1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:(Emphasis added by me) Anyone who can read John 17, and look at how Jesus Talked with his father, and see the relationship which he compared to the relationship the disciples were to have and thinks that Jesus and God are the same substance, must believe that Jesus is a liar, there was no reason for him to say the things he did here if he and God are the same thing, unless it was to mislead us into believing he and God are not "of the same substance", but are separate entities that are so unified in purpose that they are almost indistinguishable from each other.
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
Well said.
I concur. Well said.
Oh, "of course not." Let's just look first @ the last 25 years @ two quotes from LDS publications:
BYU professor Kent P. Jackson, in the December 1984 issue of The Ensign (p. 9), wrote: "To say that Satan sits in the place of God in Christianity after the time of the Apostles is not to sayy that all that is in it satanic."
A year later, LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie published A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Here was a graph from p. 55: "The false gods of Christendom bear the same names as the true Gods of the Bible. Beyond this they have little resemblance. They are described in the creeds that the Lord told Joseph Smith were 'an abomination in his sight.'" (JS-H 1:19)
And, of course, the former part of the LDS temple ceremony--"The Lone and Dreary World" dramatization...where Lucifer is dialoguing with a "Preacher" and concludes: "Well, if you'll preach your orthodox religion to this people and convert them, I'll play you well." To which the preacher says, "I'll do my best. Good morning, sir."
God cannot be out maneuvered by some 19th century con artist...
Oh, so that explains why the Quran never became a best-seller in the Middle East and much of Asia! [sarc]
There is a way, a perfect way, a way created by God, a way described in the Bible and the Book of Mormon to know if the Book of Mormon is the word of God. those who believe the bible (not believe in, believe what it says) The Bible says to try the spirits, to Ask him,...
OK, by all means test all spirits and hold fast to that which is true (a Biblical standard indeed)...but exactly what is the filter for the test? (You fail to provide the verses for that!)
Therefore, you have flunked spiritual nobility. LDS are not as noble as the Bereans. Why? Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians... Why? for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11)
Now what again made the Bereans "more noble" than the Thessalonians? They compared the new revelation (Paul's) to the old revelation (the old testament). In Mormonism, it's the reverse. LDS prophet Ezra Taft Benson even said that a living prophet's revelation trumps a written one (said that a "living prophet" is more "vital to us than any of the standard works" and that the "living prophet" is more important than a dead prophet.
... the Book of Mormon promises an answer from God to those who pray with real intent. We call this putting our religion to "The Test." If anti Momrons honestly believe that God answers prayers, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints (nicknamed Mormons) is a false church, they will join me in encouraging everyone to Get a free Book of Mormon, Read, or Get and read a Bible, start reading Both, pray about Both, Believe what the Bible says that God will answer your prayers, and you will know if the Book of Mormon is the word of God or not.
Well, this seems to be a paraphrase of the LDS missionary's tactic to cite part of James 1:5 ("If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all..."). Well, at least Delf, it does appear you're appealing to Christians (if that's what you mean by "anti-Mormons")...a step up from the misguided LDS missionary attempt to use James 1:5 on non-Christians.
[I mean, the book of James is written "to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations..."--to God's people who are to "consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials...the testing of your faith." (James 1:1-3) In fact, it is exactly this faith that underlies what James says--that "when he asks, he must believe and not doubt" (James 1:6)...
LDS missionaries consistently wrestle this verse out of context when they ask non-Christians to pray. Verse 4 shows that it's meant to apply to those who already have a faith to be tested...a faith that needs "perseverence" that allows their faith to be finished, matured, completed. Instead, LDS missionaries hurl this verse at the faithless--not just those who need to finish & mature & complete their faith, but those for whom it's yet to start or grow. Also, it was never meant to be some bosom burner about a book James never heard of!
I mean imagine if I came to every LDS person & asked them to pray over a Sandra Tanner book to see if it contained the wisdom that God would give "generously to all," do you still think that test is the "pure" way to go?
What you are trying to do is disassemble the Godhead (an actual word used in the KJV Bible) to make it incompatible with the Trinity which is not in the KJV Bible anywhere. The God head and the trinity differ in one and only one significant thing, God and Christ are separate beings, not of the "Same substance" as the Trinity postulates.
Can't you just understand that same "substance" = same "nature?"
Please study Phillippians 2:6-7 closely: "Who being [Greek hyparcho, which means "to have, possess, to be, exist"] in very nature [Greek "morphe" form, nature, character] God did not consider equality with God someting to be grasped But made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant..."
This is actually a very simple thing, the trinity says God = Christ in actual substance.
OK, one of the main reasons you & other LDS get hung up on this is because you think that Heavenly Father is substantively a physical being. But even the Book of Mormon recognizes God as Spirit--not just that he has a spirit (see Alma 18:26-28; 22:8-11). If God is substantively physical, please explain how he is to dwell in your heart (Alma 34:36)? Listen, the Mormon god is identical to man in form & figure...when you look at Isaiah 44:13, it makes it very plain that men tend to do exactly that...to make idols in the figure of a man.
As for the "trinity," hey, even the Book of Mormon teaches the trinity: Mosiah 15:2-5; Mormon 7:7; 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; 3 Nephi 11:12-14, 27, 36, 39-40; Ether 3:14-20; testimony of the 3 witnesses...see also D&C 20:28.
The God head says God and Jesus are who they say they are God is the Father, Jesus is his only begotten son, they are one in heart might mind and strength We worship God, we worship Jesus, we worship the Holy ghost, but they are one God to us, for we worship the God head. This is exactly Biblical, God and Jesus Christ are "one" the bible says this many times, Jesus gave us a definition of "Oneness" that he and the father enjoy in the great intercessory prayer...Anyone who can read John 17, and look at how Jesus Talked with his father, and see the relationship which he compared to the relationship the disciples were to have and thinks that Jesus and God are the same substance, must believe that Jesus is a liar, there was no reason for him to say the things he did here if he and God are the same thing, unless it was to mislead us into believing he and God are not "of the same substance..."
Ok, first of all who the Heavenly Father is and who the Son is IS NOT a "thing"--as if "substance" was some impersonal glow-slime that makes them divine. A human father begets a human son. A natural father begets a natural son. A supernatural Father begets a supernatural son. An eternal supernatural Father begets an eternal supernatural son. They are the same super-nature.
Please look at Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form..."
As the saying goes, "in God, there is no unChristlikeness at all."
As for John 17, do you believe that Heavenly Father (a) pre-existed as a spirit? (b) then became a man? (c) then became a god? Did he do this before the world was? So he had the glory of God before the world was? Did other gods share this glory with God? Well, Jesus would have to be one of them according to John 17:5; 14:9-11 and 3 Nephi 9:15. Yet how could Christ have been a god minus a body...a body you insist the Father had to have? How could the Holy Ghost be a god minus a body...a body you insist the Father had to have?
...but are separate entities that are so unified in purpose that they are almost indistinguishable from each other.
OK, please explain how a godly husband and wife can be "so unified in purpose that they are almost indistinguishable from each other" yet they are probably more "one" than most LDS believe the Father and Son are "one?" And since the Holy Ghost has no body, why can't the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father be fully "One?"
My advice is to ask God, not men.
OK why ask God about what He's already revealed? (Do you doubt His revelation...for example, Colossians 2:9?) Imagine your earthly father telling you something vitally important, and then you persistently inquire of him exactly what he's already conveyed to you. Now that's not seeking wisdom; that's avoidance behavior. It's stubbornness in not accepting what he's already conveyed.
I think many LDS are confused by what "man" has said about God--"man" = early church fathers, because many haven't bothered to read what they meant when they used a word like "substance."
Allow me to quote Tertullian, who wrote the following in 197 A.D. (well before the Councils that LDS rail against). I could probably guarantee you that 99.5%+ of all Mormons have not read the following...and if they did, they would not have the same misunderstanding of what Christians believe in terms of distinctions: "...the Three are Father, Son, and Spirit. They are Three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one substance, however, and one condition, and one power, because He is one God o fwhom these degrees and forms and kinds are taken into the account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...I would not hesitate to call the Son a stem from the root and a river from the fountain and a ray from the sun; because every source is a parent, and everything that issues from the source is an offspring. Much more is this true of the Word of God, who even receives the name Son as His proper designation. The stem is not separated from the root nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun. Neither, then, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these examples, I profess that I do call God and His Word, --the Father and His Son, -- two. For the root and the stem are two things, but conjoined; the fountain and the river are two kinds, but indivisible; the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Anything which proceeds from another must necessarily be a second to that from which it proceeds; but it is not on that account separated from it. Where there is a second, however, there are two; and where there is a third, there are three. The Spirit, then, is third from God and the Son, just as the third from the root is the fruit of the stem, and third from the foiuntain is the stream from the river; and third from the sun is the apex of the ray. Always keep in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now, that I say the Father is other, and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I say this, however, out of necessity,--since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame Person, thus extolling the monarchy at the expense of the oikovouia [Greek oikos=household...so that would be like greater divine economy]--that the Son is other than the Father not by diversity but by distribution. He is not other by division but by distinction; for the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from another by a kind of measure. The Father is the whole substance, while the Son, indeed, is a derivation and portion of the whole as He Himself professes...Even when a ray is shot forth from the sun it is a part of the whole; but the sun will be in the ray because it is a ray of the sun, not separated from its substance but extended there from, as light is enkindled from light."
You also wrote this as part of post #694. I wrote a few things about the overlap of Isaiah and the Book of Mormon both in this thread & this other thread...(in fact I addressed you primarily, and Sevenbak secondarily in post #382 at this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1923110/posts?q=1&;page=385#385)
I primarily directed this comment to you--even though at this one juncture, I was (more) responding to a direct Sevenbak comment ("How many people just gloss over Isaiah? The Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah, and then explains it, in pure and simple language.")...anyway, since you're addressing Isaiah & the Book of Mormon, please be so kind as to answer what no LDS poster has yet responded to:
...among the Nephite sources we find the words of Isaiah. Right where I said they were...same chapter as 2 Nephi 25:23...2 Nephi 25:4-8. Of course, 2 Nephi 24:12-32 is an exact copy job of Isaiah 14:12-32.
One simple little question: "Why?"
Why does verse 12 of 2 Nephi EXACTLY match verse 12 of 2 Nephi 24? Why does verse 13 of one EXACTLY match verse 13 of the other? Why does verse 14 of one EXACTLY match verse 14 of the other? The same for verse 15, verse 16, etc. etc. all the way through verse 32? Not just in thoughts, for your answer above would explain that. Not just in concepts, for your answer above would explain that. But in exact word-for-word KING JAMES ENGLISH!!!
As I said before in the other thread, the Bible was not originally written as it presents itself to us. (It was written as straight text and only divided for us so we could reference it...Thruout history, various methods were used to divvy it up chapter verse...with the method now used based upon Stephen Langton's work...I guess LDS would call Langton "Langton the apostate"...from the University of Paris between 1205 and 1227).
The Jews FIRST used the Langton system for the OT divvying up of verses in 1330 in a manuscript followed by a 1516 printed edition.
Now you wanna tell us all what year again 2 Nephi was etched in gold plates? (It wasn't after 1205 AD, was it?)
Please explain how it was for the Nephite author to know exactly what verse Langton would come to designate as Isaiah 14:12, 14:13, on through 14:32? And why you're at it, please explain how it is he would use Elizabethen English in citing parts of Isaiah. (You would think that if he was EXACTLY quoting Isaiah, that his "translation" would be a wee bit different than what the 17th century KJV translators would come up with...so that even if the content matched thought for thought, the words wouldn't be mimeographed...almost as if Joseph was the first cut & paster.) This is 100% proof that Joe had a KJV Bible tucked away in his hat...didn't need a "seer stone" for that dictation portion!!!
As I said on the other thread, if indeed you are a "certified teacher," if you can't answer this in an intellectually honest way, then forget trying to ever discern if a student of yours is engaging in plagiarism.
Also, haven't you even wondered why the Mormon god was so "addicted" to King James English...even in the Doctrine & Covenants? 1830s and 1840s Americans didn't speak 1611 KJ English in everyday language, except where the Bible infiltrated their vocabulary. So why does the Mormon god use KJV language even in the D&C?
Example: "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man" (D&C 130:14-15)
Hey, I can pretty much guarantee you that when God spoke to the Hebrew version of Charleston Heston on the holy mountain, he didn't use King James "thou shalt" language!
Also, why would an omniscient God use words like "IF thou livest..?" Why would an omniscient God even "throw out" a random number like "85" years when Smith didn't even make it half that far? In fact, the way it reads now, since he didn't make the ripe old age of 85, it reads very questionable that he'd see the face of the Son of Man.