gods, but none of those would be God.


Finally, and this is rather surprising.
Your proposition: "I have heard it argued before that when we become "gods," and invited to partake of the divine nature, that we would enter into a unity (in thought, purpose and will, not in substance) with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and thus, become one God. In this view, God, with an upper case is simply used to denote the state of all exalted beings. "

Well, the biggest problem here of course is that in this unity nobody is God. Persons in this construction, even though they have a common goal, are solely individual persons NONE of which is God. Moreover, in this construction God will never be able to be God because the moment another Mormon joins the unity He will be bigger than before.


As far as I can see, Mormonism argues against the Kalam argument.
If God never started to exist then God did not have a cause. But then anything that started to exist (such as humans) must have a cause and can therefore never be God.
If God however started to exist, then God has a cause. Then that cause must be God.


In closing: I do appreciate your responses and I also want to compliment you for your constraint and patience. Many posters on this board, including myself, are easily drawn into ad-hominem exchanges and your refusal to be drawn into one is well noted.

[the_last_gunslinger]

You appeal to the fact that your present Prophets are guided by the Holy Spirit to declare truth. But that same goes for Joseph Smith, he also was guided by the Holy Spirit and yet he made prophesies that you have declared fallible utterances.
So why would the truths declared by your Presidents not be fallible utterances as well?

I would submit that you are in the exact same position as I. We both agree that men, even men of God, prophets, are fallible and imperfect. That means they could utter things that are untrue, or give Scriptural interpretation according to their limited understanding. This is true for our modern prophets, yes. But it is also true of prophets anciently. If prophets in ancient days are also fallible, what assurances, or by what means, can you be certain that the Holy Bible is absolute truth? Could that not contain some of their fallible errors? How can you know beyond doubt that the Bible is pure and not the product of imperfect man?

It's a Sunday School answer, but the best response is simply Faith. We take it on faith that God will not let his prophets lead his church astray. We believe God allows them to make mistakes, allows prophets to learn and grow also as they learn to hearken to their Father's voice. But, and I believe this very strongly, God will never allow them to be so wrong so as to lead the church or its adherents down faulty paths, or to take them from the place God wants them to be. As Wilford Woodruff Stated, "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

Even if prophets err, they will not do so unto our salvation. We have prophets to help us return to Heavenly Father. I have faith in their divine calling and have benefited greatly from heeding their counsel. Through the words of the Prophets, the sacred records that constitute our Scriptures, and personal revelation from the Holy Ghost, I rarely dwell on the subject you have raised. I am confident in our course.

I don't see it in any other way than that you really do not know which revelation is true and which revelation is not true.
So then why would you believe the revelation by Joseph Smith that all men can become God? That clearly is a prophesy that falls in the category that could become true...but could also be a fallible utterance

Men becoming like God isn't a fallible utterance. That's canonized Scripture and is the Word of the Lord. I get the impression you believe that Mormons have no set doctrine, and rely upon words of prophets for every instruction. If that were the case, I would have little faith in the church. Just as you measure every word according to your standard, the Holy Bible, so too do we measure the words of our leaders against our Scriptures, The Bible and the additional three books we accept. It is my personal belief that false teachings do not endure. The things that the Saints believed two hundred years ago, many of them were based on less revelation than we have now, less knowledge and understanding. They were products of their time and as such, interpreted Scripture differently than we do now. The words that a prophet speaks which conform to what the Scriptures attest are definitely on sound footing. This is the case 99 percent of the time, in my experience. If a prophet does say something that flatly contradicts Scripture, we can be certain he is speaking his own opinion or that the opinion needs to be further expressed.

As an example of this, I'd cite Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory. Young once stated that Adam was our father and our God... This is blatantly at odds with what the Scriptures teach about God and Adam, and doesn't even seem congruent with other statements made by Young. As such, we know that it is not to be believed and the church has disavowed such sentiment.

The vast majority of utterances by prophets and apostles are guidance, counsel, Scriptural commentary and moral warnings. New foundational doctrines and revelations are rare. But if they do occur, we have a system in place that allows us to know of their veracity. I've already summed it up in previous responses. The Prophet receives revelation, it is confirmed by his two councilors and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, presented to the general membership of the church for a sustaining vote. Then it becomes Scripture and binding upon the church. This system provides a "check" to ensure it really is revelation. For a false teaching to become official, then, we would have to assume it possible that God's prophet was mistaken, as were his two apostolic councilors, every member of the Twelve, not to mention, the worldwide membership of the church.


This is our established pattern for knowing what truth is. You use the Bible only as your standard, and we have our own, based on similar principles. But, let's assume a prophet did make a false prophecy, or gave faulty advice. If I accepted something that came from a prophet of God, and acted upon it, believed it, whatever, and it turned out to be wrong, the prophet would still be a prophet, and I would not be responsible in God's eyes. So again, I don't tend to worry too much about it.

Fair question, but it presumes the lack of doctrine. See, my church has a doctrine of God and who He is. My church also has a doctrine of who humans are and how they therefore cannot be God.
Unlike your doctrine of who God is, our doctrines do not allow for opposites to be true.
For example: my church has a doctrine about the Trinity, that it is true. We do not hold a doctrine that declares the Trinity both true and false

We also do not allow for two different doctrines to be "officially" true. When it comes to how God became God, our "official" answer is we don't know. Given our lack of clarity, the church doesn't mandate which position an individual may hold. We have a doctrine on who God is too, but it doesn't go back that far and is speculative. So too do we have doctrine on how man CAN become like God. That is NOT speculative, but is laid out plainly in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible (as we understand it).

I've had countless debates with Trinitarian Christians and I don't see them as being in a more advantageous position than we are. There are things about the Trinity that do not make sense, that defy logic and reason, that in fact, seem to hold true contradictory ideas. You say that the Trinity doctrine does not allow for opposites to be true. But I would disagree. I am no expert on the doctrine, but according to what I know, the Trinity holds that the Father and Son are Equal. Yet, Trinitarians also tell me they believe Jesus when he says the Father is greater than I (Jon 14:28). The Trinity holds that The Father and Son are both co equally and co eternally God, yet also do not dispute Christ claiming that the Father is HIS God (John 20:17). From my perspective, one cannot have a co-equal Triune God if one is greater than the other, nor can there literally only be one God if the Father is God to another part of the Trinity, who is also God. These things are also contradictory. Trinitarians have told me that God is only a spirit, without body, parts and passions, yet Jesus Christ, who is also God, was resurrected with a physical body of flesh and bones. This doesn't even get into the fact that the Trinity, nor the Bible explains what it means to be co-substantial, what that substance is or how three can equal one. And Trinity Christians interpret and justify these apparent anomalies in different ways, as we do about the God's origin.

If the purpose of mortality is to learn and grow to become God, then God must have been mortal to learn and grow to become God as well. In that case God must have been a mortal man at some point in time.

Not necessarily. God could have always been God, but instituted a plan, according to his omnipotent power, that allows us to become like Him. If God is literally all powerful and all knowing, he need not have undergone a similar experience to know how to help us become like him.

On the other hand if God became God without having been mortal, then you have no reason to believe that your mortality will make you reach the point where you will be God.

I have a good reason. God declared it, and I believe it.

You are actually making a point that you cannot become God. It is rationally impossible to have more than one all powerful God.

This is interesting coming from a Trinitarian. From my perspective, this is exactly what you believe. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost is not the Father. There are three divine beings that are all considered One perfect God. What I am proposing is this, just on a larger scale. If we can have three divine personages that are all One God, why can it not be four, 100, one million, or more? Keep in mind one thing. The belief that we will become 'gods' does not mean we will supplant our Father in Heaven. He will always be our father and we will always worship him. In this vein, the parent/child analogy is fitting. Our parents want us to grow up and be successful adults. They teach us, help us, let us learn from our mistakes, and hopefully, we will become successful parents and adults, like them. But they are still our parents. We love them as our parents and revere them as our parents. Our relationship to them does not change. So it is with the doctrine of theosis. God the Father will never cease to be our God.

Well, the biggest problem here of course is that in this unity nobody is God. Persons in this construction, even though they have a common goal, are solely individual persons NONE of which is God. Moreover, in this construction God will never be able to be God because the moment another Mormon joins the unity He will be bigger than before.

Keep in mind, this is not something I heard from any church leader or from the Scriptures, so I feel I need to add that disclaimer. But your rebuttal, I simply disagree with the conclusion. The Father Son and Holy Ghost, in our theology, are One God, precisely because of this unity. If we are also united likewise, I don't see it playing out the same way you do.

As far as I can see, Mormonism argues against the Kalam argument.

I am not very familiar with this argument, so I had to look it up. If I understand it correctly, then yes. We would very strongly argue against it for the sole reason that Mormons do not believe in creatio ex nihilio. We believe the elements, that matter has always existed and is eternal. Likewise, we believe that we have always been eternal. From the Doctrine and Covenants 93:29, we read, " Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." There was never a time when something didn't exist. When we speak of God creating the world, for example, we mean He organized the world from pre-existent, chaotic matter. In our theology, you and I have had no beginning. Our intelligence has always existed. But it was God who took that intelligence (which isn't really spelled out as to what this actually is) and through some process we know nothing about, created for us a body of Spirit, which, was, in time, housed in a body of flesh. But that intelligence, what defines our primeval existence, was not created. This is deeply metaphysical stuff, and I don't fully comprehend it all, but it's incredibly interesting to discuss.

In closing: I do appreciate your responses and I also want to compliment you for your constraint and patience. Many posters on this board, including myself, are easily drawn into ad-hominem exchanges and your refusal to be drawn into one is well noted.

No problem. I enjoy talking religion. And if I have a willing dialogue partner, I'm always eager, so long as things can be expressed in a respectful and reasonable manner.