Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the Mormon God the Christian God? - Excerpt from "Analysis of LDS Scholar Arguments...
Institute for Religious Research ^ | 2002 | Robert B. Stewart

Posted on 05/10/2010 8:16:49 PM PDT by delacoert

Is the Mormon God the Christian God?

The most important question to be asked when evaluating Robinson’s arguments for recognizing Mormonism as Christian is, “Is the God of Mormonism the God of Christianity?” If the Mormon God is not the Christian God then there can be no thought of understanding Mormonism as Christian.

Robinson readily admits that much of what Mormonism teaches about God cannot be found in the Bible. He insists, however, that this does not mean that the Mormon God is not the biblical God, only that LDS modern revelation has explicated some areas concerning God on which the Bible is silent.28 Concerning God’s corporeality he declares, “I do maintain that the Bible makes no unambiguous statement about the materiality or immateriality of the Father, and that we may therefore think of him either as having a body or as not having a body without ‘contradicting’ the Bible.”29 In other words, the Mormon understanding of God is extra-biblical, but not un-biblical. He also admits freely that Mormonism has a different concept of God than “orthodox” Christianity because “orthodox” Christianity has a doctrine of God that is the product of an influx of Hellenistic thought corrupting and distorting the biblical picture of God.

To those who insist that a corporeal God is not consistent with 1 Timothy 1:17, which states, among other things, that God is invisible, he responds that aoratos does not mean invisible, but simply unseen. The upshot of this understanding of aoratos is that one is left with a god who plays hide and seek.

The fact that LDS teach that God has a body,30 does not prevent the Mormon God from being omnipresent, according to Robinson, because God’s omnipresence is spiritual, not physical, in nature.31 To those who insist on understanding John 4:24 as teaching the incorporeality of God he replies that the text should be translated “God is Spirit,” not “God is a Spirit.” “Latter-day Saints do not dispute this passage at all, unless it is interpreted as limiting God to being merely a spirit.”32 This limited understanding of God as merely spirit comes from Greek philosophy rather than the biblical witness, according to Robinson. In rejecting Greek metaphysics, he writes, “God is spirit, but he is also element; both aspects of existence are included and encompassed within his glorious being. That he is either one does not limit the fact that he is also the other—and infinitely more.”33

Robinson’s argument seems rather disingenuous to those familiar with Mormonism. He is employing the language gap of which he complains in his introductory remarks34 to take advantage of the evangelical Christian belief that there is an ontological difference between spirit and matter. For example, Robinson argues that Mormonism’s God can be omnipresent because his omnipresence is spiritual, not physical. According to Mormon scripture, however, spirit actually is material: “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (Doctrine & Covenants 131:7–8). It is hard to imagine Robinson is unaware that the Book of Mormon teaches that “the spiritual aspect of God’s existence” is coextensive with that of his physical aspect. In a supposed preincarnate appearance, Christ says, “Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh” (Ether 3:16). Mormon scriptures render Robinson’s argument here very “non-official” (and perhaps even unorthodox by LDS standards).

Another serious defect in Robinson’s interpretation of John 4:24 is that in its context this passage involves a discussion of where one ought to worship God, and thus, a question of where one can find God. Jesus responds that the location of worship does not matter. The reason that location is not an issue is because God is not limited to being present in any one location. The reason why God is not limited to one place or another is precisely because God is Spirit, not because God is a material being who is spiritually present (materially present in a finer sort of fashion) in all places.

Yet another argument that Robinson uses to deny that John 4:24 contradicts the LDS concept of God having a body is that since Jesus was God, and he had a body, there is no warrant for thinking that God must necessarily be immaterial. In this argument Robinson: (1) blurs the Trinitarian distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit; (2) ignores the fact that Christ’s incarnation took place in time/space, and the incarnation body was not essential to his nature as Deity; and (3) ignores the fact that in the incarnation Christ was not omnipresent.

A question related to the corporeality of God is whether or not God was a man prior to becoming God? Robinson affirms that the teaching that God is an exalted man is a linchpin of LDS theology.35 Yet he says this should not be taken to mean that God is not “infinite and eternal.”36 This, however, contradicts what Joseph Smith, Jr. declared in the King Follett funeral sermon, which Robinson allows has “normative” force in LDS theology, concerning the nature of God. Smith states: “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see.”37 Thus it is apparent that the Mormon founder, through whom all LDS priesthood and prophetic authority is derived, thought that God was not eternally God. That Smith also believed that God was capable of progressing, and thus not infinite, is evident when he puts the following words in the mouth of Jesus:

My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain Kingdom upon Kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.38

Should one be perplexed as to how Robinson can claim to stand in continuity with Smith and at the same time teach radically different things about God, one must consider the LDS meaning of eternity. Latter-day Saints teach that there is an endless series of eternities. Robinson touches ever so briefly on this point when he writes, “In regard to the possibility that God was once a man in some prior eternity before the beginning of this one, ...” (italics added).39 Consistent with this (re)definition of eternity is his statement: “I firmly believe God did exist as God ‘before all ages’ (from the beginning), but that still does not say anything about before the beginning.40 Certainly my understanding of ‘eternity’ is different from that of the average Evangelical, but it is not without ancient precedent, nor is it internally inconsistent.”41 It is also apparent that Robinson’s understanding of time is not biblical. The God of the Bible created all things (John 1:3). A God who did not create time, but instead is himself subject to time, is not the biblical God.

Not only is the Mormon God not eternally God (in the normal sense of the word), he is not the only God. Although Robinson argues that Mormonism is not polytheistic,42 Joseph Smith disagrees. Again, in the same sermon that Robinson allows has normative force, although it is not technically canonical, Smith declares: “... 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 .... The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time.”43

There is yet another area of LDS Theology that is troubling to orthodox Christians — in LDS Theology, God has a wife. In Achieving a Celestial Marriage one reads: “Our Heavenly Father and mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage. As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children.”44 From this quotation one can readily see that God’s becoming a God was dependent not only upon his being married but also upon his having the right kind of marriage.

Robinson struggles valiantly to present the God of Mormonism as infinite, eternal, and one of a kind. Yet when one understands the meaning of his terms, the Mormon God is clearly understood to be finite, temporal, and one of many. The similarities are thus more semantic than actual. This cannot be reconciled with the Christian understanding of God.

An Analysis of LDS Scholar Stephen E. Robinson’s Arguments for Accepting Mormonism as Christian1 By Robert B. Stewart Copyright © 2002 Robert B. StewartMaterial Issues Is the Mormon God the Christian God? The most important question to be asked when evaluating Robinson’s arguments for recognizing Mormonism as Christian is, “Is the God of Mormonism the God of Christianity?” If the Mormon God is not the Christian God then there can be no thought of understanding Mormonism as Christian.

Robinson readily admits that much of what Mormonism teaches about God cannot be found in the Bible. He insists, however, that this does not mean that the Mormon God is not the biblical God, only that LDS modern revelation has explicated some areas concerning God on which the Bible is silent.28 Concerning God’s corporeality he declares, “I do maintain that the Bible makes no unambiguous statement about the materiality or immateriality of the Father, and that we may therefore think of him either as having a body or as not having a body without ‘contradicting’ the Bible.”29 In other words, the Mormon understanding of God is extra-biblical, but not un-biblical. He also admits freely that Mormonism has a different concept of God than “orthodox” Christianity because “orthodox” Christianity has a doctrine of God that is the product of an influx of Hellenistic thought corrupting and distorting the biblical picture of God.

To those who insist that a corporeal God is not consistent with 1 Timothy 1:17, which states, among other things, that God is invisible, he responds that aoratos does not mean invisible, but simply unseen. The upshot of this understanding of aoratos is that one is left with a god who plays hide and seek.

The fact that LDS teach that God has a body,30 does not prevent the Mormon God from being omnipresent, according to Robinson, because God’s omnipresence is spiritual, not physical, in nature.31 To those who insist on understanding John 4:24 as teaching the incorporeality of God he replies that the text should be translated “God is Spirit,” not “God is a Spirit.” “Latter-day Saints do not dispute this passage at all, unless it is interpreted as limiting God to being merely a spirit.”32 This limited understanding of God as merely spirit comes from Greek philosophy rather than the biblical witness, according to Robinson. In rejecting Greek metaphysics, he writes, “God is spirit, but he is also element; both aspects of existence are included and encompassed within his glorious being. That he is either one does not limit the fact that he is also the other—and infinitely more.”33

Robinson’s argument seems rather disingenuous to those familiar with Mormonism. He is employing the language gap of which he complains in his introductory remarks34 to take advantage of the evangelical Christian belief that there is an ontological difference between spirit and matter. For example, Robinson argues that Mormonism’s God can be omnipresent because his omnipresence is spiritual, not physical. According to Mormon scripture, however, spirit actually is material: “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (Doctrine & Covenants 131:7–8). It is hard to imagine Robinson is unaware that the Book of Mormon teaches that “the spiritual aspect of God’s existence” is coextensive with that of his physical aspect. In a supposed preincarnate appearance, Christ says, “Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh” (Ether 3:16). Mormon scriptures render Robinson’s argument here very “non-official” (and perhaps even unorthodox by LDS standards).

Another serious defect in Robinson’s interpretation of John 4:24 is that in its context this passage involves a discussion of where one ought to worship God, and thus, a question of where one can find God. Jesus responds that the location of worship does not matter. The reason that location is not an issue is because God is not limited to being present in any one location. The reason why God is not limited to one place or another is precisely because God is Spirit, not because God is a material being who is spiritually present (materially present in a finer sort of fashion) in all places.

Yet another argument that Robinson uses to deny that John 4:24 contradicts the LDS concept of God having a body is that since Jesus was God, and he had a body, there is no warrant for thinking that God must necessarily be immaterial. In this argument Robinson: (1) blurs the Trinitarian distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit; (2) ignores the fact that Christ’s incarnation took place in time/space, and the incarnation body was not essential to his nature as Deity; and (3) ignores the fact that in the incarnation Christ was not omnipresent.

A question related to the corporeality of God is whether or not God was a man prior to becoming God? Robinson affirms that the teaching that God is an exalted man is a linchpin of LDS theology.35 Yet he says this should not be taken to mean that God is not “infinite and eternal.”36 This, however, contradicts what Joseph Smith, Jr. declared in the King Follett funeral sermon, which Robinson allows has “normative” force in LDS theology, concerning the nature of God. Smith states: “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see.”37 Thus it is apparent that the Mormon founder, through whom all LDS priesthood and prophetic authority is derived, thought that God was not eternally God. That Smith also believed that God was capable of progressing, and thus not infinite, is evident when he puts the following words in the mouth of Jesus: My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain Kingdom upon Kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.38 Should one be perplexed as to how Robinson can claim to stand in continuity with Smith and at the same time teach radically different things about God, one must consider the LDS meaning of eternity. Latter-day Saints teach that there is an endless series of eternities. Robinson touches ever so briefly on this point when he writes, “In regard to the possibility that God was once a man in some prior eternity before the beginning of this one, ...” (italics added).39 Consistent with this (re)definition of eternity is his statement: “I firmly believe God did exist as God ‘before all ages’ (from the beginning), but that still does not say anything about before the beginning.40 Certainly my understanding of ‘eternity’ is different from that of the average Evangelical, but it is not without ancient precedent, nor is it internally inconsistent.”41 It is also apparent that Robinson’s understanding of time is not biblical. The God of the Bible created all things (John 1:3). A God who did not create time, but instead is himself subject to time, is not the biblical God.

Not only is the Mormon God not eternally God (in the normal sense of the word), he is not the only God. Although Robinson argues that Mormonism is not polytheistic,42 Joseph Smith disagrees. Again, in the same sermon that Robinson allows has normative force, although it is not technically canonical, Smith declares: “... 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 .... The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time.”43

There is yet another area of LDS Theology that is troubling to orthodox Christians — in LDS Theology, God has a wife. In Achieving a Celestial Marriage one reads: “Our Heavenly Father and mother live in an exalted state because they achieved a celestial marriage. As we achieve a like marriage we shall become as they are and begin the creation of worlds for our own spirit children.”44 From this quotation one can readily see that God’s becoming a God was dependent not only upon his being married but also upon his having the right kind of marriage.

Robinson struggles valiantly to present the God of Mormonism as infinite, eternal, and one of a kind. Yet when one understands the meaning of his terms, the Mormon God is clearly understood to be finite, temporal, and one of many. The similarities are thus more semantic than actual. This cannot be reconciled with the Christian understanding of God.

Notes 28 Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide?: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), hereafter HWTD?, 86.

29 Ibid, 79.

30 Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22 (hereafter D & C).

31 HWTD? , 88-89. If one is to make sense of LDS statements that God is omnipresent, one must know what LDS mean when they say omnipresent. In A Study of the Articles of Faith, (published by the church), one reads: There is no part of creation, however remote, into which God cannot penetrate; through the medium of the Spirit the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time. The senses of each of the Trinity are of infinite power; His mind is of unlimited capacity; His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are infinite; plainly, however, His person cannot be in more than one place at any one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an ‘immaterial being,’ under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith: Being a Consideration of the Principal Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1961), 42-43. The particular copy from which the writer quotes was a gift of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Fleming Library at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The writer assumes that this means the book at least provides a fairly accurate statement as to what LDS theology actually is.

32 AMC?, 79.

33 Ibid., 81.

34 HWTD?., 13-14.

35 HWTD?, 91. He stresses, however, that “more important, more in evidence, more often preached, more often studied, explained and pondered by the Latter-day Saints are the more central doctrines of the gospel of Christ.” Ibid. To his credit, Robinson does not seem uncertain about the place of this concept in Mormon theology, as Gordon Hinckley, the current LDS president, did when asked whether God was once a man in an interview for Time magazine: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.” David Van Biema, Time 150, no. 5, August 4, 1997: 56.

36 HWTD?, 78.

37 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (TPJS), 345. Robinson seems to want to have it both ways. He agrees with what Smith teaches in the King Follett sermon when it serves his purposes (God was once a man) while disagreeing with Smith on other topics (God’s finiteness and non-eternality) taught in the same sermon.

38 Ibid, 347–48.

39 HWTD?, 89.

40 Robinson ignores the fact that the “beginning” of John 1:1 is not the same as the “beginning” of Genesis 1:1. Genesis refers to a moment/place in time/space when God created this world. John, however, contemplates the eternity out of which God, by Christ, created time, space and matter, as is proved by verse 3. God was God, Christ the Word was God, without the existence of space, time and matter—“before,” as it were, Robinson’s “beginning.”

41 Ibid., 90. The precedent he appeals to is first century Judaism: “First -century Jews understood eternity to consist of successive ages or eons—all within the parameters of the beginning and the end.” Ibid. He does not support this statement with a reference. The qualification “all within the beginning and the end” seems to speak of one beginning and one end encapsulating successive eons. Apparently this is not how Robinson understands the statement. This only serves to make the point that the crucial issue is meaning, not terminology. Concerning the internal consistency of Mormonism’s “eternity” see Francis Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1991) for a discussion of the logical (in)consistency of the Mormon concept of God’s relationship to time.

42 HWTD?, 132.

43 TPJS, 345, 349. In a separate sermon, preached two months later, Smith declares: “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. . . . The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.” (brackets in original) Ibid., 372. It is apparent from this quotation that the God of this earth is not even the highest of the Gods; he cannot be referred to as the almighty in an ultimate sense. James White shows that Robinson disagrees on this point with his BYU colleague, Eugene England, Brigham Young University Studies 29 no. 3, 33, cited in James R. White, Is the Mormon My Brother?: Discerning the Differences Between Christianity and Mormonism (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997), 182.

44 Achieving a Celestial Marriage, (Salt Lake City: Corporation of the President of The Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976), 1.


TOPICS: Other non-Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: antimormon; beck; glennbeck; inman; lds; morman; mormanism; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
Excerpt fro a lolong article focusing as much as possible on odditties of the Mormom God

-dnk

1 posted on 05/10/2010 8:16:49 PM PDT by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: delacoert

The answer to the question, would be NO.


2 posted on 05/10/2010 8:22:36 PM PDT by Patrick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delacoert

We should ask God himself! The Mormons say that he lives on the planet Kolob, lets just go there and ask him!


3 posted on 05/10/2010 8:27:49 PM PDT by Mr. Jazzy ("I AM JIM THOMPSON and moderates make me PUKE!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jazzy

But you have to have special glasses to see him.


4 posted on 05/10/2010 8:29:57 PM PDT by Patrick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: delacoert
Is the Mormon God the Christian God?

No....and is the Christian god the Jewish G-d?

5 posted on 05/10/2010 8:32:29 PM PDT by blasater1960 ( Dt 30, Ps 111, The Torah is perfect, attainable, now and forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delacoert
I could run out of popcorn on this one! ...
6 posted on 05/10/2010 8:33:19 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delacoert

No


7 posted on 05/10/2010 8:43:20 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delacoert

Oops, I see that they are two different threads.


8 posted on 05/10/2010 8:51:16 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delacoert

Yes. Of course. It’s just that many of the other Christian denominations are a bit confused about the true nature of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost.


9 posted on 05/11/2010 9:36:44 AM PDT by Paragon Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1

“The answer to the question, would be NO.”

I’m a Mormon. Jesus Christ is my Savior, Lord, Master, Son of the Most High, the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, Redeemer of the New Testament, and Soon-Coming King.

So I think your answer is correct. Your God is definitely different from mine. Yours is mean, small, petty, condemning and puny.


10 posted on 05/11/2010 12:08:30 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: delacoert

The Institute for Religious Research - just another anti Mormon organization thriving on propaganda.

Where do they get their money? From selling articles such as this.

Blah blah blah. Same old boring garbage. Don’t you ever get sick of spreading these lies?

Jesus died for Mormons, too. Amen.


11 posted on 05/11/2010 12:12:12 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy; delacoert
Where do they get their money? From selling articles such as this.

Interesting SD, you bash anti's for making false statements regarding mormonism. The mormon church makes money by selling articles as well - why are you not condemning mormons outlets as well? FAIR, FARMS/Maxwell, Shirts, et al, and the lies they put forth on a regular basis.

Unremarkably, in classical mormonite manner comes the attack on the organization - NOT the content of the material presented. Really SD, suprise us some day by ACTUALLY dealing with the topic - but then you would have to think about it.

BTW SD, I hear the mormon mall is over 4 Billion now.

12 posted on 05/11/2010 1:19:22 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

“in classical mormonite manner comes the attack on the organization - NOT the content of the material presented”

The content of the material is propaganda and lies not requiring a response except to say that they are coming from folks making money off of it. If I had a nickel for every anti Mormon book, pamphlet, CD, DVD, etc., I’d be filthy rich, and I do mean filthy.


13 posted on 05/11/2010 3:48:43 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
The content of the material is propaganda and lies not requiring a response except to say that they are coming from folks making money off of it. If I had a nickel for every anti Mormon book, pamphlet, CD, DVD, etc., I’d be filthy rich, and I do mean filthy.

Once again, failure to address the points raised - by LSD scholars to boot. But then thats what happens when one is unable to address the intellectual points and can only attempt to smear the messenger. And if I extorted 10% of everyone's income, I'd be filthy rich too - guess thats where they got the bucks for the grand mall in SLC to the tune of 4+BILLION.

14 posted on 05/11/2010 3:54:25 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

“Once again, failure to address the points raised “

Once again, the “points raised” are nonsense and twisted and therefore do not deserve a response.

Jesus died for Mormons, too; get over it.


15 posted on 05/11/2010 3:58:13 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Once again, the “points raised” are nonsense and twisted and therefore do not deserve a response.

So you don't care that mormon apologist Robinson cannot accurately follow smith's teachings? Or are you unwilling to face the fact that all mormon doctrine is simply the opinion of the speaker at that time.

BTW, howmany shopping malls does IRR own versus LSD Inc?

16 posted on 05/11/2010 4:01:27 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

Amen.

17 posted on 05/11/2010 5:06:38 PM PDT by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry; Colofornian; Elsie; FastCoyote; svcw; Zakeet; SkyPilot; rightazrain; ...

Ping


18 posted on 05/13/2010 7:23:24 AM PDT by greyfoxx39 (I have discovered Campbell's Senior alphabet soup....it comes in large type.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1

“But you have to have special glasses to see him.”

Special glasses? Whatchutalkinbout, Willis?


19 posted on 05/13/2010 7:26:12 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Jesus Christ is my Savior, Lord, Master, Son of the Most High, the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, Redeemer of the New Testament, and Soon-Coming King.

Does you bishop know you feel this way?

20 posted on 05/13/2010 7:30:17 AM PDT by svcw (Habakkuk 2:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson