Joseph Smith: Creator of the Fourth Abrahamic Faith; Mormonism

So what? Works and works in the law appear to be different. That’s the best you can do?

I have to run, but on the conception of Jesus through intercourse, mormon doctrine seems to say it is so.

Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp.546-47

The answers were certainly clear to me. Perhaps you need a reading course?

For some interesting commentary on Mormonism may I suggest the South park episode on the issue.
Crude? yes.
Fact filled? Actually, Yes.
Funny? Hilarious.

Just point to it please and put this to rest.

Placemark I am posting this secret message for my FIP friends....love ya!

Ditto

Sorry for not getting back to you, there are other things that need my attention.

You asked previously if the LDS worship Jesus Christ and I gave you conflicting answers, but corrected myself as hopefully you previously saw. My confusion is that our emphasis is always on the Father and all our actions are to the Father as He has commanded, through His Son. Still, we worship Christ as our Savior, God’s only Begotten and our Eldest Brother.

Now, you cite 3d Nephi 19 about where he is among the Nephites after great calamities and after he has taught them a few things. It is clear that the people are praying to Christ, but at the same time, Christ separates himself from the groups and prays to his Father. One thing you overlooked is that in the previous chapter, 18, Jesus taught them how to pray:

“19 Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name;”

Why are they praying to Christ, their Lord and God after being commanded to pray to God the Father is an interesting question. He doesn’t reprimand them at all at any time so I consider it a non issue. Is it a contradiction? I don’t think so since Christ taught them how to pray and obviously he was pleased with their prayers even if they were to him and not to the Father. AT that same time, HE prayed to HIS Father as he previously commanded them.

Without gloss, I can think of reasons why he didn’t reprimand them, some would be because Christ is resurrected at this point and had completed his earthly mission, taking his place at the right hand of God. Further, they were ever so grateful to have their Savior among them that perhaps being sticklers for what they were just taught wasn’t a high priority at that time. I do know that as Christ taught them to pray to the Father in his name, so is how we are to pray to this day.

I am sure you will take exception with my response or come up with some rebuttal, but it really is a non issue within the LDS Church as it is very clear that Christ taught what prayer is and could well have made a big deal about their prayers as you found had he felt it important.

In post 361, he says: ...yes, in worshiping God and Jesus, who is God’s son, you can say the LDS worship more than one god...

So, note the “evolution” of beliefs: JoshM has gone from worshipping the Father thru Jesus—and no ONE else...(LDS keep telling us that Jesus is a different ONE than the Father)...(monotheism) to “Yup we worship BOTH gods!” (polytheism)

_____________________________

If we reject the Trinity in favor of a Godhead, comprised of the same members, it becomes a difference of degree and not of kind. We both worship God the Father and His Son, the Christ, but since you morph the two together as the same essence and we claim they are separate beings, you say we are polytheists, which is technically true, but our worship is still the same: We both worship God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

However, for LDS, it is important to understand the true nature of God, which is He has a body. You never once addressed how it is we are made in His image. Since God the Father has a body, and Christ is a resurrected being, with a body, it is difficult to comprehend this essence idea of a trinity.

"You think, that since the Golden Plates® were written in Reformed Egyptian, the monuments in CA would have these words on them too, but, alas, they don't."

My impression is that there is no DNA evidence of semitic ancestry in the peoples of the New World; no linguistic evidence; no documentary evidence; and now, you say, no inscriptions on the monuments either.

This makes the evidence seem rather dubious. Don't you think?

And what does all of this have to do with St. Peter, martyred in about 64 A.D. in Rome?

" Since God the Father has a body ..." Um, the 'body' God Almighty has is the one He possess in the person of Jesus Christ. The Almighty may take any manifestation He so chooses, and He has chosen to manifest Himself in Jesus Christ, through Jesus Christ, AS Jesus Christ, God with us. Since the ascension He also manifests Himself IN those who trust in Jesus Christ as their Deliverer, God IN US. If you have not Christ, you are none of His.

I've used this analogy before to try and steer Mormon thinking toward accepting the Trinity of God. Let's see how you, n00bie, accept it. Think of God as dimensionally manifesting at differing levels of complexity, with Jesus --God in the flesh-- as the least complex of His manifestations. A much greater manifestation than 'in the flesh' is required to Create the universe of space, time, and matter, yet the Bible instructs us that The Word Who was made flesh and dwelt among us (the God with us) is the same Word by Whom, and through Whom are all things made.

This 'by Whom all things are made that are' includes the new man in Christ Jesus that the believer IS, for He, The Word, dwells in the born again by His promise to do this not by the fables of men, and He proved He would be God in us by rising from the dead and being alive 'in the flesh of Jesus' and you and me forever more.

[Note: 'the flesh of you' is both the body AND the behavior mechanism called soul of you; your human spirit is raised from the dead the minute you profess Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and Jesus taught His disciples about this 'dead' state of the human spirit when He referred to 'let the dead go bury their dead'.]

Since you are perhaps a n00bie at FR, if you require more on the topic, just ask and I will try to answer your questions. And if I cannot, there are very capable theologians here who can, I'm sure of it. But the vital thing you must realize and acknowledge is, your dead human spirit doesn't await resurrection from a dead state until you do all that you can do, the spiritual resurrection happens the minute you profess Him Lord! Once you are born again, raised to spirit aliveness, the transforming of your behavior mechanism is the process of works carried out by the indwelling Holy Spirit of God in you, the hope of glory.

[Note: when the Glory of God came into the Holy of Holies, God was in the temple ... you are the temple of the living God since the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, God with us become God in us.]

Meant to ping you, sir.

LOL! That’s correct. We believe the authority of the church established by Jesus Christ was lost with the death of the apostles. Hence, the need for that authority to be restored to restore the Church of Jesus Christ.

First of all, Mormon theology recognizes that Elijah never died. They also believe the apostle John also has never died. They also believe a few Nephite disciples never died. Now tell me again with all these supposed enduring disciples around with plenty of authority why God had to rely upon a 14 yr old kid?

Secondly maybe you never got around to reading a few key Gospel passages, like "ALL authority on heaven & earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18)...now Jesus wasn't playing games about the earth part, and it wasn't temporary authority. All authority is HIS; it's still HIS. And the Bible furthermore makes it quite plain whom he authorizes to be his sons (that's right...it's not automatic...it's not due to some fictional story about some "pre-existing spirits"...the supposed curse of the black skin due to lack of valiant "neutrals" should have clued you in about that tall tale long ago).

As for the "quite plain" passage as to whom Jesus authorizes, all we have to do is go to John 1:12-13: "Yet to ALL ["all"=all] who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right [Greek word "exousia"=authority] to become [not already were] children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husband's will, but born of God."

So what implications does this have for Mormons?

(1) Not everybody's automatically an inherent son (or daughter) of God...John 8 & Jesus' words to the Pharisees further bear this out;

(2) You don't become a son of God by being born into a certain family...so being born into a Mormon family doesn't automatically cut it ("not of natural descent").

(3) If a husband decides to convert to Mormonism, well v. 13 says it really doesn't have anything to do with "human decision" & also his family isn't automatically children of God, either ("nor of a...husband's will").

(4) Since it's to ALL who receive & believe, you don't get in by the color of your Mormon uniform.

Show us ANYWHERE where "priesthood authority" of the Melchizedek or Aaronic order was practiced in Book of Mormon times or the New Testament era (other than Jesus being the lone High priest, as mentioned in Hebrews).

In fact show us from history where the LDS were even operating on any such order in 1830 (they weren't 'cause the idea wasn't original with Smith to start it up in their midst). And if there was no priesthood authority operative in 1830 or earlier, on what grounds was a Latter-day Saint church operative that year?

I’ve heard it said that either the Catholics are right or the Mormons, the protestants haven’t a leg to stand on! :-)

Well, you can be sure of one thing: You didn't hear this from the Bible.

So please tell us what pre-1830s leg does LDS have to stand on? Let's just assume for a teeny-tiny moment that the two personages who appeared to Smith had some kind of authentic authority to pass on. Well, go ahead. Tell us what kind of leg they had to stand on? Where did they get their authority, their free agency, their sovereignty?

Well, all you can point to is that they must have got it from their personal Organizer (when LDS say create, they never mean create out of nothing 'cause their gods have no power to create out of nothing...they're mere organizers...interior and exterior decorators). LDS clearly teaches that their "Heavenly Father" was once a mere manly creature, so we know that authority, free agency & sovereignty didn't originate with him, now did it?

So he got his "leg to stand on" from his god, who likely got his leg to stand on, from granddad god, who got his from great granddad god...and run it back up within the LDS-taught "council of gods" as far as you can...and you can't point to one single entity who has an ultimate leg to stand on, now can you? (Please point him out to us so we can acknowledge, worship & glorify Him, if you please)

If a police officer arrests you, and you ask him where he gets his authority from, and he tells you the city...well I guess that's all & good. If you then ask the city where they get their authority from, and they tell you the state...well I guess that's all & good. And if you ask the state where they get their authority from, and they tell you the federal govt (well, I know some FREEPERS who might have a problem with that :) ) If you then ask the federal govt where they get their authority from, and if they can't trace it to a TRUE original Source--a Buck stops here Source--like the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Paul, then they really don't have a leg to stand on. Eventually that leg will not hold its own weight.

So if you don't have a buck-stops-here God but instead sport a god who had to be accountable & answerable to another god, and this process goes on indefinitely backwards in eternity past because Smith taught that spirits and intelligences are eternal past, then your god has no leg to stand on. Time to give him up.

Lets take earthly polygamy off the table completely first of all as the LDS Church now condemns polygamy.[Domandred]

This is true, for the SLC branch.[Elsie]

Partially incorrect answer, Elsie, on at least one and maybe two fronts. I'll start with the "maybe" (somebody correct me if I'm wrong): The SLC branch has only condemned polygamy for its current members. I don't believe they've ever condemned it for anybody want their authority.

I mean, the LDS church is hardly in a position to condemn it culture-wide without giving commentary about their own historical leaders.

Secondly, I know I'm not off-base here: LDS don't believe their "historical leaders" merely reside in history, but instead are alive & well & still Polygamously operative in colonies like Kolob & whatever celestial kingdoms exist out there.

I mean, you don't see the LDS church condemning Joseph Smith and Brigham Young & the rest on yonder stars & planets, do you? No. The LDS church is selectively condemnatory. (I mean LDS state officials in Utah don't even crack down on polygamy near its state borders)

Are you telling me you couldn’t read it for yourself?

Thank you for the thought.

shalom b'shem Yah'shua

...lets say LDS is a cult. Apparently it is in your view of Christianity. Christians were the original cult. I’m Jewish and more than 2000 years ago you guys showed up and for the first 1000 years you were the outcast and perceived nutbags. (careful, we’re all friends here...)

OK, let's compare what happened when the Christians came on the scene and how they treated the Jews vs. how LDS treated the Christians based upon Smith's assessment of the Christian church in the early 1820s:

Paul told the church that he would rather be eternally cursed if only his fellow Jews would be saved (Romans 9:1-3). Now did Smith tell his fellow members that he would rather be cursed if only the non-LDS sects would be saved? (No) Instead, he told ALL of them that they were "corrupt" and that ALL their creeds were an "abomination before God."

Christians believed in reincarnation if you go back far enough...

Well you can always find 1 in 100,000. (Otherwise, not an accurate statement unless you're referencing an outright heretic or two)

I don’t have to calculate Mitt is relation to his faith in order to decide whether or not to support him like other Christians do because it doesn’t gore my ox, so to speak.

Well, let me go back to what I said above. What if the apostle Paul had come to the Jews and said that EVERY Jewish believer was "corrupt" and that every single Old Testament creed was an "abomination to God?" (I think THEN you would have your gored ox...not your Al Gore, either).

So, when you ask how much of the LDS faith do you want to count against a guy like Mitt? well based on this scenario, let's turn the question around: Let's say you live in an orthodox Jewish neighborhood. Let's say "Hitt Down-on-mey" rolled into your neighborhood & was very nice to you; but then you came upon his closely adhered-to animal lodge creed of beliefs...what if those beliefs included, "We believe that ALL Jewish believers are 'corrupt' and that ALL Old Testament creeds were 'an abomination before God.'" Now let me ask you: Exactly how "inspired" are you and your fellow believers likely to be about voting for "Hitt Down-on-mey?" How much would you count those animal lodge creeds against him?

...it is a faith and its causing people to live better lives at least here on Earth. It absolutely can be argued that it’s all going to be a huge mistake in the hereafter. But it’s pretty clear that the LDS are positively influencing the lives of their followers as it relates to the rest of us as Americans and fellow citizens.

OK, have you checked the suicide rates for the state of Utah in any recent year or decade? And I don't think it's healthy to communicate to my child, "Ya better behave or you risk your future godhood status." I would want them to obey me because of their relational love for me, not for some hidden boomerang motive that bounces back to them & accumulates brownie points for divinity.

I wouldn't also want to short Jesus' own vantage point. On numerous times, he told his followers to live long-term (as in eternal long-term). He told them not to fear what folks can do to your body, but rather Him who can cast our soul into hell. He told them it'd be better to cut off our hand & enter into the beyond handless than to remain whole & have our entire body head into hell. That's pretty clear to me that no matter how I protect my own physical security or that of those around me; no matter how "healthy" I keep my hand; if I don't attend to what's going to keep me & others around me out of hell, it renders the earth goals you reference as worthless.

OK, have you checked the suicide rates for the state of Utah in any recent year or decade?

There is that again, for some reason you really like bringing that up as if it's an indication of Mormanism.

Utah isn't the highest suicide rate State btw. Alaska, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and West Virginia all beat out Utah.

So you can really stop trotting out that statistic as an argument against Mormonism.

Attributing motives and other types of reading minds of another poster are “making it personal.” All parties are warned: discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

First of all, Mormon theology recognizes...

LOL! Yet another anti-Mormon chimes in! I hope they are laying off the Catholics!