No Need to Pick a Fight

Ghostbuster,
Thanks for the lucidity and better understanding you provided. It was enlightening to hear the question, "Why get free then burden yourself with legalism?" If I understand you correctly, that would mean one still studies the scriptures, but does it for the love of "the word" rather than as a sort of measuring yardstick to see how one is doing. I agree with that idea--I think it would be the ideal. Under that premise, how many "genuine believers" are there?

Since you cited John 10:27-30, I'll assume that by being "saved" you would mean receiving "eternal life". I answer that John 3:16 and John 17:2-3 answer the question you poased as I would answer it. Belief in that sense becomes a state of action, a state of being that represents a change of heart and a change of life because of a change in the outlook of a person who is "saved".

My personal belief is that the gospel of Jesus Christ offers a pathway of "becoming sanctified" that is just as important as the initial step of being "saved", and I think Peter and Paul taught that quite clearly. I agree that that process should flow freely in a person's life, not by their feeling restricted but by their being "led by the Holy Spirit."

It sounds like you are being so led. 'Glad to hear it. One of my favorite scriptures is Hebrews 11:10 and 16. I think we need to be seeking, learning, growing, changing, becoming the person Christ wants us to become. That is a slightly different process for each person.

So glad to have heard your comments here.

Parker,

I have a brief moment to respond.

As I look at these passages in regard to "once saved always saved" I first had to chuckle a bit at myself. I have actually argued passionately for and against both the "always saved" (calvinist) and the "snooze and lose"(arminian) positions.

It is an interesting line to walk because both positions have some merit and can be backed up reasonably by scripture in my non-theological opinion.

The verses you supplied do imply that one must be diligent in assuring one's salvation, but, there are other verses that I think make a stronger case for security. The most powerful declaration is found in John 10:27-30.

Basically, I'm secure in my faith and with that security comes an incredible freedom. Through this freedom, I find myself closer to the guidelines of scripture naturally. I want to do those things. I feel sorry for those who think they have to do this or that all the time. Why get free then burden yourself with legalism? Tis a pity.

On another related note I think it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish genuine believers from those who aren't. I believe that is why we are told not to judge. One theory I'm beggining to give credence to is that a genuine believer CAN fall away, but that they ultimately will not. Falling away is quite different from backsliding.

I had a friend who I grew up with in various churches. I was 100% sure was a christian. Then he fell into all kinds of "stuff" in his late teens and early 20's. A couple years later I was at his house when he told me he had some news. That day he became a christian. I thought he was kidding but he assured me that he always had doubts and had never really believed or committed to Christ.

Parker, now a question for you because it is the key to my answer. I was talking about losing/keeping salvation. What is salvation? How do you think one actually gets "saved"?

I will look into the chapters in Isaiah at a later date.

apologies for any grammer/spelling mistakes. it's late...

Regards
GB

Hello there Parker. Yeah I would have to say that this is something beyond comprehension. To say there was a time before the "beginning" would kind of be a redundancy. What God was doing before creation is something that is incomprehendable to the human mind. He said that there was a beginning. The Bible says God is eternal. How do we comprehend such a thing? Got me? His ways and thoughts are higher than mine. For me to be able to say that I could even comprehend His nature or His abilities would mean one of two things. Either I am God, or God is no higher an authority than man. Neither are true, so I'm stuck with God is higher than man, I'm not God therefore why think I can comprehend all of His ways. Personally, the mystery of God is what compells me to love Him, knowing that one day He will no longer be a mystery anymore. I look forward to that day. The day I find out the mysteries of God is where I have hope. Taking away the mysteries of God would be to take away hope and most importantly, faith. This of course if my belief and subjective to your own. Take care and have a wonderful day Parker. As always thank you for your kind approach.

David,
Hello, my friend. One of my daughters woke me up in the wee hours of the morning (she couldn't sleep), so now I find that I can't go back to sleep, and figured I'd explore this aspect of your beliefs about God that has come up lately on the other thread. I certainly respect your beliefs, and have particularly enjoyed how you have expressed them in that it has helped me understand you and those with similar beliefs, much better.

So here's the question. Before the "beginning" where was God, and what was He doing? I'm not trying to box you in or counter you with this question, I have just wondered if there is an explanation that you have thought about and come to grips with.

By the way, I agree with you that God "created" the time dimension as a part of "organizing" this world, and that God doesn't live in that same time dimension. What is past, present, and future for us is continually before His eyes.

Now if this is one of those questions that is pretty much "unexplainable" because it is beyond our ability to understand, then that's OK, too. I have just wondered what your thoughts are on the subject, to understand you better.

Have a delightful and peaceful Sunday with your family.

James,

Concerning baptism, I think it is important. If someone professed Jesus Christ and claimed to have been saved but then refused to be baptized I would wonder if they really are a saved individual. But when I speak of salvation, I am talking about what justifies us to be able to be in the presence of our Lord one day. This being the profession of faith in Jesus which gives us the free gift of grace. I have to look at water baptism as a whole and take into account every situation possible. Think about it. What happens if someone truly repents and accepts this free gift of grace and professes the name of the Lord. Then he walks across the street to be baptized at a local church and gets hit by a bus then dies. I would say his faith has saved him. Do you really think God would send this man to hell because he didn't get baptized by water? Not my God. I do believe baptism is optional, but would highly doubt a believers faith if he refused baptism. It's like refusing communion. Why would you refuse communion if you believe in Christ? Wouldn't make sense and I believe that would qualify someone as not having a saving faith, wouldn't you think so?

Here's how I look at it in simple terms.

1. Repentance and belief in the death, burial and ressurrection of our Lord Jesus.

That right there saves us. NOW we can be baptized with water to show that we are Christians in a non-Christian society. A public proclamation of faith. Especially in the days of the early Apostles where there were so many paganistic belief systems it was important to have a public proclamation of faith to acknowledge what faith you have. It was a way to seperate yourself publically from the paganistic beliefs. I think it is still important today.

I must emphasize our differences in salvation again. Either your saved (go to heaven) or not (go to hell). Both are eternal. There is no in between. If water baptism is a requirement for salvation, what happens to that guy who repented and professed the belief in the gospel but did not yet get baptized and died? Heaven or Hell? I say heaven. He is saved by his faith alone in Jesus which provided him with grace.

Quick question James. This isn't confrontational either. Do you believe someone can repent on their deathbed and profess Jesus Christ with a true heartfelt repentance and profession of faith and be saved? I'm curious to what you think. Thanks.

Best to you.

Hi David

Thank you for your response. We agree on something! I am also disppointed with some clergy within Orthodox Christianity inclfuened by secularism and their wholesale acceptance of the homosexual movement. If anyone had told me 25 years ago, that Orthodox Christian churches would accept men and women as priests who act on homosexual urges and desires - I would would not believe it. Just imagine the state of affairs in 20-30 years.

I wanted to ask you a non-confrontational question. I am sincerelt interested in hearing your response on a topic.

In light of all of the doctrinal references to water baptism, Apostolic instructions, and the subsequent practice in the New Testament Church as a required Christian sacarment rite for hundreds of years, why do you believe that baptism is optional?

How does the idea of "faith alone" nullify the Jesus' command and the Apostolic dispensation to baptize believers?

Thanks,

James

P.S.
We both agree that the act of baptism doesn't save us.

Thank you both for your explanations. James we already went throught the water baptism thing so I won't go through that again, but I highly disagree on water baptism as a necessecity for salvation.

I have done some research lately and come to find out that the word "salvation" has a different meaning between you both and mine. I just want to clarify when I speak of being "saved" or "salvation" I'm talking about being able to go to heaven and saved from eternal seperation from God, which is hell. I think "salvation" in your terms means to recieve the highest level of "exaltation". Of course I don't believe in levels of exaltation, therefore it's either heaven or hell. No in betweens. You accept Christ and go to heaven or deny Him and go to hell. It's that simple on my understanding. I just thought I would clarify that since I discovered recently that the term "salvation" has a different meaning between us both. So if I speak about being "saved" that is the act of justification where as to we are forgiven of our sins and eventually upon death be in the presence of the Allmighty God. If your not saved then you go to hell, which is the absence of God and the absence of love.

James, as I've mentioned before quotes from any Orthodox Christians or non-Orthodox Christians have no effect on me. What convinces me of truth is God's Word alone. No man can convince me of any false truth less it be backed up with scripture with no contradictions. In other words if your going to convince me of falsehood within orthodox christianity, then your gonna have to do that Biblically. You may think you have already, but I assure you that you haven't come close, no offense meant. According to scripture there will be a time when men will not hold onto sound doctrine anymore and will begin an apostacy. You claim this happened already, I claim that it is beginning to happen. I truly believe we are in the last days and as I see the church (body of believers) agree more and more with society and the acceptance of sinful society within the church, I know this apostacy is beginning. For example: Recently I read how the lutheran church is allowing gay clergy. I have nothing personal against homosexuals, but when churches start to allow what is called evil in the Bible to become good, then the apostacy is beginning as is evident in today's society and today's church. So I expect to see today's church change it's ways and form to societal agreements. We are in a reletivistic society, and unfortunately the church is losing it's ground on the basis of relativism within the church as well. Does that mean I have to agree with what post-modern orthodox christians say these days? No way! I agree with what the Bible says. This apostacy is becoming more evident as we see more and more churches changing doctrine to form to a societal need. I will never agree to these changes no matter if Billy Graham came out professing that homosexuals can be clergy now. So if orthodox christian leaders want to change their works/faith doctrines, then they are no longer orthodox christians.

It's funny that they call it "cheap grace". Because according to the Bible grace isn't cheap at all. It's FREE! So whoever is putting a price on grace has fallen away from grace because it is a free gift that can only be taken freely, not earned. I do agree that those who profess the name of Jesus are now disciples of Jesus and therefore discipleship should begin. Why do you think I'm on here?

David:

I forgot to post this last statement.

Do a google search for "cheap grace" and look at how the Orthodox Church is having to back step a bit on their application of the doctrine of grace.

Here are some quotes from Orthodox Church believers:

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace.
Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. 45

"Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "All for sin could not atone." Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That was the heresy of the enthusiasts, the Anabaptists and their kind…. 46"

Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ. It remains an abstract idea, a myth which has a place for the Fatherhood of God, but omits Christ as the living Son. … There is trust in God, but no following of Christ. 64

This is one way to view the LDS doctrine on personal effort - becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Best,

James

Hi David:

I don't have much time to respond today but wanted to put something in your hands that reflects the LDS position on grace and works.

It should be noted that LDS scriptures and Church doctrine is not at odds concerning grace and works. Here's an excerpt from LDS FAQ.

It's kind of long, but well worth the read:
(By Bruce Hafen) http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=95

The short answer in the process is that the New Testament is very clear that in practical terms of what one does in life, does matter.

For example, the New Testament makes it clear that repentance and baptism by water and by the Holy Ghost is "required" not an option:

On the necessity for repentance and baptism by water and by the Holy Ghost:

“Why tarriest thou? [Ananias told Paul after Paul’s vision of the Savior on the road to Damascus] arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16.)

To those Ephesians who had been baptized “unto John’s baptism” but had not been given the gift of the Holy Ghost, Paul said:

“John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

“And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” (Acts 19:4–6; see also Acts 19:1–3; 1 Cor. 6:9–12.)

Another example is on the need for righteous activity following faith in Christ:

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

“For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

“And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” (Gal. 6:7–9.)

“[God] will render to every man according to his deeds:

“To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

“But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.” (Rom. 2:6–8.)

In other words, grace does not and cannot come without personal accountability to God. There remains an inescapable responsibility of the covenant maker to "do the will of the Father" in resisting temptation, abandoning sin, striving to obey the Word of God in all things.

When we are constantly grateful for the gift of grace and we give glory to him, and exercise our own will in ackowledging his wisdom by personal effort (as puny as it may be), the Father is pleased and the power of godliness can be made manifest. This results in a blessed and happy state of those who love God.

Best,

James

David,
Thanks for such a good explanation. I pretty much agree with your definitions of justification and sanctification, and I'm OK with the explanation about faith and not needing to "earn" salvation. Perhaps you have misunderstood if you have thought the LDS think they need to "earn" salvation. You said:

"Sanctification is the process that the Holy Spirit works within you to change your heart. To refrain from sin and to do good works. We are justified by faith and therefore saved, THEN we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. If I sell everything I have and feed the poor and help old ladies across the street then that is God working in me, not me working for myself to gain something."

I probably wouldn't use the word "saved" in the above statement as is, but would maybe say "therefore we have entered into the path that leads to salvation," "then we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and as this happens what we do is a manifestation of God working in us because of the power of His love and His righteousness."

Nephi in the Book of Mormon said, "I will not trust in the arm of flesh, for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm." So I would agree that we're not trying to "earn" salvation or exaltation. The process flows from following the Holy Spirit, and only if we have the Holy Spirit are we going to be sanctified. But you've talked about the heart being able to be deceived, and I agree with that in the context of needing to have "check points" to guide us in knowing if we really are following the Holy Spirit.

Those "check points" are basically answering the question, "what am I doing with my life--am I participating in the fruits of the Spirit?" But I agree it is not "me" doing works for the sake of "earning" salvation--it is the Spirit of God working in me that naturally fills my heart with love, charity, so that I would follow 1 Corinthians 13 as a natural consequence.

So what I am saying, David, is you're right. I agree with you. I actually quite like your definitions. Thanks for sharing them. Have a good day.

Parker,

I still haven't had an adequate chance to look deeper into those passages. It might be a few days.

I'll be back...

Hello there again Parker. Well, my family,huh? I'm half mexican and half white. My mother was born in canada, my dad in mexico. I'm the firstborn american in my family. I guess they decided to meet half way and make me. :)

I'm not sure why you think I think the NT is so complex. I think it's fairly simple. Of course besides Revelation which takes a great deal of study and cross-scripturing. Otherwise, I think the complete beauty and simpleness is what makes the NT so great. For example: the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That simple.Faith in that is what gives you eternal life. I think you are looking for a definition of "faith" from my perspective. I guess I can go into great detail if you'd like. So here goes.

Faith of course is the belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe faith is only as good as to Who you put it in. Some people believe Christ was not God, some believe He was Michael the Archangel. This isn't faith in the true Jesus. Therefore they worship a false Jesus. Now I believe as you believe that faith is "active". But, the difference being that the works produced by faith is not of our own but by the Holy Spirit working through us. These works in no way CONTRIBUTE to salvation but are a CAUSE of salvation. This brings me to James 2:26, "faith without works is dead". This verse is cited several times by many different belief systems. But to understand faith is to understand this passage as well. If faith in Jesus gives you the Holy Spirit, then by this faith that you have recieved the Holy Spirit will do works on behalf of God THROUGH us, not by us. If I preach the gospel to someone, I take no credit on my behalf but give all the glory to God who is so loving enough to be able to use me as His servant. I don't preach the gospel or feed the poor or whatever to think that I can earn my way to heaven because by my faith I am justified before the Lord.

I was wondering Parker if you know the difference between justification and sanctification. Quickly, justification is where we are declared righteous before God because of our faith in His Son. This saves us right there upon this declaration of faith and repentance. Sanctification is the process that the Holy Spirit works within you to change your heart. To refrain from sin and to do good works. We are justified by faith and therefore saved, THEN we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. If I sell everything I have and feed the poor and help old ladies across the street then that is God working in me, not me working for myself to gain something. Isaiah 64:6 says all of our righteous works are filthy as rags. Why? Because they are OUR works, not Gods. Only when we are saved can we do good works pleasing to God because it really is God doing the work through us by way of the Holy Spirit.

I have a question for you Parker. Do you know why we should not do any good works to try to EARN salvation?

Hi, David,
I hope your family is doing well. I'd be interested to know about your ancestry, and what you know about them. Also your relatives.

I've wondered why in your mind the New Testament is a fairly complex writing, when the process of having faith (which is central and important, agreed, though I'm not sure how you define the word "faith") is according to you the only essential ingredient of the gospel since the time of Christ. How do you explain this discrepancy? (I just want to understand your point of view better.) Thanks.

James,

Sorry, must have missed your question. Of course scholars all have different opinions and if I agreed with every Biblical scholar out there, God knows what I would believe in. Personally, I don't believe in temples and I believe temples and temple ceremonies are not necessary. Of course you will disagree and I don't want to argue again, but I want to give you my belief. Reason being is that the temples in the OT were places where God dwelled and where the priests would make sacrifices and so on. We are in an age of a new covenant. Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary with the final sacrifice of Jesus. Now where do the temples go? We as a body of believers are the temples. God indwells all of us by faith in Jesus. Paul gives us a description of how we are to take care of our bodies and live a healthy life. He reminds us that our bodies are the TEMPLES where God indwells believers. We should keep our bodies in good health because God doesn't want to live in a dirty temple. Not only that but anywhere near a dirty heart. You might notice in the OT how the Israelites paid close attention to keeping the temples very clean. This is symbolic for the new covenant of our bodies being temples as well. Same thing with why they sacrificed a male lamb with no defect. Who was the male lamb with no defect in the NT? I'm sure you know. The OT is very symbolic of the coming of the new covenant by way of Jesus.

Concerning the fig leaves. Gen 3:21 says God made clothes of animal skins to cover them. This has a lot to do with the works/faith issue that divides us as well. Adam and Eve made their own coverings. Fig leaves of course, to cover their shame from sinning. God made them animal skins for coverings instead. Why? Because "our works are as filthy as rags". Isaiah 64:6. Also, to atone for sins you need a blood sacrifice. Obviously if God made them animal skins that required a blood sacrifice. So the works of Adam and Eve were not good enough to atone for their sins. Only by means of a blood sacrifice by God could cover that sin. This is consistent with the OT annual blood sacrifices and of course their had to be a final blood sacrifice by Jesus to atone for sins once and for all. From my perspective wearing either says two things. First, fig leaves represent that we can atone for our own sins by the works of our own hands, therefore rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made. Two, wearing animal skins also rejects the sacrifice Jesus made with an insinuation that we need more sacrifices to atone for sins.

What is unique and stands apart about the Christian faith over any other faith in the world is that salvation is simple. Faith. Just faith. Islam teaches to do good things, good things, good things and then hope you make it to Paradise with 72 virgins not knowing if your good deeds were good enough to pass by the bad ones. Buddhism and Hinduism teach good deeds as well but then you get re-incarnated to do it all over again if it's not enough. What is unique about the Christian faith is that we have faith alone. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation except to believe in my Lord Jesus. And by faith will those works come. This has a lot to do with that fig leaf. We can't do anything to cover up our sins or our shame. Only God can do that by believing in His Son who by a blood sacrifice was able to cover up our shame.

Have a great day James. I know this one was argumentative, but this is my belief and my faith. Take care.

James,

Sorry, must have missed your question. Of course scholars all have different opinions and if I agreed with every Biblical scholar out there, God knows what I would believe in. Personally, I don't believe in temples and I believe temples and temple ceremonies are not necessary. Of course you will disagree and I don't want to argue again, but I want to give you my belief. Reason being is that the temples in the OT were places where God dwelled and where the priests would make sacrifices and so on. We are in an age of a new covenant. Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary with the final sacrifice of Jesus. Now where do the temples go? We as a body of believers are the temples. God indwells all of us by faith in Jesus. Paul gives us a description of how we are to take care of our bodies and live a healthy life. He reminds us that our bodies are the TEMPLES where God indwells believers. We should keep our bodies in good health because God doesn't want to live in a dirty temple. Not only that but anywhere near a dirty heart. You might notice in the OT how the Israelites paid close attention to keeping the temples very clean. This is symbolic for the new covenant of our bodies being temples as well. Same thing with why they sacrificed a male lamb with no defect. Who was the male lamb with no defect in the NT? I'm sure you know. The OT is very symbolic of the coming of the new covenant by way of Jesus.

Concerning the fig leaves. Gen 3:21 says God made clothes of animal skins to cover them. This has a lot to do with the works/faith issue that divides us as well. Adam and Eve made their own coverings. Fig leaves of course, to cover their shame from sinning. God made them animal skins for coverings instead. Why? Because "our works are as filthy as rags". Isaiah 64:6. Also, to atone for sins you need a blood sacrifice. Obviously if God made them animal skins that required a blood sacrifice. So the works of Adam and Eve were not good enough to atone for their sins. Only by means of a blood sacrifice by God could cover that sin. This is consistent with the OT annual blood sacrifices and of course their had to be a final blood sacrifice by Jesus to atone for sins once and for all. From my perspective wearing either says two things. First, fig leaves represent that we can atone for our own sins by the works of our own hands, therefore rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made. Two, wearing animal skins also rejects the sacrifice Jesus made with an insinuation that we need more sacrifices to atone for sins.

What is unique and stands apart about the Christian faith over any other faith in the world is that salvation is simple. Faith. Just faith. Islam teaches to do good things, good things, good things and then hope you make it to Paradise with 72 virgins not knowing if your good deeds were good enough to pass by the bad ones. Buddhism and Hinduism teach good deeds as well but then you get re-incarnated to do it all over again if it's not enough. What is unique about the Christian faith is that we have faith alone. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation except to believe in my Lord Jesus. And by faith will those works come. This has a lot to do with that fig leaf. We can't do anything to cover up our sins or our shame. Only God can do that by believing in His Son who by a blood sacrifice was able to cover up our shame.

Have a great day James. I know this one was argumentative, but this is my belief and my faith. Take care.

James,

Sorry, must have missed your question. Of course scholars all have different opinions and if I agreed with every Biblical scholar out there, God knows what I would believe in. Personally, I don't believe in temples and I believe temples and temple ceremonies are not necessary. Of course you will disagree and I don't want to argue again, but I want to give you my belief. Reason being is that the temples in the OT were places where God dwelled and where the priests would make sacrifices and so on. We are in an age of a new covenant. Temple sacrifices are no longer necessary with the final sacrifice of Jesus. Now where do the temples go? We as a body of believers are the temples. God indwells all of us by faith in Jesus. Paul gives us a description of how we are to take care of our bodies and live a healthy life. He reminds us that our bodies are the TEMPLES where God indwells believers. We should keep our bodies in good health because God doesn't want to live in a dirty temple. Not only that but anywhere near a dirty heart. You might notice in the OT how the Israelites paid close attention to keeping the temples very clean. This is symbolic for the new covenant of our bodies being temples as well. Same thing with why they sacrificed a male lamb with no defect. Who was the male lamb with no defect in the NT? I'm sure you know. The OT is very symbolic of the coming of the new covenant by way of Jesus.

Concerning the fig leaves. Gen 3:21 says God made clothes of animal skins to cover them. This has a lot to do with the works/faith issue that divides us as well. Adam and Eve made their own coverings. Fig leaves of course, to cover their shame from sinning. God made them animal skins for coverings instead. Why? Because "our works are as filthy as rags". Isaiah 64:6. Also, to atone for sins you need a blood sacrifice. Obviously if God made them animal skins that required a blood sacrifice. So the works of Adam and Eve were not good enough to atone for their sins. Only by means of a blood sacrifice by God could cover that sin. This is consistent with the OT annual blood sacrifices and of course their had to be a final blood sacrifice by Jesus to atone for sins once and for all. From my perspective wearing either says two things. First, fig leaves represent that we can atone for our own sins by the works of our own hands, therefore rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made. Two, wearing animal skins also rejects the sacrifice Jesus made with an insinuation that we need more sacrifices to atone for sins.

What is unique and stands apart about the Christian faith over any other faith in the world is that salvation is simple. Faith. Just faith. Islam teaches to do good things, good things, good things and then hope you make it to Paradise with 72 virgins not knowing if your good deeds were good enough to pass by the bad ones. Buddhism and Hinduism teach good deeds as well but then you get re-incarnated to do it all over again if it's not enough. What is unique about the Christian faith is that we have faith alone. There is nothing I can do to earn salvation except to believe in my Lord Jesus. And by faith will those works come. This has a lot to do with that fig leaf. We can't do anything to cover up our sins or our shame. Only God can do that by believing in His Son who by a blood sacrifice was able to cover up our shame.

Have a great day James. I know this one was argumentative, but this is my belief and my faith. Take care.

HI David:

You mist read my question. I wanted to find out what you thought about the comments by religious scholars regarding the Biblical nature of the LDS Temple Endowment.

Any thoughts there?

Also, I was curious as to why you used the term "God rejected Adam and Eve's aprons"? Do you have a bible reference on that? Just curious why you would phrase it that way?

Thanks,

James

James,

Thanks for the explanation. I can't have a sure fire opinion on the matter since I have never attended an LDS endowment ceremony or a masonic ceremony. Of course at best I can speculate. The one thing I can comment about is the aprons that Adam and Eve wore. They are the fig leaves. Of course the fig leaves are something God rejected and replaced with animal skin. So wearing something God rejected to me is not understandable, but I will not try to argue this since my knowledge of the matter is limited. I know you say it's because of the knowledge of good and evil, but maybe I was wondering why you think God rejected those fig leaves and replaced them with animal skin? I'm actually quite curious as to why you wouldn't prefer to wear leather aprons instead since that is something God did not reject but instead replaced the fig leaves with?

Otherwise, concerning the freemasons, I'm fully aware of all the famous people in freemasonry. I'm aware that most presidents have been freemasons and many other prominent figures in american history as well. This of course is what makes them such a powerful group of individuals. But, it doesn't mean it's a good thing. There are several books from ex-masons that have full descriptions of what you learn as you progress along the masonic line of authority. I have heard a personal testimony from an ex-mason that was a Christian at the same time as being a mason. He left the masonic lodge when finding out about what the end result of masonry is. This of course is information that is limited to the new members and is only available by moving up in rank. The reason I express that Christians shouldn't be masons is because it is way more than just a fraternity of "brethren". Of course they won't tell you that upon early membership. But with progression and a build of trust, it becomes evident. I know there are many Christians that are masons right now. Well meaning Christians as well. I don't think they understand what masonry is all about. But as they get further along, they will. And just like this man I knew who was a mason, when he found out, he left, thank God. Unfortunately, it was a fearful experience for him and he truly feared for his life because of the knowledge gained by this "secret society".

I think I'll leave the freemasonry experience and knowledge up to you to find out. I do warn you to pay close attention to the symbolic rituals that take place at masonic lodges. I'm not saying at all that the LDS have the same meanings as these rituals. That is not for me to assume since I have never had the experience of witnessing any one of these events. Thanks for posting the information from the LDS perspective. Have a good day, James.

David:

The criticism of Masonry by Christian groups is not a secret. Its been further heightened by antimormon criticism of the LDS Temple endowment.

There is nothing subversive or "alarming" or "disturbing" within Freemasonry as I have read about it.

Some of the world's brightest and best "Christians" have been and are Freemasons.
From Astronauts, Doctors, Poets, Policmen, to Presidents including George Washington, James Monroe Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, & Gerald Ford - all Freemasons.

You said there is a "striking" similiarity between both rituals. LDS say there are some similiarities. However, the few simliarities are dwarfed by the differences in meaning and usage of the symbols.

You may want to read the Bible in regard to the 5 points you just mentioned.

1. Adam and Eve wore aprons.
2. Jesus told his disciplies to recognize him by the crucifixion marks in his hands (and feet).
3. In the Old & New Testament, God teaches that the process of salvation (receving the gospel into ones life and resurrection) is a life long process.
4. Masons did not originate their symbols - they are borrowed from antiquity.
5. Another word for "oath" is "covenant". When we make a covenant with God we pledge our "life" to him. Our promises to God are so serious that we would give up our lives rather than break them. We don't agree to be "killed" - we just acknowledge that breaking a promise to God is a serious sin.

(Notice the last sentance - I didn't say , that we would rather BE killed if we break them. Which is NOT a part of the LDS endowment ceremony which is how antimormons interpret this covenant. If you want to know about the biggest "blood oath" ever - it was the atonement and crucifixion of our Lord and Savior. He made an oath to be killed for our sins.)

The LDS endowment from beginning to end (ordinances and rituals) including baptisms, washings, annoitings, endowment and instruction, and sealings total around 4-5 hours. Your list represents around 2 minutes.

So...um....sure... there are some things that are similiar.

If you compare the rest of the endowment to the Bible and other scriptures you'll find that 98% comes from those sources.

For support on this, just reference what the two religious scholars have said about the LDS Temple experience.

By the way, I am curious to get your take on what those scholars had to say? Thoughts?

Best,

James

James,

Thanks for the information you posted. I read through it to get a feel of what is said about the link of mormonism and freemasonry. I think it is noted even by mormon apologists that there is a striking similiarity between both rituals. I read as noted that there are differences as well. Here's some similarities I found.

1. Both wear aprons
2. Both have a "secret" handshake?? I believe they both are to place the thumb over the index knuckle?? Is this true?? If in the Melchizedek priesthood, is it the "sign of the nail"?
3. Both do not teach the fullness of the ceremonies. It is a gradual process.
4. Both have SOME common masonic symbols.
5. This may not be the case anymore, but both used to make members swear a blood oath to secrecy. If anyone told the secrets of the temple they were to be killed. (I read that on the LDS website)

There does seem to be a striking commonality between the two. Of course according to mormon apologists the meanings are different. However, it was just something I noted today that I wanted to confirm. Just so you are aware, as a Christian, I would warn anyone from joining a masonic lodge. It's not quite what it seems. I do not know this from personal experience, but like I mentioned before I knew a man who was a higher upper in the masonic lodge and what he told me as you accrue more knowledge was quite disturbing. I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you for your information James. I don't intend to argue anymore, but this was a great deal of information for me that confirmed something I needed to know. Thanks.

David

David:

I am not a freemason but I do know some mormons who are freemasons. Many leaders in the early days of the LDS Church were freemasons and as mentioned Joseph Smith was a freemason for a time of the York rite I believe.

There are many articles on the web regarding freemasonry. I am not quite sure I could add anything to freemasonry.

But to make perhaps a crude analogy of the similiarity of symbolism between the LDS Temple endowment (a priesthood ordinance having to do with the covenant with Jesus Christ) and freemasonry is like saying there's great shared symbolism between the Tau cross and Christianity.

Apart from some (very little) shared outward ritualistic signs, they don't share any of the same meanings. The other similiarities are not relative to Masonry per se but other ceremonies found in the Bible and ancient Jewish and Christians esoteric rites.

The LDS endowment is rich in symbolism that would be found in the Old & New Testament, and other LDS scriptures.

To understand a part of that symbolism, there are some discussions you'll want to look at:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml

Here are some interesting quotes from scholars on the LDS temple experience.

"In antiquity, . . . the Jerusalem Temple was a place where you went to carry out holy acts, sacrifices and the like. I feel that the Mormon experience of the Temple has sort of restored that meaning to the word Temple."
--Krister Stendahl, Dean of Divinity Emeritus, Harvard University, from an interview played in the LDS video, Between Heaven and Earth, 2002.

"I am both interested and delighted to see so much of ancient religious tradition, particularly Biblical tradition, taken up into the religious structures and rituals of the Mormons."
-- Frank Moore Cross, Professor of Ancient History, Harvard University, spoken in the LDS video, Between Heaven and Earth, 2002

Best,

James

Ghostbuster,
Once again we can learn from you, and I have learned from you through your last post: that sometimes the best answer is "let me think about this." I had hoped that you would do some deep thinking and reading/re-reading, and I realize that process will take time--perhaps days, weeks, maybe longer. I appreciate the depth of your analysis, and the peace with which you convey where you're coming from as well as allow for different points of view. I know that such peace comes from the depths of your soul, through this very process of thinking deeply. I also think the Savior taught us that. Again, thanks.

Thanks for the info James,

This is the article I read on the lds website.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Latter-day_Saints_and_Freemasonry.html

I was quite surprised to find this information about the lds church on it's own site. I have heard that certain masonic rituals were implemented along with lds temple rituals as well, but wasn't completely sure if that was the truth or not considering I never attended any temple rituals. So, I guess admittingly the LDS church says that freemasonry was part of the foundation of the lds church.

I actually saw pictures of the mormon temple once and noticed the "all seeing eye" and other masonic symbols as well. I'm curious James (and of course you don't have to answer this) but are you a freemason as well? And do you know what freemasons teach? I actually knew a man who was once a freemason and got up to the higher levels of this "fraternity". I was quite shocked to find out what he told me. There was even a book I read once about freemasonry written by a man who got to the highest level of masonic authority. Can't remember the name of the book, but I was hoping maybe we can discuss this issue further. If not, I understand. Like you said there are certain aspects of the temple ceremonies that you keep in secret. I know the Masons do the same thing. I respect your right to do so. I'm just wondering if you would consider talking to me on the subject of freemasonry?

Thanks James. Best to ya.

David

Hello again David:

The short answer is no, LDS do not consider (have never considered) Freemasonry to be a religion. It has always been a fraternity.

Early on Joseph Smith said that some elements of ancient priesthood ceremony had been preserved in Freemasonry. However, the meaning of the rituals had long since been corrupted.

Joseph Smith restored the ancient endowment ceremony and brought back all of the elements together to form a complete whole.

Here are some resources for you to start with if you’re interested in the topic.

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=86

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Similarities_between_Masonic_and_Mormon_Temple_Ritual.html

Obviously the nature of the Temple is sacred to Mormons and we do not discuss some details. However, there are many things we can discuss.

Best,

James

I have a HUGE question I need to ask for any LDS member please. Do the LDS accept Freemasons and the rituals that freemasons perform? I ran into an interesting article earlier that Joseph Smith was a freemason in the Nauvoo Lodge and that many of the temple rituals are bases on freemasonry. Is this true?

Lovin' the parables. Who doesn't love a good parable now and then. It keeps the brain going and the spirit moving. I guess I have one as well. I heard this about 2 weeks ago.

There was once a very rich father and son who lived in a great big mansion. The son would walk to school every day and around the corner of his house stood a beggar. Every day the son would talk with the beggar before going to school. He would tell the beggare about his father's house and especially about a huge wonderful art gallery that his father had.

Every day the son would talk to the beggar and the beggar really liked this son. No one seemed to ever pay attention to this beggar except this son who was so kind and would go on and on about this great art gallery in his father's house.

Then one day the son stopped coming around. Come to find out the beggar overheard that this son had suddenly died. This really distraught the beggar. He felt bad for the father in that house who lost his son. So the beggar decided as a nice gesture to get some paper and crayons and make a portrait of the son. He drew it up and walked to the gate in front and asked the gatekeeper if he could give this drawing to the father in the mansion. The beggar told the gatekeeper that the son was so nice to him that he drew him a portrait and would hope that the father would take it as a token of appreciation for the son being so good to him. The beggar walked off. The gatekeeper looked at it and folded it up, put it in his pocket and thought, "That was nice, maybe I should give this to the owner of the mansion". The same day the owner of the mansion was leaving and the gatekeeper told him about this beggar who heard about this art gallery of his and thought maybe it would be nice that you have a portrait of his son as well. The owner looked at it, took it and left for the day.

A few years passed and the beggar always wondered what happened to that drawing of his. One day he heard that the father had suddenly passed away and that they were auctioning off all the art in his gallery. The beggar scrounged up enough money to buy himself a suit so he could fit in and attend this auction. He always wondered how magnificent this art gallery would look like as told by the son.

The day of the auction comes. All the who's who's were there and the beggar was able to slip in. Looking around the beggar sees all these art fanatics looking intently on all this art with special spectacles and examining these pieces of art with extreme caution. The auctioneer pounds his gavel as to the auction is starting to begin. The beggar sits in the back to watch the bidding begin.

The auctioneer first had an announcement. "The owner of this art gallery had a final request in his will before he died. He requested that this portrait of his son be auctioned off first."

After a bunch of grumbling from the crowd, they settled down and let this portrait be bidded on. The auctioneer asked for any starting bids. No one bid on this portrait. Finally, the beggar reaches into his pocket and grabs whatever change he has and places a bid on the portrait.

"Are there any other bids?" asked the auctioneer. No one answered. "Going once, going twice, sold" with a pound of the gavel. The beggar goes up to pay for the portrait and takes it and begins to walk off. The auctioneer has another announcement to make.

"The owner of this art gallery had one final request in his will."

Every one turned and paid attention as to what that could be.

"The owner wrote that whoever bid on the portrait of the son gets the WHOLE art gallery."

Have a great day

Parker,
I need to read those verses you sent me and give your post to me the time it deserves. Today, I must be brief though due to time constraints. I'm sure you know how that is with 8 children. Sorry about that. I noticed you just posted something else to me and I don't even have time to read it now.

Jim,
Thanks for the parable. It makes perfect logical sense.

I heard this one just the other day and dug it up online this morning… I like it better :)

One day, the son of a town judge was arrested for driving recklessly and put on trial for his crime. It so happened, the father was the court judge at his son's trial. Because the father was the judge, he had to uphold the law and find his son guilty. The punishment was a fine of $1000. Unfortunately, the son did not have the money to pay for the fine and had to be sent to jail. Before the son was to be jailed, his father took off his robe and wrote a cheque for $1000 to pay for his son's fine. As a result, the son was set free.

Ghostbuster,
I find that I still can't sleep, and I have thought about a set of verses that I hope you may consider deeply and thoughtfully. When Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews, he seems to be addressing members of the church. You and I love the entire epistle, but looking at Chapter 3:5, we find "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts...) take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God... lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"

There are "if" clauses there, very clearly. The implication is clear that the saints need to do something in order to be "stedfast unto the end."

Reading on, we find in Hebrews 6 (note that verse 1 has a very slight but very important mistranslation that makes verse 2 make no sense) but in verse 4: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Another "if" clause--a very important one.

Then in verse 11, "And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience (this refers back to chapter 11 and should be read and studied in conjunction with that) inherit the promises."

There is a call for diligence, for not being slothful, for being followers of the examples cited in Hebrews 11. Paul was not saying, "once saved, always saved." He was clearly teaching, "watch out, perservere, be diligent, don't fall away from the grace of Christ that you initially experienced by coming into the gospel covenant."

To do that--to not "fall away"--the believers have the opportunity for baptism, we all can have the gift of the Holy Ghost, we all can have the opportunity to daily repent and change and become more purified, and we all can have the tokens of remembrance of Christ--the sacrament of the Lord's supper. All these are to help us to "hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end."

What would be your thoughts on these passages, Ghostbuster? Perhaps we are closely aligned on these points. Have a good day!

Ghostbuster,
I noticed your last post, and thank you for adding to the discussion. (I also thank you for having had kind words earlier about my comments, but I gave it not much thought because I had earlier in the day watched the funeral of one of the most truly loving, truly benevolent in word and example, of any person I have ever had the privilege to know on the earth--a counselor in the First Presidency of our church, James E. Faust. He gave a recent talk on forgiveness that I think would be considered a true classic by anyone from any denomination who is seeking to teach on that subject.)

I'm sure as you study the New Testament epistles that you maintain a sort of double awareness--that the apostles were writing letters to members of the church, some of whom were Jewish converts and some of whom were Gentile converts. It shouldn't surprise us that they would emphasize different things as they wrote to different audiences. Yet, we all agree that the Bible was inspired by God to speak to all of us also. I personally think that it needs to be understood by the same spirit of revelation through which the words were inspired to be written down.

When I read David's beautiful explanation of how "doing what's right" will naturally flow from the heart of the person who has truly been "born again" and received the "free gift" you have noted, I thought to myself, "right on--that's exactly what I also believe!" There is a wonderful newness of heart, a change of heart, that becomes apparent in how that person now lives their life.

I love all the epistles, but especially the epistles of Peter. It is quite clear from the context that in 1 Peter 1 he is addressing primarily the Gentile converts--the "strangers scattered". He tells them that after they have "greatly rejoiced" and received the "lively hope ... to an inheritance incorruptible," then they should "be ye holy in all manner of conversation;" later he explands this theme when he says in 2:12 "Having your conversation (doesn't this word conversation in this context mean "how you go about your daily life"?) honest among the Gentiles: that ...they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." In other words, they will see "your" good example and their hearts will be softened so that they can also glorify God by being "born again" when they are visited with the message of the gospel of salvation.

In 1 Peter 2:24, he continues the theme "that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." ... 1 Peter 3:12 "For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous (whom Peter has described in the preceding verses by how they treat others), and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil."

Now note especially verses 16 and 17, then 18 through 20, and also 22 (note that in heaven Jesus Christ is on the right hand of God): "that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers (and isn't that what some who profess Christ in our day do also, when they say not to bother thinking about having good deeds that manifest their change of heart?) ...that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." ..."suffer for well doing..."

We then note that Christ "went and preached unto the spirits in prison..." who had died at the time of Noah. That word prison can remind a student of the Bible of what Jesus quoted from in Isaiah 61:1, "the Lord hath anointed me... to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;"

Ghostbuster, I would earnestly desire that you ask God in prayer what all these verses mean for you and for your ancestors who have passed on and live as spirits. If you read the early writings of Christians, you will come upon the belief that they had that there was going to be an opening of the doors of the spirit world through Christ by virtue of the "works" of the faithful saints in this world. Look for those kinds of writings. You will find them. All of these things make perfect sense when combined together, especially when accompanied by the spirit of revelation to get the spirit of understanding.

We believe 100% in the grace offered by Jesus Christ, even more abundantly (since it expands to billions of people) than those who ignore the proviso made clear that Jesus opens the door of the "prison" spoken of by Peter. We believe it applies not only to every living person, but to every ancestor of every person. This is why "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ"--because they will be taught about why they should do so and will receive that free gift you noted, the gift of becoming "holy", without spot, as Christ is holy.

Peace and blessings to you and your loved ones.

James,

I don't think you read my post very well. I mentioned just evidence on Biblical reliability. I wasn't talking about the BOA or anything else. You mentioned I had another "bag of tricks". Nope. I was simply talking about evidence of Biblical reliability James. Nothing more. If there was undisputable evidence for Biblical reliability, wouldn't that enhance your faith? That was the question. Nothing to do with anything else. I'll just leave the Trinity debate alone. If you want to go on about it, feel free. It's a free country and you can say what you want. I figure there is no point anymore. So please feel free to express whatever you want. I thought that was past us, but I guess not.

Wish you the best James. Take care.

I enjoyed Parker's most recent comments too.

David and Ghostbuster, since you mention parables, I hope you don't mind if I share a favorite of mine that shows the beauty of the Atonement and how we can be free from sin by abiding by the Mediators terms. This is from Boyd Packer; it is a little long but well worth the time to read it:

“There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

“He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

“So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

“The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

“But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

“Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“ ‘I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,’ he confessed.

“ ‘Then,’ said the creditor, ‘we will exercise the contract, take your possessions and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.’

“ ‘Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?’ the debtor begged. ‘Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?’

“The creditor replied, ‘Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?’

“ ‘I believed in justice when I signed the contract,’ the debtor said. ‘It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.’

“ ‘It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,’ the creditor replied. ‘That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.’

“There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“ ‘If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,’ the debtor pleaded.

“ ‘If I do, there will be no justice,’ was the reply.

“Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

“There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

“The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“ ‘I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.’

“As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, ‘You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.’

“And so the creditor agreed.

“The mediator turned then to the debtor. ‘If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?’

“ ‘Oh yes, yes,’ cried the debtor. ‘You saved me from prison and show mercy to me.’

“ ‘Then,’ said the benefactor, ‘you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.’

“And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken.

“The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was satisfied” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, pp. 79–80; or Ensign, May 1977, pp. 54–55).

Our sins are our spiritual debts. Without Jesus Christ, who is our Savior and Mediator, we would all pay for our sins by suffering spiritual death. But because of him, if we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments, we may return to live with our Heavenly Father.

Parker:

I enjoyed your post as well. I thought you completely addressed the issues with clarity.

David:

I found nothing in your last post that in any way responds to the fact that your trinity doctrine does not agree with:

* Ancient Jewish interpretation of Isaiah,
* Early Christian interpretation of Isaiah and the NT verses regarding the Godhead, and
* Biblical scholar interpretation for the last 200 years.

The strongest case against your doctrine is the Bible itself. It does not teach that God is a singular being of three co-equal persons in one ontological substance.

I rely 100% on the Bible for the evidence that I should reject your trinity doctrine as the "doctrines of men" (in this case Catholic Bishops in multiple councils).

You asked if some evidence came out against my faith, would I depart from it? Antimormons have been using this line against unsuspecting LDS for sometime. What's coming out of your bag of antimormon tricks next David?

Book of Abraham papyri? Archeology? DNA and the Book of Mormon?

Let me answer you with these verses:

1 Kings 19:11-12
And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; [but] the LORD [was] not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; [but] the LORD [was] not in the earthquake:

And after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

I have a witness from the Holy Ghost that Jesus condescended into this world from his throne, and suffered and died for my sins, to make me acceptable before God's eyes and to bring me to Him. He did this because of His love for me (and you) that all might have forgiveness from sins and that we might live with Him and have eternal life - His life and to be able to overcome all things through Jesus Christ to sit with him in his throne as He sits with the Father in his Father's throne.

This same Holy Ghost has borne witness to me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only "true" and living Church on the earth - meaning - within it can be found the sealing power given to Peter where the ordinances of the gospel can be received.

David, I wish you the best that Orthodox Christianity has to offer. Go and "live" it. Gather all of the righteous principles to yourself and live them. Do the will of the Father as best as you know how. Read the Bible. Study it and ponder its miraculous and wonderful message. Study the travels and travails of the Apostles.

Millions of faithful Latter-day Saints are doing a remarkable job at following the will of the Father too. Presently, you can't see this - and I am ok with that.

If you can't ever accept the fullness of the gospel then live every true principle i nthe Bible that you possibly can - exercise faith in Jesus, repent of your sins daily, call upon the name of the Lord daily and seek to do good by remembering the "fatherless and the widows in their afflication".

The Savior declared:

Matt 5: 17-19:

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

David, we are not going to see eye to eye on the trinity. It's not going to happen. So why spend anymore time on our differences? As Latter-day Saints, we spend millions of dollars proesyting to Catholics, Protestants etc. to bring them the message of the restored gospel. We want them to receive all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If they don't want to join us, then we wish them well on their life's journey and hope that they will hold on to their limited view of Jesus and the gospel and do as much as the Father's will that they can. After that we seek to be friends - unified in causes that are important to us both such as electing a President who will hold up constrituional principles and family values. We can work together to feed the poor and help the down trodden.

That we may seek to teach and do those "commandments" that our Lord and Savior would have us do - that we do the will of the Father in loving God and loving one another is my hope and prayer for all of us.

Best,

James

GB,

Ahhhh...nothing like a good analogy. I love a parable or analogy. Thank you for that. I have a great parable I heard the other day with a similiar point that you made. I thought it was great. Maybe I'll share it later on. For now, thanks for the wonderful analogy.

God bless

Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
- 1Peter 1:16

Interesting thought, it says "Be" holy. Not "become" holy. The only way one gets to Heavenly Father is to "be" and the only way one does that is to "come".

Lets say I purchased expensive tickets to a big football game. I offer one of the tickets to a good friend as a gift. But, my friend rebukes my offer and will not accept the ticket from me unless I agree to sell them to him for face value. I explain that the tickets have already been purchased and that there is no way I will take money for them. So my friend says that he will mow my grass, paint my house, babysit my kids and do all my laundry as payment for the ticket. I say "no" and again explain that I am offering a free ticket.

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 3:22-26

Parker,

NOW THAT'S HOW TO WRITE A GOOD ARGUMENT!

If Jesus didn't say no one is good but God, then I would call you a good man Parker. But according to man's standards you are allright with me. You mentioned how a kingdom can't stand divided. (Here comes my obnoxious honesty again), but we are divided Parker. I hate to admit that, no matter how nice of people you all are, we are divided on some major doctrinal issues that cannot bring us together. When I say that you are decieved, I really really do not want you to take that personally. I truly believe this. As you may also believe that I have been decieved as well. I have never considered Mormonism because I have looked at enough evidence to say to myself that it is contradictory to the truth. Of course your going to disagree, but I want you to understand that I will never be a mormon or even consider it. I'm sorry for that and the fact that we are divided on religious dogma, but that is just how it is. I think at best we can wish each other the very best and hope for the best for each other in this life that God has blessed us with.

I must say Parker, I appreciate your gentle honesty on here. (There was one time you called us all "close-minded" and I could tell you got a little upset) but besides that you've been the nicest, gentlest responder on here. I thank you for that, and hope that I can become more gentle in my responses as well because I know at times my honesty kills a conversation. I think I need to learn to bring my honesty into a conversation with more compassion at times. I am sorry for not doing this enough. But I do respect you and what you have stood for on here as a gentle man with a great sense of humbleness. I appreciate that. Thank you Parker and have a great day.

Ghostbuster,
I could tell you have been a teacher. If you get the chance, we'd love to know more about the circumstances. Would that the world were full of such teachers!

David,
I for one would not say at all that you are "deceived by satan" as you put it. To clarify and make a major point of difference, those who knowingly, and with understanding, reject the fullness of the gospel (but live good lives and have great intentions) do so because they were "honorable men of the earth who were blinded by the craftiness of men." (D & C 76:75)
I have no idea if you are in that category, because (1)I don't know your heart, and (2)I don't think you've really even begun to consider Mormonism from your heart, just on the surface from your mind--but that's OK, because the timetable as I've said before isn't a hundred yard dash.

You cited how the Savior taught the Pharisees as a precedence for your approach. Let us consider the specifics from the Bible. Let's look at Matthew 23, Mark 7, and Luke 11. What does the Savior accuse them of?

"For ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer:" ..."ye ...have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:" ..."ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward..."

"Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me... teaching for doctrines the commandments of men... ye hold the tradition of men... ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." "That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man."

When the Savior spoke of false prophets, he said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15,16) That, David, was an absolute promise. Ye shall know them by their fruits. What are going to be their fruits? It will be how they treat the poor, the widows (compare Isaiah whom the Savior loved to quote). "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free,... to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?" (Isaiah 58:6,7)

David, you noted that baptism is an outward show of an inward commitment. Yes! Absolutely, yes! The commitment of following Christ is in how we treat people, even those not of our same faith.

The Savior didn't preach to the Parisees about the Trinity; neither did the Apostle Paul when he gave his great discourse to King Agrippa. That discourse is very insightful as to how to teach the gospel to non-believers. He first said, "I know thee to be expert..." (he gave positive feedback) Then he told his own conversion story (you did this once, which was great). Then he told of teaching the Jews and then the Gentiles "that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." (Acts 26:20) Then he asks a question of King Agrippa (a great teaching method), and continues to treat him with respect and deference. He doesn't accuse him of worshipping a false God, and doesn't talk about a Trinitarian doctrine at all.

David, if you accuse me of not helping the poor, or of not bringing forth "fruits worthy of repentance" (Luke 3:8) then I will agree that you are using Biblical patterns of teaching even though I will also say you don't know what is in my heart and I will remind that what I have done in these respects was not "to be seen of men." But if you accuse us of being deceived by satan, I will say that so said the Pharisees of Christ, and His response was "If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?" I will also say, since you said God has not changed His word, "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." That's what we should all be striving for, the best way that we know how, hopefully by following the Spirit of inspiration, the spirit of brotherly love and kindness and gentleness. I earnestly hope that it may be so for you, our friend.

James,

Your right. A harsh response is definately what I deserve. I guess I'll put it in my own terms. A harsh reality deserves a harsh response. Of course I will apologize for that being personally offensive to anyone. Do I believe what I posted? Yepper! I've been consistent on this thread the whole time in truly believing mormonism is deceptive. If it being deceptive, then it is from satan. This is what I believe wholeheartedly. I told Parker that my honesty is sometimes unappealing. I'm fully aware of that. But I don't regret being honest one bit. I have nothing personal against anyone here. I do have something personal against LDS teaching though and that is my point. So if I ever called anyone an idiot, stupid or any other unneccessary names, forgive me. I know I haven't. But I don't regret one bit on saying that mormonism is a satanic deception because I truly believe it decieves people away from the one true God. I just wish you would have the same honesty in saying that I've been decieved by satan since I believe in Orthodox Christianity. I'm sure you believe that too! I'm sure you've said that the Trinity doctrine is satanic. Actually you claimed that it is paganistic, therefore you ARE saying it's satanic. What's the difference then? I'm sure Jesus wasn't too hesitant on rooting out the evil Pharisees with His words. He didn't sit back and make sure no one's feelings were hurt. He got straight down to business and said it like it is. Why should I do any different?

But, with the Biblical reality response, I understand James. You want to continue to be as harsh with me as possible. That's fine. Feel free to do so. I'm not hurt one bit. I simply made a statement as to back the Bible's reliability and still can't understand why that can even be an issue. If taking the evidence wholly, the Bible is very reliable. I merely thought that Biblical reliability is in no way affecting mormon beliefs. I still am in awe today as to why mormons can't believe the evidence? There has to be some kind of conspiracy of some sort. Maybe instead of my pre-suppositions, I can have an explanation as to why Biblical reliability would have any effect on your faith. For example, say some overwhelming evidence came about that you could not even dispute it. Would that really change your faith? So to think I was bringing about another argument wasn't my intention. I would actually assume that Biblical reliability would enhance your faith. Guess not.

James,
OK, I didn't realize you were basing your replies to David off of some of his initial remarks which I never read (or don't remember reading). I would agree that the comments you sited serve little purpose other than to insight anger. Perhaps if David is reading this he would agree and apologize? Regardless, I thought the conversation had long since evolved from any initial fuse.

Parker,
You may indeed be the kindest person I've ever met on a public forum board. And yes, I've done some teaching.

Ghostbuster,
I want to thank you (hopefully before you go) for the example you have been able to set for many here, of how to disagree without being disagreeable, and of conveying respect for others with differences of belief. I suspect you have had roles as a teacher. If so, your students have benefitted greatly from learning from your example as well as from what you have taught them.

We all know the Christian gospel is supposed to change people from the inside out, to give them the "fruit of the Spirit"--"love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." This will be manifest in how they treat everyone around them. It is what people are looking for in the world--a religion that is not so much emphasizing "dogma" but that is emphasizing a change from the heart that enables them to be their best selves (for they know it is in them, and just needs to be awakened and encouraged and fed). If you and Karen could use your influence to help those you interface with to follow your example in how you go about asking questions or explaining your beliefs without tearing other people down, (and perhaps you do--thanks if you do), it will be a wonderful contribution.

People can change. I've sensed a change during these few weeks from David's first post to his last one and several others. I hope he has also learned from you and Karen. I regard all three of you warmly, with the utmost respect. Thanks!

Hi GB:

I am not quite sure how to respond to your post but I will make an attempt.

First let's read the first post from David:

"I see a recurring pattern among the cults. The continuous claim to be the "one true church". If only you read your Bibles you might read about the one true church being the body of believers headed by Christ, not man. And if Mr. Otterson would just read Heb 1:1-3 you can see we do not need modern day revelation because we now have Jesus. Stop the deception Mr. Otterson and help true Christians bring those to the true Jesus. Not the Jesus from a god the father who has a wife and lives near a planet called kolob.

The claim to the "one true church" is a satanic deception that will lead the many into being controlled by fear from those that claim these things. Terrible thing it is. Terrible thing it is. "

Harsh?

I think David has received the responses that are most appropriate for him.

Best,

James

James,
I think you answered my question fully. I see no reason to ask any follow up questions. I appreciate your time, Thanks!

Now I must address something that has been irritating me. It seems that your last post to David was a little harsh, don't you think? He is debating from his perspective, you are debating from yours. I've found the banter between you both very interesting. It's been pretty civil considering the topic.

You know, I've chatted with some people on these boards who absolutely HATE me and everything I stand for. Such as what this guy posted in April...

"I look for the day when the last evangelical Christian is strangled in the entrails of the last Muslim."

That is my favorite one, but I could find about 500 more that would do the trick. You know, I've read some pretty angry things directed at Mormons too. I think there is a difference btw posts meant solely to incite anger and a debate.

So, when does a dialogue become "anti-Mormon"? I ask because I don't want to offend, but at the same time I won't pander. I may run across a discussion on topic someday that will probably be offensive to the average LDS member. Is a serious discussion about racial issues or polygamy or Adam-God or book of mormon archeology... off limits because it may be anti-Mormon? Is David "anti-Mormon" because he thinks you are dead wrong and wants to convince as many of your brethren who are following along in this thread to consider his points? And likewise, might David consider you "anti-Christian" for you’re some of your arguments?

"We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us."
-Francis de la Rochefoucauld

James, I'm not saying this to you because you’re not on my "side". I think in this case we should ALL be on the same side; the side of allowing each other to say what we think and feel while at the same time trying to respect other opinions without selling out what we believe. And if a dialogue leads to a fundamental paradigm shift in a person's belief system... is that OK?

Ahhh... who says talking "religion" is boring?

Regards to all... I do appreciate this chat. I was "done" with these boards before accidentaly stumbling upon this chat. I suppose I read one too many entries like the "guts" one posted above.

GB

Hi Ghostbuster:

If there’s something strange in my neighborhood, I am calling you. Oops.. I just dated myself big time. 

You asked me to respond to this point:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)

You asked: If so, would you agree with Smith's assessment that the BOM is the most correct book of any on earth?

No and Yes.

No. I do not agree that it is the most grammatically correct book on the earth.

However, yes, I certainly do agree with Joseph Smith as it relates to a relationship with God.

The correctness of the Book of Mormon refers to what Joseph Smith calls “precepts”.

I believe Joseph Smith was very careful to use the word “precept” when he described how the Book of Mormon would be the most correct of any other book. He connects “drawing near to God” by “abiding” it’s precepts above any book on earth.

If you’ve never looked up the word “precept” it’s very enlightening. Precepts are commands respecting to moral conduct usually. In this case they have everything to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ; the ways in which we “come unto Jesus”.

In my own life, I can bear witness of this truth. The more I have read the Book of Mormon the closer I come to God. I react more humbly, more compassionately to others – I feel more love from the Savior and for my fellow men. I have read the Book of Mormon many times. My wife, my children all too have read it and also stand as witnesses of its positive and overwhelming influence for goodness, glory and praise of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Many times when Orthodox Christians hear that we believe there is another book that can draw someone “nearer” to God, they oftentimes misunderstand this for a reject of the Bible.

Other issues come into play such as our 8th article of faith that states:

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.”

We don’t we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly? The answer is we do. Or better yet, the answer is, we acknowledge both the power and inspiration of God and the fallibility of man in the process.

I also feel impressed to address reliability of the Bible. LDS believe that the Bible is reliable as the Word of God. However, we reject the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. God is infallible. Man is quite fallible.

Here’s a statement from www.lds.org under the Gospel Topics section:

“Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error.

Joseph Smith commented, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 327).

The Latter-day Saints have a great reverence and love for the Bible. They study it and try to live its teachings. They treasure its witness of the life and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith studied the Bible all his life, and he taught its precepts. He testified that a person who can "mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the heavens, can also see God's own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand [of the Lord] wherever he can see it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 56).

As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text. The existence of such errors becomes apparent when one considers the numerous and often conflicting translations of the Bible in existence today. Careful students of the Bible are often puzzled by apparent contradictions and omissions. Many people have also been curious about references by biblical prophets to books or scriptural passages that are not currently in the Bible. “

We know from early Christian writings today that the textual evidence makes an inerrant Bible text untenable.

Best,

James

Hi David:

I read your last post and "skimmed through" the ex-mo "testimony".

If you go to www.mormons.org, you can see live video testimonies of Catholics, Protestants, white, blacks, asians telling, in part, their conversion stories to the LDS faith. Further, about 250,000 people join the LDS faith each year. Should we count the ex-mos and the new-mormons and have a contest?

I really don't want to get into the details of this but I will tell you that quoting something like this because you failed to prove your doctrinal point is akin to bearing false witness.

What you were in essence saying is:
"Look I can't really prove that my trinity doctrine is true but look how bad LDS people are for destroying this man's life".

This type of behavior is very common among evangelical anti-mormon ministeries.

To clear up any misunderstanding on my part allow me to share my beliefs about other faiths.

First, I believe that Catholics, Protestants, some JWs, Seventh Day Adventist, et al make of some of the best people on the planet. I also acknowledge that there are many atheists that are fine human beings, too.

When someone leaves their faith, if they have loved their faith, and if their faith has loved them back, you're going to see conflict - this doesn't matter whether you're LDS, Catholic, Baptist, etc, there most likely will be some kind of suffering. You may see hurt feelings, false accusations (from both sides) and it's going to be messy.

The problem with your ex-mormon friend is that that he left the Church, but that he wanted to take people with him. HE wanted to destroy the faith of other members by trying to force them to believe the "INTERPRETATION" of antimormons regarding questions in the Church.

In this case, he was basing his entire departure from his new confirmed faith, because of the work of antimormon author Walter Martin (who I have already exposed as a fraud).

No doubt, you tried to follow the same approach that Martin did with Dave b quoting just the Isiaiah chapters?

No doubt that you learned this witnessing technique from the followers of Walter martin?

However, look at the real story here. Did Walter Martin ever admit that the ancient Jews never used those scriptures to prove or suggest that there God was a singular being in three co-equal persons?

Do you see the problem here? What about context?
What about biblical exegsis? Does the ancient explantion of these verses match Walter Martin's use of the chapters?

Bible scholars who have studied and exhausted biblical exegesis on these verses have demonstrated that there is no "trininty" formula or doctrine in the Isaiah chapters.

Why not? Because the verses have nothing to do with revealing the nature of God or gods in the universe. The context is idol worship.

To then try to ignore this context and force an interpretation of the Isaiah chapters in question is wresting the scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16).

So, the testimomny of the ex-mo that you quote as "valid" began with a lie. The lie is that to compare Isaiah 43 & 44 with a plurality of Gods or a plurality of persons does not agree with the exegesis of those verses.

Remember, in those days, no one knew that Martin had lied all the way about his credentials. Martin's whole persona was based on a lie and he was able to deceive many.

Then the EX-mo goes into the controversy over the Book of Abraham and Egyptian papyri, Biblical reliability (or rather inerrancy) and some of the false accusations against Joseph Smith.

Much of what antimormons quote today can be traced to Walter Martin's works. Many of the Christians don't know that they are actually repeating lies of Martin.

If you want to get into the DETAILS of the Egyptian papyri, or other claims made in McCament's letter, you can go here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD

David, you need to know something about me. I have spent nearly 20 years IMMERSED in antimormonism. I have read their books, pamphlets, etc. I have spoken to them, debated with them, gone to lunch with them. I know a lot about them. Some of them are fine people who are terribly misled. Some of them are the spawn of the devil (no joke). I don't say spawn of the devil lightly. I am not talking about someone who disagrees with me, I am talking about someone(s) who will lie and deceive just so they can appear to be right or sell a book or add congregants to their Church.

The LDS Church is very careful what it publishes. We acknowledge that all of the details surrounding Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc, are not known and that there are many questions - which we GLADLY engage in with reasonable and respectful people.

From the sources you quote and from the limited experience you have had with LDS, you completely have missed the mark. You really don't know much about our beliefs or about us as a people. Our struggles, our trials, our hopes, joys, fears and failures.

If you want to learn more about Mormonism then go to www.lds.org or www.mormons.org, or read the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants.
If you try to learn about us from antimormons or exmormons, you're still going to miss the mark and in the end, you'll start bearing false witness too - for which God will hold you accountable.

I am not saying that as a rebuke - I am just trying to help you know that you're in murky waters; you'll be tempted to try to put down Mormons as Mormons respond to your claims... your temptation will be to see out these sites and see how much damage you can cause for Mormons. In the end, you'll be left empty.

Instead, get copies of our magazines that we publish - go online to www.deseretbook.com and see what we publish and talk about. Go to www.lds.org and see what we talk about in regard to the power and salvation which is in Jesus Christ.

Your line of questioning so far has been a very light version of antimormonism.

Keep in mind, if you disagree with me, I don't believe that is antimormonism.

Let me give you an example. Take the Book of Abraham. Are you aware there there are many scholarly books that have been peer reviewed in defense of the Book of Abraham? These are very very robust defenses against the antimormon claims that make it appear that the death nail has been hammered into the "Pearl of Great Price".

This has been onging for 30-40 years David. Yet, look at what's happening. Every year there is more evidence that supports Joseph Smith and his claims. In the last 5, 10, 20 years, the discoveries have been remarkable.

Believe me, you're not going to get that from any antimormon site, or Evangelical group. (Of course you wouldn't)

So, when you peruse their sites looking for nuggets of information seeing how you can witness to LDS and get them to believe as you believe, you're not going to be ready. Oh sure, you'll find the LDS memeber who doens't know much about these things from time to time, but eventually that member will connect with a member who does, and in the end, you'll just be the fool for repeating what other antimormons say.

David, you really don't have questions about Mormonism - you seek to destroy it. Isn't that a fair assessment?

Best,

James

Ghostbuster and David,
Many thanks for your kind comments and particularly for well-wishes about my son's service. He is so enthusiastic and optimistic as to a potential good outcome from the U.S. soldiers being in Iraq (for which he volunteered when the opportunity came up); we honor and appreciate him, his leaders, and many others like them serving with honor, integrity and dedication to freedom. I am also grateful for his love of the scriptures, which he took with him for reading from time to time despite their busy schedule.

Thank you again, and sincere best wishes to you always.

Jim,

Thanks for the Benson post. What I still do not understand is why the assumption of a corrupted Bible. Benson mentions this. From what I've seen in argument and debate with LDS members on here is that they will quote Biblical passages, but then insist the Bible is tainted somehow through history as Benson mentioned. I want you to know that the Bible is very reliable. I'm still unsure why the claim still exists today in the LDS church of Biblical unreliability. I would think that it would help your faith out a lot more knowing the Bible is reliable. I would like to post a few articles on the subject if you wouldn't mind. I see in no way why admitting to Biblical reliability should change your faith at all. In fact if I were a mormon, I would love to testify to the reliability of the Bible. It just seems right, doesn't it? I truly believe you need to look at the evidence.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

This one is more in depth and very informative.

http://www.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter4.html

From what I get from Benson's article is that the BOM is the foundation of the mormon faith. I understand this, but have a hard time understanding with overwhelming evidence of Biblical reliability why that can't be accepted. I see no reason for Biblical reliability to have any affect on any mormons faith, so why not search the evidence and have a faith based on a reliable source?

Makes sense doesn't it? Of course, this isn't for argumentitive sake, but just to state facts. I have no reason why showing you that the Bible is reliable would take you away from the LDS faith. So, I hope your not insinuating that I'm trying to bring about another debate. I just want you to trust in His Word, that's all

Take care.

Jim,
Thanks for the link to President Benson's article. It was an interesting read and Benson's three main points helped clarify an answer.

I was a little surprised by some of what he said. It seems like this is a pretty important topic.

“Do eternal consequences rest upon our response to this book? Yes, either to our blessing or our condemnation.

“Every Latter-day Saint should make the study of this book a lifetime pursuit. Otherwise he is placing his soul in jeopardy and neglecting that which could give spiritual and intellectual unity to his whole life. There is a difference between a convert who is built on the rock of Christ through the Book of Mormon and stays hold of that iron rod, and one who is not” (Ensign, May 1975, p. 65).

Regards
GB

Parker,

Thanks for your explanation. Personally, I seem to still have a problem with it. Nothing you can fix, but I do appreciate your apologetics on the subject. I do intend on reading the rest of the BOM one day. I'm 110% sure it won't change my faith one bit. But since I enjoy talking to you guys so much, hey, wouldn't it be best to read what you guys read. This is why I'm gonna study the Koran as well. It makes for better witnessing to know what the opposite faith believes in.

I saw that you have EIGHT kids? Dang, Parker. I know you haven't slept for many years now, huh? They truly are a blessing aren't they. I have two and I can barely handle them. Sure can't imagine eight. My wife and I are actually working on #3 soon. That's it for me though. I want to retire eventually! :) I too would like to thank you and your family for allowing your son to serve in Iraq. It's greatly appreciated.

Have a wonderful evening.

Parker, thanks for your insights. I wish to pass along my high regards for your son's service in the military. Thanks to him and those like him we are able to freely debate topics such this. It sounds like you have a wonderful family. I agree wholeheartedly with the list you gave. Those are great goals to strive for.

David,
Enron Field should be a lesson to all pro sports teams who try to sell their traditional stadium names to make a buck. hehehe

The passage you referred to disturbed me as well. At that point I actually stopped reading the book for a few days and did some research on the racial issues within the history of the LDS church. Perhaps we can have a longer conversation about this topic at a later date.

Regarding the Book of Mormon being the keystone of our religion, I firmly believe in this quote from President Benson: "Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."

The full text can be found here: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=56a6ef960417b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

David,
Thanks so much for clarifying and explaining. Now I understand so much better why you reacted the way you did as you read those words--believe me, they are confusing to many of those who read the Book of Mormon, and I should not have made it seem like you hadn't read it well.

If you have one or are reading it online, go to 2 Nephi 1:17-18 where Lehi, the father of Nephi and of Laman, speaks to Laman and expresses the "fear" that "a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil." Later, as recorded in 2 Nephi 4:7, Lehi speaks to Laman's chldren and prophesies that the Lord God "will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever" and "will not suffer that ye shall perish," meaning two senses of perish--spiritually, and that a remnant of their posterity on the earth would be preserved.

When Nephi summarizes the situation in 2 Nephi 5, his use of the word "cursing" is remembering what his father had said, for it is very much in his mind because although his brothers have given him a lot of trouble, he knows and is glad that their posterity is going to be blessed in the latter days upon the earth.

David, they are being blessed. We don't have any idea specifically how the mixing of generations of inter-marriages among the indigenous peoples of the Americas intersperses the Lamanite ancestry among some of them, but from the Book of Mormon we can at least tell that those areas within Mexico and Central and South America where the people respond to the gospel message prophesied in the Book of Mormon in great numbers, some of them probably have some of this ancestry. Mexico and Brazil each have nearly a million members of the LDS Church now.

I want you to know that I consider it a great blessing in my life to have gotten to know many very loving, spiritually inclined people of Mexican origin when I served among many of them in Los Angeles as a missionary in 1974-75. I love the Spanish language, the Latin culture and people. Sweet, generous, good-hearted, amazing people. So when I say to you that the "cursing" described by Lehi and Nephi (of having lost the Spirit and being "visited by sword and famine") absolutely no longer applies, I hope you know I am 100% certain of this. They are a blessed and favored "people" as promised to the prophet Lehi. You will see them flourish even more significantly during our lifetimes--of that I am sure.
Blessings and joy to you and your sweet family. I'd love to meet you some day.

Parker,

I didn't mean to be offensive. This is what I remember reading

2 Nephi 5:21-24

21 And he had caused the acursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be aloathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their acursing which was upon them they did become an bidle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

What I get out of this is that black people are cursed forever. Hence, the seed of these people. And also those who "mixeth" with them. I'm not sure why your so upset, that's what it says. Since I'm no BOM scholar maybe you can shed some light on this subject for me. And since I admittingly said I haven't read the whole BOM maybe there is somewhere else that refutes this or quite possibly I'm not getting the whole story. But if you can please understand, by this passage I can easily assume that those with dark skin are cursed by the Lord. Again, Parker, I'm not trying to stir up any more arguments. I was just being honest with GB about when I read the BOM and what made me decide to stop. I know at times my honesty is quite unappealing, but I would rather speak the truth of what I think than soften it up with a lie.

I guess because I'm mexican this passage struck me on a personal level. Maybe that isn't how it was intended, but it sure seems to insinuate that because of dark skin my race is cursed. Sorry to stir up the pot again Parker. Just being honest buddy. Take care.

David,
I hope that if you do read the Book of Mormon, you'll read it more carefully next time. Nowhere does it say black people are cursed. It says a group of people in that particular place at the time the book was written down had rejected the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and were therefore cursed because of their unbelief. It explains that as the children of these people carried on the traditions of their fathers, they also rejected the guidance of the Holy Ghost and a belief in Christ and were therefore also "cursed" because of what they had lost. I would say, by the way (not to be derogatory, but to hopefully bring a reasonableness to some of your presentation), that when you have at times implied that any particular group of people may be "going to hell" that comment has been far more caustic than what the Book of Mormon says about the Lamanites.

Perhaps we should all "judge not, that (we) be not judged"--and I'm not judging you; please don't think that I am. I appreciated so much your Saturday comment that seemed to really come from your heart and described a process of inspiration from listening to Ravi's tape, that was less judgemental and allowed Christ to do His work in His way and let Him be the judge of everyone through knowing what is in their heart. Peace.

Ghostbuster,

Hi there. You know I just saw something you posted earlier. ENRON! That is hilarious! I just had to tell you that I forgot all about that and how funny that is. I think that tops all the stadium names ever available.

You also asked me if I ever read the BOM. I have read parts of it. I stopped at 2 Nephi chapter 5. I don't want to bring up another argument, but I couldn't bear with the black people are cursed thing. It kind of killed it for me right there. I eventually want to read the whole thing. I actually am more interested right now in reading the Koran. Of course not for conversion purposes, but for the same as reading the BOM, educational purposes. I've found the Koran to be somewhat disturbing as well. I'm starting to see how Muslims can become so extreme. It is pretty amazing how much they actually like Jesus though. Even though of course they don't think He's God or even died on the cross, they think of Him as a great prophet. I never knew that until recently. Anyway, thought I'd share that with you. Take care.

Ghostbuster,
Thanks for following up with very insightful questions. My answer to both is absolutely yes. I'll explain. As I would understand the term "most correct" I would think of synonyms--most "divinely true", most able to bring men and women to a correctness of being able to follow the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost in their lives to gain personal inspiration and revelation from God. Why most "divinely true"? Obviously, this would bring into some question the Bible, and Joseph Smith loved the Bible--his family read from the Bible probably every day. But because he experienced so much doctrinal discord among the preachers of his day, I'm sure he felt that a perfectly complete and pure book should not result in so much discord and disagreement. As he received divine inspiration, he knew there were ideas and passages that should have been in the Bible as the words were originally given by revelation to the prophets, but through the years had been left out or the meaning changed. He also knew that the Book of Mormon had not had this same impurification process; thus the Bible is a wonderful treasure, a miraculous book inspired by God--the Book of Mormon so testifies--but it lacked the completeness that was intended by the prophets who originally wrote the words down. That is the difference between the two.

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the religion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it is the foundation piece without which an individual's faith and "testimony" would not be secure, but would be (and will be) unstable. That testimony is the knowledge because of the witness of the Holy Ghost that revelation to prophets is part of the plan of God for all of His children, and that such revelation continues in our modern day just as Peter and John and Paul were able to receive revelation to guide and inspire the saints, the followers of Christ, in their day.

Consider important teachings of recent and current prophets of the LDS Church:
1) that families should gather together every day for family prayer, daily if possible to read from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, weekly to hold a family counsel and have family games.
2) that a husband should place his wife on a pedestal in giving her respect and honor, and treat her as an absolutely equal partner in their marriage.
3) that families should try to get out of debt, have limited credit card debt, and should store food and water for times of need.
4) that children should be encouraged in their education, and in treating all people with respect, love, kindness, and compassion.
5) that the sanctity of marriage should be upheld, and things that lead to abusive behaviors be avoided absolutely.

As a father of eight children, with a son in Iraq, I am so very grateful that my son has inspiration to guide him in knowing right from wrong and in staying safe as well as with a pure mind in such an environment. I am so grateful that my daughters, who are very becoming, have pure minds and high standards for dating relationships. These values have come through following the counsel of these prophets of our day, in our home, in the best way that we can despite busy schedules. For this how could I not be grateful? I have a daughter with a difficult breathing and eating abnormality. How could I not be grateful for the Book of Mormon that gives me understanding that this wonderful daughter has been such a blessing for our family, despite seeming like this is an "opposition" that has been difficult? In the real world we are part of, we need the underpinnings that allow us to see God's hand in our lives and the lives of our children in marvelous ways.

Again, thanks for asking these questions. The Book of Mormon, if a person lets it, speaks to the heart and the spirit, and helps us understand more clearly the process of inspiration and revelation that can guide each of our lives as God's children. It is a guiding keystone in that process.

I must also say that I got bogged down the first time I got into Second Nephi, so if you feel like you're getting bogged down, skip the Isaiah chapters (not that they're not great, just pretty deep) so you don't lose interest in the book. Mosiah has some great stories of faith, and Alma has some great father-son moments. I, of course, encourage everyone to read it more than once.

Ghostbuster, I have admired the way you present yourself in your posts, and very much appreciate it. Best to you.

Thanks Parker, I appreciate you jumping in with your thoughts. After reading the book 40 times you would definately have some insight into this question! I only read the book one time.

Do you think the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the earth and the keystone of your religion?

Ghostbuster,
What a great question. I know it was directed to James, who has provided such great context for many doctrinal points. I think his answer will be just as insightful. You know the idea about "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" so I'll be one and hope there will be others.

I've read the Book of Mormon over 40 times, and gained new insights every time I read it. I also gain new insights every time I read the Bible, the D and C, and the Pearl of Great Price. For me, Joseph Smith's statement is important because he wasn't "tooting his own horn" for one thing. He would have recommended the Book of Commandments/Doctrine and Covenants if wanting to "toot his own horn." But he didn't.

Here are some major precepts in the Book of Mormon that will help a person draw nearer to God:
1) Understanding that God and Christ (however one views them) love all mankind, and this love "sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men." Love and charity are profoundly taught in the Book of Mormon in a way that builds the spiritual resources to help a person want to feel that kind of love for others, and to act on it.
2) Understanding that there must be "opposition in all things" for our growth and progress as children of God. This teaching is a little bit more obscure in the Bible. Understanding how patience is so vital in this process.
3) Understanding that the atonement of Christ allows not only repentance and its cleansing effect for the soul, but also the uplifting to endure the pains, illnesses, and struggles of life through the strength He can and will and does provide.
4) The Book of Mormon shows by example how God is interested in families working together, and how important it is for fathers to assume their role as a guiding, sustaining influence in the lives of their children.

The Book of Mormon teaches these and many more concepts through sharing the experiences of an obscure but heart-warming people who knew of Christ and rejoiced in Him. As one reads this book, they can feel the testimony of those people, and their love and faith in the people of our day. They forsaw our day with rejoicing. We can also rejoice to be here experiencing it--a time when the spirit of the Lord will be poured out upon all peoples, when good will triumph over the evil influences in the world, and He will come "whose right it is to reign," even the Lord, Jesus Christ."

Hey James,

Thanks for taking the time to debate David. I've enjoyed your dialogue.

I had a quick question about at famous J. Smith quote. Maybe you could give me your own personal thoughts on it. Do you agree with this statement made by Joseph Smith?

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)

Usually when I ask this question it's pretty hard to get an answer. It is kind of a "trap" question a mormon once told me. I got a good answer once that focused on the second half of the quote about how abiding by the books precepts can bring one closer to God.

Well, I'm generally curious and not trying to trap you or pick a fight. In fact, I probably won't respond to your post unless you post me a follow up question. So, have you read the BOM? If so, would you agree with Smith's assessment that the BOM is the most correct book of any on earth?

Regards

James,

Thank you for the discussion. I vowed to give you the last word. I pray in due time that you will come to the truth. If not, then that's God's will and your choice.

I'll leave with a few Bible quotations in hopes that one day you can trust in God's Word.

Psalm 119:9

9 How can a young man keep his way pure?
By living according to your word.

V 37

Turn my eyes away from worthless things;
preserve my life according to your word.

VV 41-42

41 May your unfailing love come to me, O LORD,
your salvation according to your promise;
42 then I will answer the one who taunts me,
for I TRUST IN YOUR WORD

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool, but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." (Proverbs 28:26)

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5)

"He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" (Isaiah 44:20)

And for the final post, I read this testimony from an ex-mormon last night. It's very long, but very insightful. This poor man lost his whole family because of gaining truth. It reminds me of when Jesus spoke about those who love their wife, children, this world, do not love Him. I actually felt the compassion in his words and felt sorry that the LDS caused this to happen. But the end is magnificent. The Lord never fails.

http://www.utlm.org/testimony/davemctestimony.htm

Best of luck to you James.

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path"

David

Hi David:

I laughed out loud when you claimed “I am self-taught”. David, you have already admitted that you once belonged to Armstrongism and you quote sources such as Bible.org for your “explanations” on the Orthodox trinity. C’mon… you’re not really self taught – you’ve also been influenced by Orthodox Christianity.

It is a curious thing how you appeal to the Old Testament to defend the “Trinity” doctrine.

Are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost even mentioned in the Old Testament the way they are developed in the New?

Do you believe that perhaps the Old Testament verses you quoted have nothing to do with the nature of God (as a revealed doctrine)?

Did you forget that our context for our discussion was HOW God is one? You switched on me. You changed the discussion from what I asked you to show from the Bible back to the verse you quoted before.

Not only did I address these verses, but others have as well. Not a one of the verses and or any of the early Christian quotes addressed the “finer points” that cause the “Trinitarianism” to depart from the New Testament.

You failed to address “co-equal persons in one ontological substance”. This is the main issue.

But onto the Old Testament verses. You’re right about one thing… God is the ONLY God among all of the false idols (strange gods) that Israel was worshipping at the time.

Now, if Isaiah had been discussing the “nature” of God, I could see how using these verses to support the Trinity doctrine THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL

Think about it David, if Jehovah was truly speaking of beings or persons like him, he’d have to amend this statement: because there is still God the Father and God the Son. God is not going to mislead his children and therefore is not speaking of the nature of God but speaking about loyalty to God in place of loyalty to idols.

Consider the passage in 43:10–11, where the Lord says
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
The context is clear in verse 12, which is typically omitted from the quotation:
I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. (Italics added.)
"Strange god" refers to a false god, an idol.
Likewise for 44:6, 8 — this passage is followed by extensive discussion of "graven images" (Isaiah 44:9-17)
The passages in Isaiah cannot be called upon to disprove LDS beliefs in separate Gods in the Godhead or theosis. The point of them is to encourage Israel to leave off their idols and worship Jehovah alone. Any other use of them distorts Isaiah's meaning and intent.
Further, if these verses were about the nature of God, Orthodox Jews could argue against Trinitarians that there is no such thing as a “three –person-ed” God. Because “no other” would also refer to the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Consisder what Cher-El L. Hagensick, a Jewish author says abour your usage of the Old Testament verses to try and promote the Trinity.
“In contrast, Judaism is strongly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is filled with scriptures such as ‘before Me there was no God formed, Neither shall any be after Me’ (#Isa 43:10 qtd. in Isaiah), and ‘there is no other God...I am the Lord and there is none else’ (#Isa 45:14,18 qtd. in Isaiah). A Jewish commentary affirms that ‘[no] other gods exist, for to declare this would be blasphemous...’ (Chumash 458). Even though ‘Word,’ ‘Spirit,’ ‘Presence,’ and ‘Wisdom’ are used as personifications of God, Biblical scholars agree that the Trinity is neither mentioned nor intended by the authors of the Old Testament (Lonergan 130; Fortman xv; Burns 2).”
Now what David? Jews, who are the “true” monotheists would argue that your context of those scriptures is neither mentioned nor intended by Isaiah.
How? Because the context is regarding God being alone the Savior among the false gods and idols of Israel – it was not a comparison of God with other REAL beings like God in the Godhead or the universe.
Once again David, you’re not listening carefully. Trinity means “3”. There is the world “trinity” and then there is the Trinity doctrine as formulated by Catholic Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries.

Are you picking up on the difference there? LDS believe in the “trinity” of the Godhead but reject the Orthodox Trinity doctrine (3 co-equal persons in one ontological substance).

The Trinity doctrine is not biblical – you didn’t show a single verse that indirect or directly teaches that God is three co-equal persons in one ontological substance.

Are we clear on this point? Why don’t you just simply admit that it doesn’t exist? You can save a lot of time by just admitting to the facts, just like honest and reputable BIBLE SCHOLARS have already done: The Trinity Doctrine does NOT exist in the Bible. David, if it did, there would have been no need for the councils to exist at all.

David, would you like me to post another 5-10 quotes from Bible scholars of the LAST CENTURY who ALSO published these facts? If you look real close at the quotes I gave you, I included ALL of their citations as published in professional and reputable publications that are not in dispute. For centuries, Orthodox Christianity has been misleading its adherents to believe that the Trinity Doctrine is Biblical when all of the while it’s not biblical at all – it’s platonic mish mush. Sorry to break it to you David, but this has been around for some time. You’ve just been kept in the dark about it – talk about conspiracies! You’re in one of the most elaborate and extensive conspiracies ever to be created on the earth: the conspiracy to hide the true origins of the Trinity Doctrine. Remember, David, we’re talking about the finer points that cause a major shift in doctrine not just about the nature of God but in so many other areas of New Testament teachings.

I read carefully through the early Christian writings you quoted and not a single one supported your belief in the one God who is three co-equal persons in one ontological substance.

Remember, the word “trinity” refers to “3” and is different from the Trinity doctrine that was later formed and then reformulated in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Go back and re-read those quotes with the context above and you’ll be very hard pressed to see anything that resembles the “one God in three co-equal persons in one ontological substance”.

If you’re offering to let me have the last word – I think that is fitting. I do wish you the best of God’s blessings and hope and pray that you will continue to read the Bible every day and daily study its pages, and the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. I pray that you will reject Orthodox Christianity and in time come to a knowledge of the truth.

Take care,

James

James,

Isa 43:10

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD,
"and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

Isa 44:6,8
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,

V
This is what the LORD says—
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God

Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one

V 21

Declare what is to be, present it—
let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago,
who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the LORD ?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me

Isa 46:9

Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me

1 Cor 8:5-6

5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Gal 4:8-9

8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by NATURE are not gods. 9But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

You mean to tell me that there is more than 1 God? And I'm supposed to believe that? God can't make it any clearer that He is the only God in the universe and the only God to ever exist. All others are false gods. But please, continue to ignore the facts. You may fool others, but you ain't foolin me.

you said,

Obviously we disagree on many points. David, I think it is fair to say that I have ABUNDANTLY shown that there is no verse in the Bible or teaching early Christianity that resembles the Trinity doctrine.

Really? Because I must have missed the Biblical backing for this claim. All I've seen so far is a bunch of quotes from historians and the such. So your telling me that the above verses don't indicate a monotheistic belief? I mean, do we speak the same language? I don't mean to be offensive James but this is the exact reason whey our dialogue will never go anywhere. The Bible says over and over that there is 1 God. Why do you think for some reason that you proved the Trinity wrong? Instead the only thing you've shown me is a bunch of quotations which may or may not be true, who knows, you probably got them off your fairlds or fairwiki sites, so I'm not sure if they are true. And then you showed me how Jesus broke God's hand. I sure hope they have an Orthopedic department in heaven. God needs a cast.

"Show me a mouse that can understand what a human is, and then I'll show you a human that can understand what God is."

Even if the Trinity were a false doctrine James, the LDS is way far worse. So, I guess I should believe that I'll be married in heaven even though Jesus says otherwise. I guess I should believe that I was with God some time in the past even though Paul says I wasn't. I should believe that Jesus was a created being, when He actually is the Creator. What your telling me to believe is in direct contradiction to scripture James. I'm sorry, but I'll never be a mormon. God forbid if the Jehovah's Witnesses are right and then we are all doomed, huh? Look the only way I can decide what is truth or false is by scripture. I think you assume that I was taught Orthodox Christianity. That's not the case. I'm self taught James. I read and studied it on my own. I used to be a believer in Oneness Theology. I started to look at all doctrines and the Trinity as a whole with all of scripture could not be denied.

Since you are big on historical quotes, here's some for you to ponder on.

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the INVISIBLE Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

HMMM...the Trinity wasn't a doctrine until the Council of Nicea? If you know anything about history you know that Christianity was outlawed until 325 a.d. under the reign of Constantine. Therefore to have actual councils or make anything official as far as doctrine goes would be quite difficult. And if you know anything about history you would know that the RCC martyred true Christians throughout history. The Inquisitions and the such were against those who were so-called "heretics" because they didn't recognize papal authority. The true church (body of believers) never ceased. They were always there. Never needing to be "restored." A look at Rev 17 with the "woman on the beast" you can study that and find that the RCC is that woman. "She is drunk with the blood of the martyrs". Historically speaking this is prophetical and accurate in that the RCC martyred thousands of Christians for not recognizing papal authority and for smuggling Bibles in since the RCC didn't allow people to read the Bible. I invite you to study Rev 17-18 because if you compare that to history you will see how the RCC is truly that woman on the beast. "City on seven hills". Rome. Vatican to be precise is built on seven hills. Drunk with the martyrs blood. Inquisitions and the witch trials. You might even want to do some research on Jan Hus and John Wycliffe. Both martyred by the RCC for preaching the truth. Since you have believed that the truth was lost sometime ago, these historical accounts prove you wrong.

To finish this I'll just say that I know we are in disagreement. I know you will write another long post to try to refute my post. It can go on and on. I'll let you have the final word James. Whatever you write, I'll just let it be. My only response will be thank you for the conversation and best to you. Sound fair?

You have a great evening.

God bless.

.

Hi David:

Uh ...thanks for the post.

Obviously we disagree on many points. David, I think it is fair to say that I have ABUNDANTLY shown that there is no verse in the Bible or teaching early Christianity that resembles the Trinity doctrine.

You seem to be skipping past the finer point on this one.

David, we both believe that the Bible teaches that there is God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, who is Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost. That is not in dispute.

However, it's in the finer points where the dispute arises.

The finer point is HOW they are ONE GOD or whether they are three spirits or whether they are three persons in ONE SPIRITUAL BEING.

The finer point is whether the Bible teaches that God is three co-equal persons of or in one ontological substance.

Do you understand? You see, the Bible teaches that there are three. We agree on that point. The Bible teaches that they are one. We agree on that point.

But it is HOW they are one is where we depart and where YOU depart from the Bible.

This is the point made by decades of research by reputable Orthodox Scholars - your "oneness" of the Trinity is not found in early Christianity and it is NOT found in the Bible.

LDS claim that it's not in the Bible nor in early Christianity because it's NOT true.

What LDS would like to see in the Orthodox Christian community is for them to come clean on this point.

I can tell you this, this issue is NOT going to go away. The more people, the media, Christian critics and othres learn about it, the more it's going to become a problem for Orthodox and especially Protestant Christianity.

The Roman Catholic Church has already admitted that the "Trinity" doctrine came later. That is was NOT apart of the Bible nor was it a teaching of early Christianity.

My question to any Christian would be -if the Bible is SO plain on the finer point of the Trinity, why was their a need for Catholic councils in the first place?

I can confidently say David that you cannot show any bible verses that teach the "Trinity" doctrine of three coequal persons in one ontological substance.

This is the point that matters because it is evidence that it cannot be found in the doctrine as revealed to man by God.

The trinity doctrine is an invention of men during the 300s to the 400s that followed the philosophy of the day - which was a rejection of the Father and the Son of the Bible who are anthropormorphic.

David, I look forward to the day when God will make me like him. I look forward to the day when Jesus Christ calls me up and asks me to sit with him in His throne just as HE sits with the Father in the Father's throne. The doctrine of God called "eternal progression" or "the deification of man is not a source of "adoration" for LDS.

David, we don't seek to be like God as a source of power - we seek to be like God because He teaches us to be like him. We are "planet" hungry. (By the way, the idea that men and women are catapulted to the same status of God and receive a planet right after this life is false. We do not believe it nor do we teach it.)

We believe that becoming like God will take perhaps a multitude of eternities - we don't know. It doesn't matter - what matters to us is that we will be made joint heirs with Christ with our families in tact and be able to enjoy the familial relationships (that God ordained forever) in eternity.

We look forward to sitting at the feet of the Savior in eternity and learn from him and enjoying his presence forever and ever. This is what "becoming gods" means to us.

So, when you choose to quote antimormon mischaracterizations of our doctrine or try to slander it, just know that you'll most likely be participating in something akin to "bearing false witness" or at the very least "bearing false representation".

We know that Protestants "abhor" the idea of men become gods. Why? Once again it interferes with the interpretation of the Trinity doctrine.

However, another evidence that the Trinity doctrine is NOT true is the early Christian doctrine that men can become gods.

Consider what they taught: (For the sources in the footnotes go to http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Deification_of_man#endnote_bkp1)

Irenaeus
Saint Irenaeus (AD 180), who may justly be called the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians, was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator.[3] Irenaeus is not a heretic or unorthodox in traditional Christian circles, yet he shares a belief in theosis:

While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord. [4]
Like the LDS, Irenaeus did not believe that this belief in any way displaced God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost:

there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption....Since, therefore, this is sure and stedfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.[5]
Yet, Irenaeus—whom it is absurd to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians—believed in theosis in terms which agree with LDS thinking on the matter:

We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.[6]
Also:

How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.[7]
And:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” [8]
And:

But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."” [9]
And, Irenaeus considers the doctrine clearly Biblical, just as the LDS do:

For he who holds, without pride and boasting, the true glory (opinion) regarding created things and the Creator, who is the Almighty God of all, and who has granted existence to all; [such an one, ] continuing in His love and subjection, and giving of thanks, shall also receive from Him the greater glory of promotion, looking forward to the time when he shall become like Him who died for him, for He, too, "was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,"to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father's law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; [being] the Word of God who dwelt in man, and became the Son of man, that He might accustom man to receive God, and God to dwell in man, according to the good pleasure of the Father.[10]
Further quotes from Irenaeus available here.

Said one Protestant theologian of Irenaeus:

Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. 'We were not made gods in the beginning,' he says, 'but at first men, then at length gods.' This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus' part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.[11]
[edit]Clement of Alexandria
Clement (AD 150-215), an early Christianleader in Alexandria, also taught the doctrine of deification:

yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.[12]
And:

...if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it.[13]
Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior.[14]
[edit]Justin Martyr
Justin the Martyr said in 150 A.D. that he wishes

to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons... in the beginning men were made like God, free from suffering and death, and that they are thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest...[15]

Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) also described the deification of believers as an act of grace, which matches the LDS understanding precisely:

“I said 'you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’" let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. “but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God” I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and sons!...[Christ said] "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am exalted.[19]
Jerome goes on to say that we should

give thanks to the God of gods. The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said ‘you are gods’ and again ‘god arises in the divine assembly’ they who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice an are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the most high...[20]

Remember, Jesus calls us gods.
Early Christian called us gods.
Once all of those who God grants to sit in his throne become gods, I suppose then the doctrine of the trinity will once and for all be proven false for you?

It's a reasonable question.

But no matter, I wish you the best of all of God's blessings.

Best,

James

James,

We've been through several things that you just went through. I guess I'll respond again. Where to begin....

"David, God gives us grace so that we can be saved by Faith. The miracle is when we allow God’s grace into our heart and allow him to change us so that we can exercise OBEDIENT faith.(Romans 16:26)."

Hey, we agree on something...nice!

"What did Stephen see?

Stephen, whose last words were, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God?” (Acts 7:56.)"

Ok, so let me get this straight. Your exogesis of this passage would be literal right? You claim that God the Father is flesh and bones. So why in the heck is Jesus standing ON God's hand. Doesn't that hurt? And wouldn't Stephen be wondering why Jesus is standing on God's hand? If I saw this literally I would think the Godhead are the Three Stooges. I think you get my point.

You brought up Rev 4:2. Let's look at the rest. Since you take so much literally, let's see what John saw.

At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. 3And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian.

So God is made of jasper and carnelian??? Dang, I guess we're both wrong.

If Moses saw God and Jacob wrestled God. How is that possible since you cannot see God, or if you do you will die? Ex 33. Who do you think they saw James? The pre-incarnate Jesus? No one can see God the Father James. Joseph Smith didn't see Him either. It would have been more believable if he just said Jesus came to him. But he contradicted scripture. That's a no-no. Those who saw God Allmighty in the OT saw pre-incarnate Jesus. Jesus is the creator of all things. He can appear as pre-incarnate Jesus if He wants. He did.

"David, you cannot find another organization in the world that LIVES the New Testament like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its people."

Your kidding right? I've heard so much boasting about what the LDS does as far as good works and the such. That's great keep doing them. James, you go ahead and work for that salvation buddy. I'm already saved. The law brings wrath. If you continue to think that your works can save you, then on judgement day God will weigh out the facts. "Ok this guy did a lot. But did he sin?" If you even sin once you are guilty of breaking all of the law and therefore condemned to hell. Would you rather have the case thrown out of court because you admit to God that you can do nothing to add to the Cross? Or would you like to be so arrogant in thinking you can keep all of God's laws and therefore taking you away from grace. Because "if it's by grace, then it's no longer by works." GB said it best. It's what's been done for you James. You don't have to do anything else. But by regeneration of the Holy Spirit, you will do good works. To please God. Not to hope for salvation. Salvation is already there to those with faith. Let's not get into the works/faith issue because that's another argument. But I promise you, there is nothing you can do to save yourself. It's already been done. Paul claims that to those who still feel the need to work for salvation fall away from grace. Can you keep all of the commandments without breaking one? Can you keep all the law? "If it is still by works, then Christ didn't need to die".

You brought up baptism and laying on of hands again. One word PENTECOST. Enough said.

Then you go into the history of the Trinity again. How does the history of a doctrine make it false. Prove it false Biblically. You can't it's impossible.

Then you go into about the LDS organization and how they are the only true church. WRONG again! The church James, is the body of believers. We've already been through that. I will never say there is a particular church organization with a certain name that holds the truth. You think God wouldn't know about that claim in the future of all these false religions? One easy way to solve that problem is to call the church the people who believe in the truth of Jesus. Now we know who's false and who isn't. You lay claim, JW's lay claim, Islam lays claim, and probably about 100 more lay to that claim. What makes your claim any better than theirs?

You said that baptism and laying on of hands is part of the gospel Paul preached. Funny because I posted a verse that said that Paul didn't come to baptize but to preach the gospel. And again, how come 3000 people at Pentecost were saved and added to the church that day upon simply hearing the word of God spoken through Peter. They recieved the Holy Spirit on hearing that word. Why can't we do the same today? Are these 3000 people better than us? And what's great is that AFTER they were saved, they were baptized with water. What do you know, a sever contradiction to your false gospel James. If you want to preach the right gospel, here it goes: The gospel that saves which all you need is faith for is; the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And you claimed that repentance comes after. NO! How can you have faith in Jesus if you don't even know why you need Him? You must know that you are a sinner and need forgiveness to know why you need Jesus! How do you sell the product if you don't even know how it works or why you need it? When witnessing to people you need to witness through the Law of God so that those who don't understand Jesus will know why they need Him.

Anyway, it's best we get it going James. I think we both have learned that we will disagree forever on some major doctrinal issues. However, there is a major social issue that we can agree on that affects today's society. We both have moral absolutes. In a relativistic society, we both can lay claim to have the Law of God to know how to live pure lives. We can agree on that and for society these days, that's a plus.

I wish you the best James. We must part as friends and of course in disagreement. My final addition would be that (and I've said this before) when I go to heaven and meet Jesus; if He tells me that I'm gonna be a god with my own universe and the such, I'm gonna ask that He grant me the favor of sending me to the flames. I worship God now and forever. I don't want worship. For me to become a god would mean that all this worship that I give my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ here on earth is in vain. We were made for Him, He wasn't made for us. Quite the difference and quite a different outcome.

God bless you all. Have a wonderful day.

David,

It looks like you are still getting a healthy dosage of fairlds.org "research" from James. There is some pretty interesting stuff on there if you get a chance to check it out sometime.

Hey, they renamed Candlestick too didn't they? Candlestick was a great name for a football stadium. The worst stadium name ever was Enron Field. Remember when the Astros were stuck with that name a few years back right after the company folded?

Thanks James for that great post. You definitely have done your research!

Hi David:

I am so sorry to hear that you have been affected by Armstrongism and centuries of mind controlling dogma that won’t allow you to see past the errant traditions of Orthodox Christianity. You seem to be “ever learning but not coming to a knowledge of the truth”. I don’t say this to offend you but to hopefully arouse in you a sense of returning to pure and undefiled principles that can free you from so much doctrinal tyranny.

If you want to end our conversation, I am perfectly fine with that. This is the internet and so we can come and go, make a post here and there and not have to “enter and exit” on a scheduled basis. You’re not going to “lose” face if you don’t show up and defend a position – at least not with me since these are just blogs – they don’t count for much.

David, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church of God on the earth. I am sorry to hear you belonged to a group that had no priesthood authority to deliver any “fruit” in your life. I am sorry to hear that you were taught to wrest the scriptures and go off on tangents that took you away from the plain and simple gospel of faith and repentance. The wonderful message of the Savior is that we can return to be with God (notice the word return). How do we do this? We must receive the gift of our Lord and Savior paid for with his life – the miraculous gift of Salvation. How is this done?

Jesus said that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” would enter his kingdom. Words and belief alone cannot save a single soul. What did Peter declare to the people?

Acts 2
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

David, God gives us grace so that we can be saved by Faith. The miracle is when we allow God’s grace into our heart and allow him to change us so that we can exercise OBEDIENT faith.(Romans 16:26).

Obedient to what? To God’s command that after we have received belief and humility we then repent of our sins, receive water baptism by immersion, and then receive the gift of the holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Anything LESS THAN THIS, IS the “Another Gospel” preached by Paul.

Yes, I know what you’re going to shoot back with – we are saved by grace alone. You’ll try to show me where Paul teaches this “exclusive” doctrine. However, your explanation will not hold up to these questions (and the scriptures I presented above):

• Why did Paul write so often to Christian congregations admonishing them to abandon their sinful ways?
•
• Why did Paul have to tell believing Christians that those who committed various sins could not be saved in the kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-5.)
•
• Why did Paul teach that Christ is "the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe?” (1 Timothy 4:10.)
• Why did Paul say that "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation?”( 2 Corinthians 7:10)
• Why did Paul tell the Philippians to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling?” (Philippians 2:13)
• When discussing "the grace of God that bringeth salvation," why does Paul say that it teaches "that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world?” (Titus 2:11-12)
• Why does the epistle to the Hebrews say that Jesus was "the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him? (Hebrews 5:9)
What did the early Christians believe? Did they believe in saved by grace alone?
First century Christian writer Clement wrote:

“For even He Himself declares, 'Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess before My Father' [Matthew 10:32] ... But, in what way shall we confess Him? By doing what He says, and not transgressing His commandments, and by honouring Him not with our lips only, but with all our heart, and all our mind...Let us, then, not only call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He saith: 'Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness' [Matthew 7:21]. Wherefore, brethren, let us confess Him by our works”
(2 Clement 3-4, in Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 7:518.)

I know that you don’t believe this David. I know that you reject this. I feel very sorry that your mind is blinded by false traditions that you can’t see the plain message AND PRACTICES of the New Testament Church. This is what matters to LDS. We uphold and respect the Bible above all other Christian Churches in the world - why? Because we believe in every good doctrine and every practice of the New Testament Church. We not only believe it. WE LIVE IT. David, you cannot find another organization in the world that LIVES the New Testament like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its people.

You asked how many Gods I believed in. You know that LDS believe that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Therefore, you’ve got me, right? You can exclude me from Christianity because I am not a “monotheist” in the classic sense? More name calling? Right? Next comes the slur “polytheist”, something like that? It’s all quite silly. Orthodox Jews and Moslems call Trinitatarians, polytheists! Why? Because David, at the core of YOUR doctrine you are a polytheist; you just redefine “substance” to hide the truth.

Three persons means three beings.
Three separate manifestations means three beings.
Three distinct spiritual entities means 3 spirits.
Three spirits means that there are three that are called God.
These three Gods comprise the SINGULAR Godhead.
The SINGULAR Godhead is the greatest divine council in heaven.

Yes, David you caught me (you knew from the beginning) that I worship three Gods. Which Gods? All of the Gods or gods in the universe? No. Then Which Gods?

The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Yep…I worship them all as one – one what? One Godhead. In the Godhead there are three personages that are one.

The crux of our conversation is not that LDS worship a DIFFERENT Godhead. We believe in the Godhead of the Bible: the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This issue isn’t the Three- the issue is HOW the three are one.

David, I submit that you and I reject all creeds in favor of the Bible to indicate how they are one. Will you give up the creeds for the Bible? This is what LDS encourage other Chrsitians to do. We reject the creeds and say, “Let’s let the Bible indicate how they are one”. Jesus himself, the Lord and Redeemer, the creator of Heaven and earth, the Word who was with God from the beginning declares HOW the Father and the Son are one:

John 17:20-23

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 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.

David, HERE is the mystery revealed. No creeds necessary. No centuries long debate necessary. Did you hear mention of “co-substantial” doctrines? I didn’t. In fact, you can’t find a single verse in the Bible that suggests that they are the same “being”. If you say that the Father and Son are the same being, then you are also claiming that we all will become God someday with them to make this verse fit with your doctrine.

David, when you see God the Father on this throne, what will it look like? The bible declares it plainly:

the prophet Ezekiel, who described his vision of God by saying he saw “high above all, upon the throne, a form in human likeness?” (Ezekiel 1:26, New English Bible.)

What did Stephen see?

Stephen, whose last words were, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God?” (Acts 7:56.)

What did John see?

John, who saw God sitting on the throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who did John see SITTING?

Was God sitting David? How does God sit without a back and legs?

Moses was not allowed to see God’s face in one vision (God was angry at the Israelites at the time), but God said he would “cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:22–23).

Moses did see God previously, however: “the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” (Exodus 33:11).

Jacob “wrestled a man” one night in the wilderness, and after this encounter “Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [Hebrew for “the face of God”]: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Genesis 32:24–32).

“Some of these references may refer to visions of God the Son, but some of them, like Stephen’s and John’s, certainly refer to the person of the Father.

Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College (a non-Mormon scholar) summarizes this phenomenon as follows:

"In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.[1]
Christopher Stead (another non-Mormon scholar) of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that
The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures."

The LDS doctrine of God’s embodiment rests primarily on eyewitness testimony. We believe God has a body in human form because everyone who has seen Him has described Him in this way. “

But perhaps you prefer the nature of God in these words?

“God is One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible [i.e. changeable.”

Or

“God does not possess a head and limbs similar to those of humans…[He is] a spirit, a holy and inexpressible One”

You’re probably heaving a sigh of relief. Finally something that resembles your own belief about the nature of God? Right? Finally, James has come to see the light right? Sorry. Wrong. Compare those two statements to your creedal definition of God and you’ll finally come to the knowledge of its origins. The first description were the beliefs of Socrates and Plato. The Second was the Greek philosopher Empedocles.

“In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.”

Note that this author says that many of “the crucial concepts” are “post-biblical novelties”: that is, they are new ideas that arrived on the scene after the Bible was written. If the crucial concepts weren’t around until later, then the doctrine wasn’t around until later either. As the author notes, these ideas arose out of the “Hellenistic milieu”, that is: Greek philosophy.

LDS reject the creeds and declare the Godhead of the Bible. The Father Son and Holy Ghost are three separate personages, or beings that are all empowered within the Godhead.

As the Bible teaches there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ – separate beings all can be called God, all posses the power of God, all are members of the Godhead and divine council of Gods. The Father sits in His throne with His Son at His right hand. They are one as Jesus Christ as declared they are one. They are not one in substance as the creeds teach. They are not merely “persons” but they are powerful separate beings who act as one – who have one will and one purpose. The Father sends forth His will, love, comforter, divine approval and testimony through the power of the Holy Spirit, not only a separate person, but a separate being that has the same will and oneness as the Father and the Son. These all comprise the Godhead (biblical term) . God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

LDS declare these three as the object of our
worship.

We believe in worshiping God the Father, in the name of our Lord, Savior and Redeemer, through the Holy Ghost. To us they are ONE GOD (not one being).

Look what our Lord and Savior promises those who overcome:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
________________________________________
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

The message of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is for all men to come unto Christ and partake of all of the blessings of the Father.

This is my hope for you.

David, if you need to leave our conversation – I understand. Life is full of activities that we must attend to. We can certainly part as friends and just agree to disagree.

Best,
James

GB,

What's us man? Yeah Pac Bell forever. It just sounds better. I really wish all the parks would get rid of company names and stick to some sort of "cool" names. Like I sure wouldn't mind if Pac Bell was Mays Park. Or something of the likes. What made me really hate the corporate names is when you get a park called Petco Park. What?? Petco? I'm just waiting for Wal-Mart Field.

Yeah bro, I think the debate is getting old. What's the point anymore? It's just getting uglier and uglier. I guess it would be best to move on much sooner than later. Much sooner than later.

James, if your reading this then maybe we should just call it quits. You'll never convince me in a million years to be polytheistic, so therefore what else can you debate about. I obviously don't have enough evidence or argument to convince you otherwise.....so hey....let's move on. Maybe we can say our goodbyes peacefully.

Take care, have a great night.

God bless

David,

Pac Bell will always be Pac Bell. It just has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

So, are you getting tired of debating all the stuff from fairlds yet or what?

As for winning/losing debates it's pretty subjective, isn't it? I've won several debates in my own mind on various blogs but I've yet to get a trophy.

James,

If it has been done for you, there is nothing left to do. The offer still stands good buddy.

Regards,
GB

David,
By the way, 'hope you enjoyed the ball game and the home run hit. I think my point was the same as your point--that God and the things of God are only knowable by revelation through the Spirit. That is what is taught over and over in the Bible, including 1 Cor. chapters 1-3.
In fact, it becomes seemingly senseless to "debate" over the nature of God, because of the very thing we're talking about--knowledge by revelation. The two ways of approaching the subject are at odds with each other. That is what Paul taught repeatedly.

So we do the best we can to study the scriptures, then we pray and sometimes fast and we seek that spirit of revelation in our lives. I don't question as to whether you have done that. I think God would be generous enough to allow people with different traditions and backgrounds to approach Him in prayer in the ways that they have learned, and that He will generally answer in an iterative process of inspiration in a way that they can comprehend and that will be recognizable to them. He wants us to learn "line upon line, precept upon precept" and that is what this life is all about. So keep on keepin' on, and we will, too.

I agree that we don't comprehend the nature of divinity. We don't even know what faith is--the faith of a grain of mustard seed that moves mountains. But we can start to learn.
Best always.

Parker,

If God were comprehensible in all ways, then why the need for revelation? I believe that question alone answers the question regarding the mystery of God. It's not a poor excuse to not discuss the Trinity. It's the reality we are faced when humbling ourselves to admit that to know the divine nature of God, we would have to be divine.

One more question Parker. If Paul couldn't fathom the idea of God and His nature, what makes us think we could?

James,

Again. You continue to argue the Trinity by historical means and not biblical means. And again you bring up some historical garbage about the Trinity. And again that proves nothing on if it's false or if it's true.

For some reason you must think I'm new to this historical argument. You must remember I was once decieved by the very nature of the argument you propose. Armstrong had a heck of a way to convince anyone of the same decietful historical accounts. Of course I'm not decieved by that anymore, so I think you must assume that I have done my homework on the historocity of the Trinity doctrine. I've done the research and this is what I find. Many people debated it. Some accepted it, some did not. It took many many years to formulate this doctrine due to the fact that this doctrine compared to any is so complex and takes literally ALL of scripture to prove itself. There are no contradictions in scripture to this doctrine. This doctrine does not contradict scripture. Does anything is history prove this doctrine is false or true? No, it's only by biblical backing could you prove this doctrine false. You haven't done that. I expect that you won't and surely expect that you can't because truth never fails. I advise you to re-read that bible.org article and go through step by step on how the doctrine is formulated. There are no assumptions in the formulation of this doctrine. Just strict Biblical backing.

You can argue the historical garbage all day James. That is how I was initially decieved by Armstrong. I'm pretty sure I learned my lesson. So you can't try to convince me otherwise with the same sinister tactics that he used. You might want to try that on someone who hasn't been there. But it's not working on me. You still have yet to attack this doctrine biblically which suggests that I guess you have no argument.

And again and for the last time, I will point out the dramatic difference in our thinking and religion. You are polytheistic. I am monotheistic. There is 1 God. You say there are many. How can you begin to argue the Trinity if you could not convince me to be polytheistic first? Please James. Forget arguing the Trinity until you can convince me by scripture that polytheism is the way to go. We can go no further unless we begin on how many Gods there are in the entire universe.

So, here's the major question. HOW MANY GODS ARE THERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, JAMES?

My answer:

1

Now, could you please tell me your answer?

If you say more than 1, then the conversation concerning the Trinity is over for me. If you say 1 then you are lying about your beliefs because you believe in a goddess, and many gods and people becoming gods. So in all reality, this Trinity debate can come to a close on one major problem. Polytheism vs. Monotheism. Otherwise, I advise you to try to defeat the Trinity Biblically. I know that's impossible because no one has even come close to doing that. Every other doctrine concerning the nature of God has in some way been refuted by scripture. Oneness Theology, Unitarianism, Arianism, and of course the LDS Polytheism. The only one that stands alone in taking the whole of scripture and combining the entire Bible, New and Old Testament is the Trinity doctrine. When you accompany the Trinity doctrine with the Hypostatic Union (Jesus being God and man) then you come away with not one contradictory piece of scripture.

You said I lost this debate. You can think what you want. I want us both to win when it comes to eternal life. I don't expect you to understand the Trinity at all James. When I came to Christ I didn't either. It takes a lot of study to understand how it is formulated and how it really is the truth. I think the first step is to establish how many Gods there are. Without accepting the truth of that, then you cannot go any further. So, if you want to continue to debate this issue, convince me to become a polytheist first if you want to get any ground on me. Until then, no argument can stand.

If you want you can tell all your LDS buddies you beat up on David today ok? I don't have that sense of pride where I need to feel right. I want us both to be right so that the truth about God can established. We are divided right now. We may be forever. I don't know, but I hope not. You want to believe what you want James that's your decision. Like I posted before, I don't have that burden on my chest any longer. I can't change hearts, only the Holy Spirit can change hearts. I can give all the evidence and argument in the world to show you how illogical and contradicting the LDS faith is, but it's your choice to continue in what you've been taught or to really challenge your faith. Not my choice, not my problem. I do wish you the best. If you choose to continue in this debate over the Trinity, I'll only listen if you can convince me to be polytheistic. Otherwise, what's the point anymore? Because the Trinity according to you stands on one solid point. How many Gods are there?

Best to you James.

God bless

David,
I also read the article you cited. I had liked the way you put it a few days ago better. The article says basically that Orthodox Christianity has made the Trinitarian doctrine into an incomprehensible mystery understood only by God and so people should stop thinking of trying to "solve" the mystery. I agree that they should, if they are acting on their own without revelation as the article also quite clearly pointed out. I wish this scholar who "cited" the early Christians by inference would have cited the source for his inference. Maybe you could provide the relevant footnote from first century Christianity that proved they all agreed with and understood the Trinitarian doctrine?
Be that as it may, why trouble yourself trying to logic with a group of people when your logic at long last relies on the notion that God is incomprehensible? Have it your way, but you might reconsider where you want to spend your time. It has been interesting getting to know your theology better, so I for one thank you for that. Best regards.

Hi David:

The scholars I have quoted are discussing the formulation of the Trinity. You're just choosing to ignore their research.

That there is a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the Bible, we certainly agree.

However, it's the EXTRA-biblical dogma found in Trinitarianism that isn't found in early Christianity nor in the Bible.

Oh yes, you and others attempt and continue to quote a myriad of bible verses in what you think support your position. You do this because the Trinity doctrine is at present "popular".

The bible scholars I quoted have proven by research that the beliefs such as:

"3 Persons in one God"
"Co-equal"
"Co-substantial"

Were all additions to the doctrine of the Godhead.

Listen David, I know you can't stand to lose an argument - but it's already happened. It happened many decades ago as Bible scholars tried to verify and square Trinitarianism with early Christianity and with the Bible.

The first Trinitarians arrived on the world scene in about 300 AD. Before then, there were no Trinitarians. How do we know? Because no such description or definition of God as described by Trintarians exists.

The quotes above by reputable Orthodox Christian scholars have proven that the Trinity doctrine was an innovation of the 4th and 5th centuries. It was not revealed by God - it was debated and agreed upon by Bishops in council under the leadership of those hostile to any other views of the time.

By spiritual violence these men changed the doctrine of the Godhead into the "nonbiblical" trinity.

Are you aware that we have the recorded writings of the early Christians of the first three centuries?

David, what are you trying to pull here? You're trying to say that the New testament saints taught the Trinity doctrine? Is that your claim? I'll be nice to you and give you a way out of this one: perhaps you meant they were teaching a "watered down" version - or early version of the trinity?

David, guess what? The early Christians in the first three centuries did not believe that the Godhead consisted of one singular being in three persons. This doctrine DID NOT EXIST.

Whoever has told you this is lying. They are deceiving you in the worst way. Who knows, this may be the first time you've ever heard this. No wonder you can't read the New Testament correctly!

Here are the proven facts from Bible scholars:

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.

The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity.

There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem.

The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified.

By all means David, if you can provide any documented early Chrsitian writings that proves otherwise, there are many publishers that will be interested in your thesis to prove the bible scholars quoted above.

If you still persist in this lie that the New Testament saints taught and believed in the "Trinity" as you do, here's something to consider:

Father Charles Curran, a Roman Catholic priest, said,

"We [the Christians] went through the problem of appropriating the word in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries with the great trinitarian and Christalogical councils where we finally came to the conclusion of three persons in God and two natures in Jesus. Many people at the time said, ‘Well, you can’t say that because those words aren’t in the scriptures.’ That’s right, they aren’t in the scriptures, they are borrowed from Greek philosophy, but they are the on-going account of the believing community to understand, appropriate and live the word of God in its own circumstances."

Charles Curran, "Creative Fidelity: Keeping the Religion a Living Tradition".

David: The words used to describe your God are not found in the scriptures. The doctrine of three persons in God and two natures in Jesus was not taught or believed by the New testament saints but was later created trinitarian councils of the 4th and 5th centuries as a result of a "final" conclusion - not revelation.

LDS are under no obligation to accept it as "biblical" truth no matter how you explain it or no matter how many verses you try to use to justify it. It's merely an invention of the Catholic councils.

What they wrote was not scripture and was not God's law. It is not binding on anyone who desires to follow God.

Furthermore, ALL doctrines that arose out of the new Trinity are also false because they are based on a false notion of God.

Best,

James

James,

Oh by the way. What is your description of the "Godhead doctrine" and what scriptural backing does it have?

James,

Call it what you want. Godhead, Trinity, Triunity, Triple God Guy, does it matter the word? The basis for the doctrine is that there is 1 God in all existence. This is where you heavily fail when tested with scripture. You continue to debate the "name" of this doctrine instead of debating how this doctrine was formulated. You continue to quote some scholars who either deny the Trinity or have some sort of historical point of view, but none with a Biblical point of view.

You made of list of what you think I think. Here it is.

I don't care what the early Chrsitians believed.
“I don't care how the first century Christians interpreted the Bible.”
“I don't care what changes were made to early Christianity.”
“I don't care if the Godhead was changed to the Trinity.”
“I can't handle contradictions between historic Christianity and what I believe."

"I don't care what the early Christians believed."

If it weren't for the early Christians, then how would I know what to believe? I'm talking of course about the Christians Church as spoken about in the Bible. Did you read about early Gnosticism in that article? There were several heretical churches formulating at the time. Many practicing false doctrine and decieving the masses. 1 Tim 3:16 says that ALL scripture is useful for doctrine. Doctrine was necessary at the time to counter the heretic claims of Gnosticism and other false churches that still had their polytheistic roots and tried to tie them with Christianity. Doctrine is still necessary today to counter the heretical claims of the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses and so on so forth. Now, how do we know if these doctrines are truth. By turning to the truth which is God's Word!

“I can't handle contradictions between historic Christianity and what I believe."

Historic Christianity is not contradictory to what I believe. Just read the Bible and you'll know.

Doctrine is important James. If it weren't then anyone could believe what they wanted and place their faith in a false hope. When I look at LDS doctrine and compare that with the Bible, it is WAY off. To tell me you believe the same thing Christ does and the same thing the apostles believed is far from the truth. Just finding one false doctrine in your religion is enough for me to know it's false and should not be followed. For example: Marriage in heaven. Christ says there is no marriage in heaven. Do I believe you or Him? Of course Him. You have, believe and follow a false doctrine. I wonder what else you would follow that could be false. Many things James. Many gods. Pre-existence is shot down by one passage. 1 Cor 15. You mean to tell me that your church believes the same as the early apostles? I hardly think so. So your argument is as follows. History tainted Christianity and therefore the truth was lost only to be found by Joseph Smith. Jehovah's Witnesses say that. Armstrong said that. All the cults convince you of a conspiracy theory and that they are the only ones to hold the truth. I don't hold the truth James. The Bible does.

I think there was a defining moment in this post that showed everyone how far fetched the LDS claims can be. The Ezekial 37 passage claims that the BOM was prophecied. When looking at verse 22 and God says the "sticks are nations" and you say they are scrolls. C'mon. With that falsehood and out of context interpretation, what else has this false church taken out of context? You expect me or anyone else with any sense of logic or reason to commit my eternal being to that? James, I know what the Bible says. I know it to be truth. It is only contradictory to your beliefs. I have a foothold on my faith knowing that I believe in a God that cannot and would not contradict Himself. He is the truth. The embodiment of the truth. He cannot contradict Himself. Joseph Smith's account of seeing God the Father is contradictory to a divine being who cannot be contradicted. It is false. Once again. Who do I believe. You or the Bible?

You or the Bible, James? God's Word or your word, James. Which one??

Hi David:
What I hear you saying is this:
"I don't care what the early Chrsitians believed.
“I don't care how the first century Christians interpreted the Bible.”
“I don't care what changes were made to early Christianity.”
“I don't care if the Godhead was changed to the Trinity.”
“I can't handle contradictions between historic Christianity and what I believe."

This is a real problem David because you're still arguing that your interpretation of the Bible is true ORIGINAL Christianity. Do you preach Orthodox Christianity. Yes, according to Protestantism.

But your declarations don't not hold up to early Christian history. They do not hold up against scores of Bible scholars.

David: Are you thinking rationally here? Remember, BIBLE SCHOLARS have tested YOUR THEORIES on the origins about the Trinity and have found those theories to be false based on tests, research, and exhaustive study of early Christianity and the Bible itself.

I went to your reference and read the article. David, this article is an apologetic defense of the Orthodox Trinity. It quotes Bible verses and then regurgitates the Orthodox interpretation of them WITHOUT first determining the origin of the interpretation. The Trinity doctrine did not come first – the Bible did. I particularly took interest in “historical background”. In the text, the authors make false claims. Then it quotes Walter Martin! Do you know who Walter Martin is?

Walter Martin claims to have received a "Ph.D." from an accredited non-mail-order institution of higher learning. But what are the facts?

Walter Martin claimed, in the CRI newsletter, 2nd Qtr 1977, Vol 1, #2, pg. 3, to have received degrees from Stony Brook School, Alelphi University, New York University, Biblical Seminary, and California Western University (which later changed it’s name to "California Coast University").

Stony Brook School is a high school/college prep school, which does not issue college diplomas or degrees of any kind. Martin lied about receiving a degree from this institution, as is evidenced by a letter from that institution dated Sept 10, 1981, signed by James A. Adare, Director of Development.

Martin lied about receiving a degree from Adelphi University, when in truth he attended only 4 months as an undergrad, as is evidenced by a letter from Adelphi Univ. dated Dec 1, 1981, signed by Geraldine B. Cosgrove, Supv. Transcripts and Certification.

Martin finally earned a B.A. from Shelton College, an UNACCREDITED school. He used the then-existing practice of New York University to accept credits from unaccredited schools to transfer to NYU, and subsequently earned his M.A. there in 1956. NYU does NOT accept credits from any non-accredited schools now. NYU explained this rather odd policy, and reiterates the fact that Shelton College was non-accredited in a letter dated Jan 26, 1984, signed by Helen Harrod, Admin. Asst, Office of Graduate Studies.

As a curious side-note to his M.A., Martin lied under oath in a court deposition about doing a Master’s Thesis for his M.A. at NYU, claiming that it was completed in 1956. Martin later admitted on the BAM that he had not done a Master’s Thesis at all. NYU confirmed, in a letter dated Sept 22, 1982 that the course of study that Martin was involved in did not require a thesis.

Martin claims his third degree from "Biblical Seminary", now known as the "New York Theological Seminary". The truth is that he registered for some summer courses from this school within a month after receiving his M.A. from NYU. He lied about receiving a degree from this institution.

The most damning evidence of Martin’s fraud comes from his claim to having received a "Ph.D." in "Comparative Religion" from California Coast University in Santa Ana, CA.
Martin lied about receiving a degree from "Biblical Seminary", (now known as "New York Theological Seminary"), when in truth he bought a mail-order "Ph.D." from an unaccredited mail-order diploma mill. Even though Martin claims not to have received this "Ph.D" until 1977, he repeatedly, fraudulently, referred to himself as "Dr." Walter Martin on a number of documented occasions.

So, what of "California Coast University"??? The California Dept. of Education identifies it as an "unaccredited degree-granting.. correspondence school" in a letter dated Dec 3, 1981 and signed by R. D. Welty, Office of Private Postsecondary Education, State of California Department of Education.

Yet, Martin lies yet again about CCU’s status in the BAM broadcast of 2/16/85, wherein he states, "It isn’t a correspondence school at all, and it is accredited in the State of California".

And this is the “scholar” upon which you’re hanging your support for the Trinity?
David, the days when informed Evangelical Christian ministers try to hide the truth of the origins of the Trinity are over.

Perhaps more from non-LDS Christian Scholars regarding the non-biblical nature of the Orthodox Trinity will help you engage in a rational dialogue about the origins of the Trinity?

The question remains, does the Bible contain the necessary elements for Trinitarianism?

“In order to argue successfully for the unconditionally and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other... Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as "substance", "person", and "in two natures" are post-biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.”
George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), 92.

Note that this author says that many of “the crucial concepts” are “post-biblical novelties”: that is, they are new ideas that arrived on the scene after the Bible was written. If the crucial concepts weren’t around until later, then the doctrine wasn’t around until later either. As the author notes, these ideas arose out of the “Hellenistic milieu”, that is: Greek philosophy.

“It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty...The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas.”
Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.

Said David Noel Freedman:
“So in many was the Bible remains true to its “primitive” past [by accepting the strongly anthropomorphic understanding of God/Yahweh] and is less compatible with philosophical notions of an abstract being, or ultimate reality or ground of being. Just as there is an important and unbridgeable distance between Yahweh and the gods of Canaan, or those of Mesopotamia or Egypt or Greece or Rome, so there is at least an equal or greater distance from an Aristotelian unmoved mover, or even a Platonic Idea or Ideal. The biblical God is always and uncompromisingly personal: he is above all a person, neither more nor less.” David Noel Freedman, “
When God Repents,” in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, Volume One: History and

"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”
P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

“Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.”
RL Richard, "Trinity, Holy", in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

“There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.”
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.

Two authors even assert that the Apostle Paul, the four gospels, and Acts have no Trinitarian understanding:

“...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.”
Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.

And:

“This double series of texts manifests Paul's lack of clarity in his conception of the relation of the Spirit to the Son. Paul shares with the Old Testament a more fluid notion of personality than the later theological refinements of nature, substance, and person. His lack of clarity should be respected for what it is and be regarded only as the starting point of the later development.”
J Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey): Prentice-Hall, 1967), 42.

So, Paul doesn’t even ‘realize’ that there is a ‘Trinitarian problem’. Could this be because for Paul there was no such problem, because the doctrine was unknown to him? It was not an issue in his era, because it was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles, and no one felt the need to reconcile divine revelation with Greek philosophy.

One author asserts that the Trinity is correct, but readily admits that:
“The God whom we experience as triune is, in fact, triune. But we cannot read back into the New Testament, much less the Old Testament, the more sophisticated trinitarian theology and doctrine which slowly and often unevenly developed over the course of some fifteen centuries.”
Richard P. McBrian, Catholicism (Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980), 347.

David, there is no biblical connection between the Trinity doctrine that was an innovation beginning in the 300s and formulated over a couple of centuries of time. These scholars have proven it over and over and over again.

LDS are on 100% solid ground from a scholarly point of view and a spiritual point of view.

David I encourage you to study real sources that produce real facts regarding the history of Orthodox Christianity.

The facts still remain. The Trinity doctrine and its origins are not biblical. However, the Godhead doctrine is biblical.

We believe in God the Eternal Father, in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.

We don’t need the “Trinity” we already have the most Christian term to describe God, his Son and the Holy Ghost: Godhead.

Best,

James

Ghostbuster,

It's so funny you call it Pac Bell. Because everyone still does. That was the original name. Then it went to SBC and now AT&T. But we still call it Pac Bell. And as I always tell everyone, if you haven't tried the gilroy garlic fries you haven't lived yet. And then when you do try them, the next day you won't want to live anymore. In other words, they taste great, but the heartburn is killer. I'm sure paying for it today. I say on the seventh day God created garlic fries. On the eighth day He created Tums. :)

Parker,

Nice post and thank you. I urge any reader that is interested in Christ to just pick up the Bible and go for it. But don't just read it. Study it. It was the best decision I ever made.

James,

I was a little rushed this morning and didn't get to finish what I wanted to say or how to respond. My daughter is teething and she was crying a lot, so I had to rush through it.

you said,

Historically the source for the Trinity comes from creeds. This is not my opinion David. This is a result of painstaking research by Christian and Biblical scholars who have researched the origins of the doctrine.

Creeds and doctrines are two seperate things.

you said,

What needs to happen with this conversation is it must turn from your feelings to the facts. You must be honest with what happened historically and confront it head on. Earlier you said we must "test it" - we agree on this point. But I don't see you testing it. I hear you glossing over Christian history and skipping to the end and simply making a declaration of facts ignoring what's happened with this doctrine over the last 1700 years.

"What needs to happen with this conversation is it must turn from your feelings to the facts."

Ok so your telling me that you get a "feeling" about your truth. I tell you that Jer 17:9 says not to trust your own heart. I tell you to trust in God's Word because that is the ultimate "fact", and then you tell me that I'm going on fact by feeling? HMMM...I need to know why historical accounts make any difference on what is truth? Why does it matter who thought of the word "Trinity" and who argued over it or who accepted it or not. How does this do anything to make it not truth? You go about with history to decide your doctrines? So is it by a show of hands and a popularity contest in history that we should decide our doctrines? Or maybe the proper way is to take the WHOLE of scripture? You mention how things have happened with this doctrine over the past 1700 years. I'm not too sure what that is but the doctrine is based upon the Bible that hasn't changed over the last 1700 years. This doctrine is the same as to when it was concieved. The Bible hasn't changed, neither has the doctrine.

you said,

"The question is, who is right? How can we test whether Orthodox Christianity is correct?

There are two ways, a scholarly point of view and a spiritual one."

NO. Your completely wrong. There is only ONE way to test this doctrine. That is the Biblical test. The Bereans in Acts 17 did not take Paul's teaching right away. They tested it. How did they test it? By searching through SCRIPTURE to verify his teachings. They didn't pray to see if it was truth, or just take his word for it because it sounded good. They tested it by the Word of God. There is only ONE test. The Biblical test. All other tests fail by the fallibility of man.

you said,

"Now to the spiritual test. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 to settle this debate once and for all without question. The eyewitness account and subsequent revelations show that the Trinity doctrine was not a doctrine of God at all. One can know for themselves whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet of God through reading the Book of Mormon and receiving a spiritual witness of the same through the power of the Holy Ghost. Here is the promise written around A.D. 421:"

NO. God the Father cannot be seen. 1 Tim 6. Therefore Joseph Smith was a liar. Christ is called the image of what??? "The INVISIBLE God". Joseph Smith could not have seen the Father. It's impossible. Exodus 33 says that if anyone were to see the Father He would die. Joseph Smith says He saw the Father, but he lived. And not only that he said he saw the Father and that contradicts scripture. And again, Jer 17:9 says the heart is decietful. How so? Because you are trusting your heart or "feelings" to find truth instead of searching by God's Word.

I ask you one question. If I am a person searching for the truth about God what do I do? Let's say I read the Bible on my own. I come to several passages indicating that God the Father cannot be seen. Here comes some LDS guys telling me that Joseph Smith saw God the Father. Who do I believe? Well, these LDS guys are really nice people so they must not be lying? It doesn't take a leap of logic to figure out that we are to find truth by the Word of God. And if the Bereans searched for truth in scripture instead of getting a great feeling about Paul, shouldn't we do the same?

Please James, read the article posted above on bible.org. I am no scholar or theologian. This article discussed ALL scripture to come to the conclusion on the Trinity. From the OT to the NT and it also explains your favorite aspect of it, the history. It goes into how it is determined that we call them "persons" and how they are defined co-equally and co-eternally. And most importantly how there is only 1 God. Our differences will never change on this subject. You see I believe in a monotheistic religion. You believe in a polytheistic religion. These are two seperate belief systems. We believe in two seperate Gods and two seperate Jesus'. We must make that a fact of life. My Jesus is not a created being by a God the Father who has a wife. My Jesus is not the literal brother of Lucifer. If we had a conversation and you said you knew a guy names Bob and I thought I knew the same guy. Then you go and describe him as bald with two kids. Well, the Bob I know has dark hair and is single with no kids. We know different Bobs. This is how different our Jesus' are. You love your Jesus, I love mine. Somehow I feel this conversation is gonna end by us saying, "well, see ya judgement day". I guess we'll have to see then who's Jesus is the right one huh?

Please just read that article on the Trinity and you decide. To describe and prove the Trinity takes so much of the whole of scripture that I don't have time all day to do so. I think this is the best one I found yet as to go about explaining it. ALL with scriptural backing.

Have a great day

God bless

James,

Your killing me with this historical account. You know Armstrongism did the same brainwashing scheme that the LDS do. They turn history around and call it some major conspiracy. And because of this conspiracy the truth was lost. And then you know what? POOF! Some money hungry chump is the only one who found the "real" truth and therefore you have what is known as a "cult". Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing.

James, I could care less when the Trinity was discussed, who discussed it or even if it was called the Trinity yesterday. When you look at the whole of scripture and take everything in the OT and NT. The Trinity is purely Biblical. Like I said before, those who cannot accept it are those whose ignorance and arrogance are exposed because to know the mystery of the divine would be to know everything in the universe. So you make God out to be a man with flesh and bones so you can relate and understand. Don't the pagans do the same thing with their idols and statues?

I searched long and hard for an article that discussed the Trinity in it's fullness. I will post it at the bottom when I'm done. It goes into the FACT that there is only ONE God. And then goes into how they are three "persons" and what makes them three "persons". I advise you to read it. It goes into detail with all the scriptural references you need. It really is the most in depth article I could find. To dispute the Trinity is to dispute scripture. Is this why the LDS convince you the Bible is tainted as well? More conspiracy theories huh?

you said,

"However, the first principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ are faith in Him, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion and the receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost."

This statement you made right here is the most self condemning statement anyone could make. See, the gospel is what saves James. I posted about this before. Paul makes an absolute statement that those who preach any other gospel will be "ETERNALLY CONDEMNED". You preach a false gospel. I'd be careful if I were you. You might want to rethink that gospel you have. I've also heard that some LDS who preach this gospel add laying on of hands as well, by some line of priesthood succession. That is extremely false as well.

I know you went into the priesthood thing. But I won't get into that until later. I can break down that argument in two paragraphs. I don't see the point because anytime I back up anything with scripture it's "just not interpreted right". So really arguing is becoming like two people who speak two different languages. But my language is better than yours and your is better than mine even though we refuse to understand each other.

Here's the Trinity article. It goes way in depth and is part of what I quoted on my long post.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215

I just read through the rest of it this morning. I'm not sure how anyone can dispute this. Good luck in trying.

If you want to get into the priesthood thing then I'm gonna ask you one question. Why was Jesus baptized? Do you know?

Have a great day.

God bless

Hi David: (Long post to match your last one)

I sincerely appreciate your response regarding my questions about the Trinity. I believe that you were expressing your sincere and heartfelt belief in it. That was not lost on me.

But your sincerity does not change the facts. The fact is you're not directly responding to my questions. You're trying to convince me of the Trinity doctrine based on your belief in it and not through direct statements made in the Bible, early Christian doctrine or even post-reformation doctrine.

Historically the source for the Trinity comes from creeds. This is not my opinion David. This is a result of painstaking research by Christian and Biblical scholars who have researched the origins of the doctrine.

What needs to happen with this conversation is it must turn from your feelings to the facts. You must be honest with what happened historically and confront it head on. Earlier you said we must "test it" - we agree on this point. But I don't see you testing it. I hear you glossing over Christian history and skipping to the end and simply making a declaration of facts ignoring what's happened with this doctrine over the last 1700 years.

David, it's almost as if your don't believe that Christian history has occurred. That the New Testament Church had been established in 1550 and that Christianity didn't exist until that point. Perhaps it's even earlier for you.

Consider that today, millions of Christians "interpret" the Bible differently and they all cannot be right. Christianity today has splintered into different sects and denominations and even recently the Roman Catholic Church (the source of most of your INTERPRETATION of the Bible) declared that Protestant churches are not correct and that they have departed from the truth. Who is right? The Catholic tradition or the Protestant tradition? Christians either chose one or the other or they declare that neither one are required to believe in Jesus Christ because we have the Bible.

However, the first principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ are faith in Him, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion and the receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Covenant of Baptism can only be received and performed by one who has the authority and key to administer this ordinance. There is no such thing in the Bible or early Church as baptism by anyone who wants to baptize because they feel an "inner calling". They must be called by God as was Aaron, as the New Testament says, and have received authority from someone who has authority by the laying on of hands.

The Catholic claim is that this authority has descended down from Peter to the Bishops and ultimately the Pope of their Church.

Protestants first claimed that no such "line of priesthood" is required and ALL believers have priesthood. Therefore, everyone can baptize - and turned the New Testament priesthood law on its head. The New Testament declares that "no man takes this honor upon himself" but that he must be called of God as was Aaron - How? Called by one ALREADY in authority who can trace their line of authority back to the true source (Jesus Christ) and that such is made known in some fashion.

Then shortly after, the Protestant reformers were met with all kinds of Churches "popping up" everywhere and everyone was declaring themselves the source of priesthood, ordaining and baptizing at will, the Lutheran reformers decided that a "law" should be put into place that says no one can take upon himself this honor and that in 99% of the cases must be a member of the professional clergy and approved by the Church and the congregation.

The idea that ALL believers have priesthood was therefore, turned on it's head, and splinter groups, literally hundreds of thousands have been claiming authority under this initial doctrine that soon after changed to resemble the order of the Catholic Church.

Remember, these declarations were made by the Lutheran Church under the protection of the King of Germany. Now, go forward to today and ask, "From what line of authority do Evangelical Churches claim their authority to baptize and administer the gospel?"

They say that they have "Jesus Christ" the great high priest and that he made the final sacrifice for sin and that therefore there is no more sacrifice that can be made for sin (while this is true, it's not the point at all - the issue is authority to baptize, to administer in the ordinances and teach the gospel - not offering blood sacrifices - Why did believers come to the Apostles for baptism? Further, why didn’t' the Apostles teach that baptism was "optional")

Therefore since they believe in Him that somehow this belief in the last High Priest translates into them being "ordained as was Aaron" and receiving by the laying on of hands, the authority by one who has authority.

There is only one problem. There is not a single precedence for this in the Old or New Testament or in early Christianity.

This doctrine of "priesthood" was explained above has it's origin in the 1530s. From there its be used and reused to establish 1000s of break offs from the Catholic and Lutheran Churches. Further it removed the doctrine of spiritual hierarchy that was established by Jesus Christ himself when he first placed Apostles and Prophets at the head and ordained offices below who operated under the authority of those Apostles and Prophets. All of those who reject this order are not called of God even though they believe in Jesus Christ. Even while they are sincere in their belief, they have not obtained the kingdom. So it was in the Old Testament, so it was in the New Testament and so it is today. “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Hebrews 5:4 (I’ll cover the historic accuracy of this point in a later post)

Even from a scholarly point of view, reading the Bible and then comparing that faith, church and doctrine, to the Catholic and Protestant traditions, we would have to be honest and say that these two traditions have departed from the order that Jesus Christ himself established. From the Church hierarchy down to the belief in the literal resurrection - they have departed from New Testament Christianity.

David, you want LDS and others to ignore all of this Christian history as you do and act as if nothing has occurred over the last 1900 years within traditional Christianity.

You want us all to turn to the Bible with you and read the Bible yet you interpret the Bible verses according to Orthodox Christian tradition. You see Orthodox Christian doctrine and interpretation in those verses. On the other hand, we do NOT see Orthodox Christian doctrine and interpretation in those verses.

The question is, who is right? How can we test whether Orthodox Christianity is correct?

There are two ways, a scholarly point of view and a spiritual one.

First, we have to go back in time and look at the origins of the doctrines and practices of Orthodox Christianity. The two most important areas would include the belief in the nature of God and Church hierarchy. Let’s just address the nature of God.

You say that the origins of the Trinity is the Bible. However, this is not true. Listen to what peer reviewed (their research is verified by their peers and also their critics):

First, allow me to introduce Dr. Emil Brunner. Emil Brunner was born near Zurich. He studied at both the universities of Zurich and Berlin, receiving his doctorate in theology from Zurich in 1913. Brunner insisted that Jesus was God incarnate and central to salvation. Brunner undoubtedly holds a place of prominence in Protestant theology in the 20th century and was one of the four or five system builders. Dr. Brunner is not an enemy of Orthodox Christianity. He is an Orthodox Christian scholar of the most upstanding type. He found:

“When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity, we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element in the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism. Judaism, Islam, and rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine…” Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.

David, I have been begging you to read about Christian history and study the origins of this doctrine and you have ignored this request. You have dismissed my claims that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. I don’t take offense at this as you were trying to defend your belief. But the claim that the Trinity (based on creeds) is not a New Testament or Biblical doctrine is not the concoction of LDS priesthood leaders. Instead it’s a truth derived from testing the origins through the most rigorous of research (“testing”) methods by the most reputable of religious scholars. As a result of testing by Orthodox Christian scholars, the tests conclude that the Trinity doctrine is not biblical.

Now to the spiritual test. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 to settle this debate once and for all without question. The eyewitness account and subsequent revelations show that the Trinity doctrine was not a doctrine of God at all. One can know for themselves whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet of God through reading the Book of Mormon and receiving a spiritual witness of the same through the power of the Holy Ghost. Here is the promise written around A.D. 421:

Moroni 10:3-7
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

Best,

James

To the general reader:
Since the subjects of control and of why Jesus would establish a church on the earth have been introduced lately, in case there has been misunderstanding I have thought it important to add an LDS perspective on these major questions. I hope others will also, since mine is only from my perspective.

I love what Joseph Smith presented to the saints about "unrighteous dominion" because I think it plays into much heartache in families and certainly in governments. Ultimately, if one looks at the idea of mind control, they are left with what I assume is Henry James' position--that any religion that speaks of punishments or rewards is trying to exert control in the minds of people, and therefore is bad for humanity. For example, a religion that teaches strongly a set of beliefs that if not followed will result in "going to hell" is exerting mind control, no question about it. I cringe when I read such comments--because I know that Christ has taught much differently than that. When He said, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters" he was presenting an invitation, not a threat.

The New Testament and the books of the Prophets in the Old Testament are based on invitations that invite promised blessings, not mind control out of fear--though a distinction is made between living by appearances and living by what is in the heart. I don't feel mind-controlled at all by the fact that blessings are promised when commandments are kept--why shouldn't there be a cause and effect relationship that can be perceived, especially by living and thus experiencing the blessings?

Yet, there is still the lingering doubt by what I will call the "Henry James" position, which would be "even perceived blessings are a sort of mind control". So what are we left with--experimentation, no trusting of anyone else's point of view, no belief in anyone but the Self? I view humanity as having learned some things over the years that have been shared for the good of others, because such is almost instinctive--we share insights, we try to persuade to a point of view that seems logical to us. I don't see the need to throw out all past learning just because it has come from someone else than the Self.

As to why Jesus established a church, I think a very good explanation was given by Paul to the Ephesians when he said, "And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; 'til we all come to the unity of the faith, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The world hasn't gotten there yet (I don't know that it ever will), so I think it is safe to assume there is still the need for a church organization.

My plea to the general reader is, think for yourself but also trust that some knowledge that is fruitful and beneficial exists outside of your current knowledge base. Read, think, ponder, pray, extend the boundaries of your insights and allow others to do the same. Don't be pushed back by generalizations or threats of those who want to appeal to the hope that you will think you aren't capable of making an informed, intelligent decision without their biased help. Trust in your inner heart and the light of Christ will guide you to find blessings for a happier life and greater peace. Best always.

To the general reader:
Since the subjects of control and of why Jesus would establish a church on the earth have been introduced lately, in case there has been misunderstanding I have thought it important to add an LDS perspective on these major questions. I hope others will also, since mine is only from my perspective.

I love what Joseph Smith presented to the saints about "unrighteous dominion" because I think it plays into much heartache in families and certainly in governments. Ultimately, if one looks at the idea of mind control, they are left with what I assume is Henry James' position--that any religion that speaks of punishments or rewards is trying to exert control in the minds of people, and therefore is bad for humanity. For example, a religion that teaches strongly a set of beliefs that if not followed will result in "going to hell" is exerting mind control, no question about it. I cringe when I read such comments--because I know that Christ has taught much differently than that. When He said, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters" he was presenting an invitation, not a threat.

The New Testament and the books of the Prophets in the Old Testament are based on invitations that invite promised blessings, not mind control out of fear--though a distinction is made between living by appearances and living by what is in the heart. I don't feel mind-controlled at all by the fact that blessings are promised when commandments are kept--why shouldn't there be a cause and effect relationship that can be perceived, especially by living and thus experiencing the blessings?

Yet, there is still the lingering doubt by what I will call the "Henry James" position, which would be "even perceived blessings are a sort of mind control". So what are we left with--experimentation, no trusting of anyone else's point of view, no belief in anyone but the Self? I view humanity as having learned some things over the years that have been shared for the good of others, because such is almost instinctive--we share insights, we try to persuade to a point of view that seems logical to us. I don't see the need to throw out all past learning just because it has come from someone else than the Self.

As to why Jesus established a church, I think a very good explanation was given by Paul to the Ephesians when he said, "And He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; 'til we all come to the unity of the faith, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The world hasn't gotten there yet (I don't know that it ever will), so I think it is safe to assume there is still the need for a church organization.

My plea to the general reader is, think for yourself but also trust that some knowledge that is fruitful and beneficial exists outside of your current knowledge base. Read, think, ponder, pray, extend the boundaries of your insights and allow others to do the same. Don't be pushed back by generalizations or threats of those who want to appeal to the hope that you will think you aren't capable of making an informed, intelligent decision without their biased help. Trust in your inner heart and the light of Christ will guide you to find blessings for a happier life and greater peace. Best always.

Karen,
Great addition, thanks!

David,
Ohhhh, you missed it by one day. Hopefully Bonds will play tonight for you. I'm a Nats fan so it was nice to see us win last night while being part of history.

Hey, do they still serve those yummy gilroy garlic fries out there at Pac Bell?

Karen,

There's no better way to put it than how you just did. Thank you. It's funny because church can be used in two terms. The place we go for worship is one. And church as a descriptive word. We are the church. What's even better is that being on here talking to you all is the same thing as going to church. We're in fellowship right now as we express our gratitude of the love that God has for us.

Ghostbuster,

Yes, I am aware that the WWC has changed it's doctrinal issues. I thank God that I didn't have my family at the time of deception from these people. I was single and didn't even meet my wife yet. I think it would have been much harder if I brought my family into this line of thinking. I have heard that there are still branches of the WWC that still teach the same doctrinal errors as in the past but overall they have changed dramatically. As I mentioned before I ordered a bunch of CD's from the Ravi Zacharias website. One of them was a speech that he gave at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake. It was the first time an Evangelical Christian spoke there since 1899. It had to be one of the best speeches I've heard in a long time. Ravi brought along some of the leaders of the WCC to show how a group of religious leaders can change their ways. My mother called me the other day and told me that Ravi was on T.V. and they asked him about that speech. He said that it had such an impact on the members of the LDS that the LDS leadership asked that he never come back.

When I was studying the Bible under the Armstrong way of thinking I did feel controlled. It also made me a different person. I couldn't see it at the time, but I noticed a tremendous amount of anger against Orthodox Christianity. They actually are so convincing that the truth was lost sometime that it made me want to oppose Orthodox Christianity to the point that I was an angry person. I was mentally controlled. So much to the point that one day my mother called me and flat out told me I was a different person and she wasn't sure that I was the type of person that Christ wanted me to be. Of course the Armstrong theology told me that I would be rejected even by those I love for knowing the truth. So who do I believe?

That night I asked God to show me by His Word the truth. I just trusted Him and opened my Bible to whatever page came up.

Matt 16:18

18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.

The truth was never lost. If so Jesus lied. I know Jesus wouldn't lie. So therefore Armstrong is a liar. If the truth was lost, then the gates of Hades at some point in history DID overcome the church. That is extremely contradictory to this passage. That was the turning point and from then on as I studied on my own, I come to find out that everything I came to believe by His Word alone (not man's) was the same thing that millions of people on earth believed, without the intercession of some guy telling me what it says. I held on to that anger against Armstong for so long, but then realized I needed to turn that anger into works and to warn others that Satan is just as real as God. And deception can happen to anybody. In a way I thank God for this experience of blindness for awhile because it made me want to know Him more and study His Word more. And who knows. Maybe that is what He's calling me to do. I know I have a ways to go, but I think this site is a great beginning at practicing apologetics. We'll just have to see where God takes me from here?

Sorry to hear about your experience as well. I guess it goes to show that no matter what denomination, the potential for a controlling leadershipt is there. I'm glad you feel your freedom now. We're supposed to be slaves to Christ, not man. It's too bad that certain leadership can use it as a form of power instead of leadership. Good thing your out now. Good luck to you.

Off the subject really quick. I'm a huge S.F. Giants fan. If any of you like sports or keep up with sports then you know Barry Bonds hit the big one yesterday. I have tickets for today's game and have had them for awhile. My wife and I were so excited knowing that it was possible to witness history. Watching the game last night and seeing Barry hit it. Arrghh!! One day too early Barry!!! It's times like these that I question a loving God. Just kidding of course. I'm glad he hit it, but boy do I wish I could've been there.

Have a great day. I'll be at the park tonight. Beer and hot dogs. Just what my love handles need! Yummy.

God bless

Thank you HJ, Ghostbuster, David and Parker for all your kind words. HJ, as usual, you test my humility.

David and Ghostbuster, your last 2 posts are very interesting and very enlightening. I would add to the list: run from any religious organization/church that positions itself as somehow necessary for your salvation either through its ministers or its sacraments or its teachings or its "guidance". We know that salvation is through faith alone by grace alone through Christ alone. A church/religious organization can have an invaluable role in helping us learn about God and maturing in our faith. But a big line is crossed when you are made to believe that there is no salvation outside of it. No church is necessary for my salvation or to mediate for me. That is what Jesus did for me.

Hi David,

Your list is pretty interesting. I do notice a few similarities. I suppose that when you had invested your life, your family and your eternal hope in Armstrongism it must have been pretty difficult for you to suddenly change course. I can see why you are so passionate in your posts. I’m sure you are aware that after the death of Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God under the leadership of Joseph Tkach, Sr. went through a major doctrinal overhaul is now considered as a mainline Christian denomination. Right? Were you in the WWC while the shift was taking place or were you already gone?

I think one point you left out of your list is “control”. Did you feel "controlled" at all?

A controlled person feels obligated to come to all meetings, services and events, a controlled person feels pressure to follow this or that rule, a controlled person has to appear to have his/her life perfectly in order all the time, a controlled person has to give money, time or resources to the church, a controlled person is tempered in criticizing anything within the church including those in authority or basic church doctrine because it could lead to one being ostracized…

I ran into this chilling effect in a little non-denominational Christian church once. The control was very subtle and mostly revolved around how everyone was always expected to be at any church related function. I hardly noticed it at first because I was happy and wanted to be there all the time. When I missed a service, game night or a potluck dinner people would say they missed us. I thought they genuinely did miss us. But they genuinely didn’t. As I observed, I became aware of the control in that and several other areas within the church. Some of it wasn't so subtle :) Eventually, it became pressing to overlook.

When we walked out of that church for the last time a year and a half after first visiting I was amazed by the overwhelming sense of freedom that I felt.

I hope to help other people out of similar situations so they can also experience similiar freedom.

HJ,

What's up budy? Much love to you too, my friend. I hope "the other world" is treating you well. :)

Ghostbuster,

Thanks for the compliment. You know, I did a Bible study with some friends about false teachings. I feel very involved as to almost as a calling to combat false teachings. As you may be aware as I pointed out earlier, I was once decieved into following a false teaching at one point in my life as well. I really thought it was truth. I really did. I would have fought to the death knowing that what I believed was true. I thank the Lord that He was able to reach me out of that cult and into the truth. Nothing hurt more knowing how badly someone is willing to lead you into a false doctrine which in turn can lead to eternal damnation. But nothing felt better than the day that I was finally brought to the truth, only by His Word. The more I hear and learn about the LDS or the likes of Jehovah Witnesses, the more I see the same pattern of deception. Here's what Armstongism taught me. Let me know if you can see a consistency among other cults.

1. Make you believe that the Bible is not trustworthy.
2. Make you believe they are the only true church on the planet.
3. Make you believe that your faith isn't good enough and you need to constantly be doing some form of work or you will be damned to hell.
4. Herbert Armstong claimed to be the "endtime Elijah" and the "RESTORER" to the truths that were lost to the one and only church.
5. Armstong claimed that the "lost ten tribes of Israel" went to Britain where the chosen people are at. (Sound familiar LDS?)
6. And of course, Armstrong held the claim to leader of the one and only true church and claimed to be a prophet.
7.He made a false prophecy about the return of Christ in 1975. (Sound familiar Jehovah's Witnesses?)

After coming to the truth, I turned to study how all these false teachings get you. It's the same pattern every time. Somehow they have to convince you that the truth was "lost" somewhere. And then they convince you that they have it and no one else does. And just in case you read your Bible and find out that they are lying to you, then they can find a way to convince you not to trust your Bible, but only the way they "interpret" it. Every single one of them do this. Not just LDS. Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongs, they all do it with this same pattern. This is why I'm so adamant about revealing the truth. I don't wish for anyone to be caught in the web of lies as to be decieved so far as to have your eternal life in jeopardy. It's as plain as day in the Bible. Just have to trust God's Word.

You know, Ghostbuster, the best way I witnessed to Jehovah Witnesses. This seems to work every time. If it doesn't convert them, at least it makes them question their beliefs. Jehovahs Witnesses believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (of course if it is translated correctly) but they do not believe in contradictions in the Bible. Of course they deny the deity of Christ and think that Jesus was Michael the Archangel. I ask them every time when they come to my door (at least 3 times a month), do you have the same God as the apostles? Of course they say yes. I tell them to turn to John 20:28. Thomas calls Jesus his God. I'm not too sure if they ever were converted, but I know that after that, the conversation just stops.

Anyway, enough babbling. Just thought I would share with you my experiences. Have a great day

God bless

I do not know much about gods; but I think that the river
Is a strong brown god—sullen, untamed and intractable,
Patient to some degree, at first recognised as a frontier;
Useful, untrustworthy, as a conveyor of commerce;
Then only a problem confronting the builder of bridges.
The problem once solved, the brown god is almost forgotten
By the dwellers in cities—ever, however, implacable.
Keeping his seasons and rages, destroyer, reminder
Of what men choose to forget. Unhonoured, unpropitiated
By worshippers of the machine, but waiting, watching and waiting.

beautiful words Parker - well done!

To the general reader who is seeking a stronger belief in Jesus Christ:

I appreciate David's well-expressed description of the Trinity, and add my heartfelt felicidades to Karen for the success of her presentation; I don't seek to distract from any of that. I just want to add a perspective that may have been short-changed for a general reader, which I think is important regardless of the specific denominational definitions:

1) Jesus lives as the resurrected Son of God who overcame death and the grave, and makes it absolutely sure that every person who has ever lived will also be resurrected. This is a free gift to all.
2) Jesus entered into all of our pain, our heartache, our sufferings, our illnesses, our weaknesses of the flesh, our anguish from troubled relationships or from having been harmed or badly treated by others. He is anxious and willing to help us carry the load, to lift the burden of these sufferings as we seek His help, seek His peace, and seek solace and comfort through finding ways to be forgiving of others, loving, generous, full of gratitude, willing to see the world as a place with so many wonderful people who are willing to help. He has done this for so very many who attest to this. He can and will do this for you. Please know this in your heart. He knows and loves you personally.

Karen,
Congratulations on your successful presentation.

David,
I really wish I could have you guest speak at an informal class I sometimes attend where the similarities and differences btw mormonism and christianity were recently discussed.

Also, in a previous post you were asked if you have ever read the BOM. Have you read it? If not, I suggest that you read it, especially since you enjoy dialogue with those of the LDS faith.

Regards

Karen
I am so pleased, though not surprised, that your presentation went well.

You are such a clear, cogent, powerful communicator in writing that it makes sense you would be when speaking as well.

Love to you and David from the other world.

Henry

Karen,

It's so good to see you back. I did pray for you and I'm glad everything went well and you had a safe trip. I thought about you and how difficult it is to speak in front of so many people. I then thought about Moses and how a simple man who had speech problems could convince a Pharaoh to let his people go. What wonderful things we can do with the power of trusting in God, huh? Again, glad to see you back Karen and thanks for the compliment. Have a wonderful day.

David: you last post on (trying) to explain the trinity is excellent. You did a great job on a very tough subject.

Also, to you and Parker and others who prayed for me re: my big presentation last week, thank you for your prayers and good wishes. Though I have done quite a bit of public speaking, this was my first presentation at a national meeting and I am happy to report that it went very well. I was nervous until I started speaking, then I felt calm and enjoyed myself. The feedback has been great and I am deeply grateful. Thank you all.

Good morning James, (WARNING, VERY LONG POST AHEAD)

Great questions. I did a lot of thinking last night and just wanted to say a couple of things. I think I do agree with you on how a lot of Christians just accept the doctrine of the Trinity because it is labeled as Christian. I wish that were not the case. We are supposed to "test everything". Not enough Christians do that. When I think about the nature of God, it is extremely difficult to explain. To say that we can fully explain an Almighty, omnipresent, omniscient being is to be arrogant in saying we can KNOW everything. The Trinity is beyond logic. And rightfully so! Isn't it logical that the Creator of logic would be beyond logic? I think a wonderful passage that shows us the finite minds we possess can help us determine that we are NOT supposed to be able to come to logical terms on defining God because God is greater in wisdom, thinking and of course naturally in a spiritual sense greater than the mind could ever comprehend. In other words, how can our finite minds even begin to comprehend an infinite God?

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

I'm gonna quote this from bible.org because I think it's important.

"It follows from all this that we cannot and should not expect to understand the Bible exhaustively. If we could, the Bible would not be divine but limited to human intelligence. A very important idea comes out of this, something over which many non-Christians and even Christians stumble: Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.

As simple as the Bible is in its message of sin and of free salvation in Christ, an incredible subtlety and profundity underlies all its doctrines. Even a child can receive Christ as his Savior, thereby appropriating the free gift of eternal life. Yet no philosopher has more than scratched the surface regarding the things that happened at the Cross. The Bible forces any reader to crash into the ceiling of his own comprehension, beyond which he cannot go until he sees the Lord face-to-face".

The Apostle Paul wrote: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

Paul knows that the limit of our comprehension cannot fully grasp the nature of God. Only when we meet Him face-to-face can we know. So, when explaining the Trinity using human terms we will never grasp the full explanation of God because He is a God that has limited our comprehension of Him.

Does this mean a doctrine cannot be true simply because it defies our human imagination or ability to comprehend it? The answer is, of course not. It would be nothing short of human arrogance to say it was. The truth is, we must recognize our need to simply trust in God’s special revelation to us, the Bible, and submit our minds to that teaching which is truly expressed in its pages. This does not mean we do not test the Scripture to make sure these things are truly taught, but once we are convinced that that is what the Bible says, we must lay hold of it by faith and wait on the eternal future for complete understanding. The Trinity is Biblically sound, but mentally uncomprehendable. I think like I pointed out earlier how the Apostle Paul rebuked those who try to make God out to be a body of corruption. This goes hand in hand with the converstion at hand. Paul is telling us that we cannot fathom what God really is. Our knowledge is limited by the capacity of human intelligence. How come we think we can understand Him fully and why do we think we in our arrogant state of mind can make God out to be something He is not to fulfill our incomprehendable minds?

You asked several questions which I already know that you know the answers to. A couple stand out that I feel are important in understanding the Trinity.

You asked if all are co-equal. Yes they are. Jesus says the Father is greater than Me. Do you know what the Hypostatic Union is? It simply is a doctrine that states that incarnate Jesus was (and still is) God and man at the same time. Hence, "the word became flesh". Also, as written "He was made for a little while lower than the angels". When Jesus says the Father is greater than Him, it is because He is in the flesh at the time and also because He is on earth and not on His Heavenly throne. It is merely positional that Jesus is less than the Father.

I know you believe that Jesus was a created being, but the Bible calles Him the Creator.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:15-17)

The Holy Spirit is Creator as well.

Job 33:4

4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

I know you believe that Jesus was a created being. But how can a created being be the Creator of all? This is consistent with the Trinity. All three are Creators which means that none of them have been created. They are all eternal, co-equal persons. When I say persons, this is the best description I can give even though persons does sound like seperate individuals, divinely they really are not. What makes them seperate is their works (for example Jesus saves, the Holy Spirit sanctifies and seals) but it is the ONE God that works in those different forms that makes it possible.

you asked,

You stated that the Trinity is 3 distinct persons in one God. What is the difference between the person of the Father and the person of the Holy Ghost? Are they the same person? What makes them different persons?

Like I explained before the difference is their works and their wills. Jesus prays to the Father and asked that His will be done, not Jesus'. Why? Because Jesus is flesh as well. He is limited by His flesh and therefore only the divine will be done. If indeed the Hypostatic Union is truth, which it is, then how do you suppose the gospels explain this? They must attribute the human side of Jesus along with the divine, right? So, we get both sides explained. Jesus says He and the Father are ONE. He says the Father is greater than I. If they are ONE than how is the Father greater than Jesus? Because they ARE ONE, but the Father is greater in a sense that Jesus is flesh, but they still are ONE!

I didn't accept the Trinity right away, James. I did test it. I gave it the scriptural test. What I come to find out is that God is incomprehendable. He even tells us that in scripture. I believe Him! It was only when I could acknowledge that me being human and limited in my knowledge and understanding of spiritual things could I accept it as fact as it really is fact. Where we differ dramatically is the question of how many God are there in the universe? You say many, I say one. I've brought up the Isaiah verses several times. I heard the counter argument to them. Like I said, I'm set on the definitive meaning that God is ONE and there are no other gods or goddesses, or anyone becoming gods. The explanations I got for the Isaiah verses are not really explanationS at all. God says He is ONE. That is an absolute statement. It doesn't mean that there are more, or that there are a council of gods. God says He knows no other gods. If indeed there is a council of gods, theN why doesn't He know them? This question alone is what seperates us completely. You could never get an understanding of God unless you can truly recognize that there is only ONE God. And when you finally recognize that there is only ONE God, that is when you must recognize that we are not Him. We in our lowly state of humanity cannot FULLY know God. Paul could not FULLY know God as he expressed in 1 Cor 13:12 until he recognized that you can't until you see Him face-to-face after this life. We as God believers must be humble enough to face the fact that to define God by nature in human terms is not feasable. We did not create God, He created us. How can the created really understand the Creator fully?

I know this is a long post, I'm sorry. But debating the Trinity stops at one simple problem. How many Gods are there in the entire universe? If we cannot agree on that simple question, then the rest won't make much sense to you. But one final question I ask you. Are you humble enough to admit that you cannot know God fully? Why make the Father a being with flesh and bones? So you can understand better? Is this not arrogance? Wouldn't you agree that this is the problem with religions that make idols out of wood or stone or whatever? Because the TRUE God cannot be defined and the arrogance of the human mind in needing to fully be able to explain God in full human terms cannot be met?

I'll leave you with this until you respond. I don't want to be able to explain God's nature by human terms because that would force faith to turn to knowledge. I have faith in ONE God. If I had complete divine knowledge like God has, then where's faith? Isn't it by faith that we recieve grace? Aren't we justified by faith? We NEED faith. Faith is essential. To take away faith and replace it with knowledge, then that would take us out of the gift of grace.

Have a wonderful day James,

God bless

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps we can find understanding of one anothers beliefs if we have a frame of reference.

Could you please describe & define the nature of God in these terms as best you can:

God the Father (personality?, spirit?, flesh bone? Greater than the son?)

God the Son (personality?, spirit?, flesh bone? coequal to the Father?)

God the Holy Spirit (personality?, spirit?, flesh bone? coequal to the Father?)

Do you believe these three to be manifestations of the same spiritual being? (One singular spirit or three separate spiritual entities?) Or are these persons separate and independant spiritual entities?

What makes these three persons distinct?

When you are brought before the throne of God, how many persons will you see there?

Have you read the Anthanasian creed?

Have your persons of the trinity always existed?
Did God the Father exist as a separate person from the Son and the Holy Ghost before the world was made?

In your Trinity, did the person of the Son always exist even before he was begotten through Mary? If so, what did he exist as before Mary was born? Was Jesus, "God the Son" before the creation of the world, and is so, how was he the person of the Son since he wasn't born yet?

You stated that the Trinity is 3 distinct persons in one God. What is the difference between the person of the Father and the person of the Holy Ghost? Are they the same person? What makes them different persons?

Oh James, by the way I have a serious question that I never raised before. You claim to have a confirmation of the truth of the LDS faith by means of the Holy Spirit. How so? How was this confirmed? Did the Holy Spirit come to you and say "Hi, I'm the Holy Spirit, you have the truth?" Or was it the "burning in the bosom" feeling? How do you know it was the Holy Spirit?

Ok James you devil you....I mean that nicely, not literally :)

I guess I just can't stay away from a good debate. It's so hard. I'll stay away from the archaeological, BOM, BOA, argument. Sound good. Let's get Biblical!

you said,

David, one of your “laws” of the trinity is that God is not divisible. But then you try to argue that your God is divisible into three persons. We can all see and understand that this is what your claim that the Trinity is (a doctrine not found in the Bible – this is what you THINK God is – do you understand that point?)

When did I ever say God was not "divisible"? Is time divisible but still time?

you said,

On one hand your God is one but on the other hand he is three. Your trinity states that your God’s SUBSTANCE cannot be divided. Okay. You don’t like the terms Gods. I understand why it drives your crazy. Let’s use another term. Let’s use the term “spirit”. Is God one spirit or three spirits? How about that?

No, on both hands He is ONE. Again God is ONE being in the form of three persons. Not three Gods that make ONE God. You have it backwards.

you said,

Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commend MY spirit”. If God the Father and God the Son, who are distinct persons, are the same spirit, then how can Jesus commend his spirit to the Father’s spirit, if they are already one spirit?

Ok, let's use logic for this one. You claim that you recieved confirmation of the truth by the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost, same thing). Does that mean that you are the only one who has recieved that confirmation? I'm sure you will agree that the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Well, can the Holy Spirit indwell a believer in Texas and Japan at the same time? Or do they have to share? Now apply that logic to what you just said above.

you said,

When Jesus crys out “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” how could the Father, who you say is God, forsake himself, if the Father and the Son are the same spirit? Did the Father forsake Jesus’ body or his spirit?

First of all Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. You should take a look at verses 11-18. Jesus is telling the crowd that He is fulfilling prophecy. You will be able to tell that by reading the passages indicated. Jesus does something similiar to this when speaking to the Pharisees and Saduccees when he said to them "ye are gods" (Psalm 82:6)because He knew that those high priests knew the following verse "but you shall die like mere men". Then they wanted to stone him of course. He did the same thing by saying those words. But I do believe there is another meaning as well as to Him quoting Psalm 22:1. Jesus became the sin of the world. I forgot the verse in Habbukuk but it says God cannot look upon evil. Jesus became sin to die for us all. The Father very well could have turned His back for the moment because He could not look at His Son. And since Jesus became sin in His perfect self, I'm sure that pain exceeded the physical that He experienced.

I'm assuming your using "spirit" in place of "God" when asking how the Father being God can forsake Himself? Again, you still do not understand the Trinity. The Father and Son are not the same person. You are confused with Oneness Theology. Are you sure you studied the Trinity for 25 years? No offense, but you can't seem to seperate the persons of God. God is omnipresent. He can be anywhere and everywhere at the same time. Remember that.

If the Father and the Son are the same spirit, then you’d have to admit that the Father once had a body of flesh and blood in the person of the Son. Right?

They are not the same person. Jesus had and still has a body of flesh. Do you know why He has a body of flesh still? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the priesthood. The Father never had a body of flesh. He is unseen just like the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Jesus makes it very clear that spirit is not the same as flesh and bones. Again i'll post this.

John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Luke 24:39, " “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Jesus says He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Not "except in", or "only if". Jesus is the TRUTH. He is absolute. There is no such thing as relative truth. Jesus makes this clear. Everything He says is absolute TRUTH and cannot be argued because He is TRUTH. He is the embodiment of truth. So when He says that spirit is not flesh and bones, I believe Him. If God the Father is spirit, then He is not flesh and bones. This coming from the One who embodies absolute truth.

you asked,

Once again David, I will ask whether your God is three spirits, three bodies of flesh and bone, or three personalities? But please, by all means.. please clarify how many spirits are in your ONE GOD (singular).

I ask again. How many Holy Spirits are there? I'm sure we both can agree on ONE Holy Spirit, correct? How then can the Holy Spirit being ONE be indwelt in millions of believers at the same time. Again apply that logic to the three persons of God and you not only have something beyond our comprehension (which is exactly what God is, beyond our comprehension) but something that makes sense. An omnipresent, omniscient being. Notice I said being, not being(s). If this being can be anywhere at any time at the same time, then whey can't He be One being in the form of just three persons? If you claim that all Three are seperate Gods, then you take away the omniprecence of God which is what enables us to have a personal relationship with God.

We try to find unity in our lives with everything. We are fathers, sons, workers. In a diverse world we struggle to find unity in diversity. Not the other way around. Claiming that all three are Gods is the need for diversity to make unity. We go to college or a university. University simply means that, unity in diversity. We get married and become "one flesh". That is unity in diversity. We long as humans to have some kind of unity in a such a diverse world. No where in the world can you find such unity in diversity than within the unity and diversity of the Trinity. If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three different Gods, then we should be looking for diversity to find unity. That doesn't make much sense there does it? Diversity in unity? Are we to exclude those who do not look like us in skin color or have the same beliefs so that we can have unity? This is what three different Gods would suggest to me. That since the "Gods" are diverse they must be right. We must be diverse as well. Diversity only unites those who are willing to participate. Unity in diversity unites all. The unity in diversity that the Trinue God brings is what example we should lead by in life, othewise we continue to search for diversity which never brings unity. That's my moral speech for the day and how the Trinity brings unity and all others bring diversity. God intends unity, not diversity. You know this and I know this. How can we strive for unity if our own God or Gods cannot be united?

I'm done for now. Thank you and have a blessed day.

God bless

Ok James you devil you....I mean that nicely, not literally :)

I guess I just can't stay away from a good debate. It's so hard. I'll stay away from the archaeological, BOM, BOA, argument. Sound good. Let's get Biblical!

you said,

David, one of your “laws” of the trinity is that God is not divisible. But then you try to argue that your God is divisible into three persons. We can all see and understand that this is what your claim that the Trinity is (a doctrine not found in the Bible – this is what you THINK God is – do you understand that point?)

When did I ever say God was not "divisible"? Is time divisible but still time?

you said,

On one hand your God is one but on the other hand he is three. Your trinity states that your God’s SUBSTANCE cannot be divided. Okay. You don’t like the terms Gods. I understand why it drives your crazy. Let’s use another term. Let’s use the term “spirit”. Is God one spirit or three spirits? How about that?

No, on both hands He is ONE. Again God is ONE being in the form of three persons. Not three Gods that make ONE God. You have it backwards.

you said,

Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commend MY spirit”. If God the Father and God the Son, who are distinct persons, are the same spirit, then how can Jesus commend his spirit to the Father’s spirit, if they are already one spirit?

Ok, let's use logic for this one. You claim that you recieved confirmation of the truth by the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost, same thing). Does that mean that you are the only one who has recieved that confirmation? I'm sure you will agree that the Holy Spirit indwells believers. Well, can the Holy Spirit indwell a believer in Texas and Japan at the same time? Or do they have to share? Now apply that logic to what you just said above.

you said,

When Jesus crys out “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” how could the Father, who you say is God, forsake himself, if the Father and the Son are the same spirit? Did the Father forsake Jesus’ body or his spirit?

First of all Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. You should take a look at verses 11-18. Jesus is telling the crowd that He is fulfilling prophecy. You will be able to tell that by reading the passages indicated. Jesus does something similiar to this when speaking to the Pharisees and Saduccees when he said to them "ye are gods" (Psalm 82:6)because He knew that those high priests knew the following verse "but you shall die like mere men". Then they wanted to stone him of course. He did the same thing by saying those words. But I do believe there is another meaning as well as to Him quoting Psalm 22:1. Jesus became the sin of the world. I forgot the verse in Habbukuk but it says God cannot look upon evil. Jesus became sin to die for us all. The Father very well could have turned His back for the moment because He could not look at His Son. And since Jesus became sin in His perfect self, I'm sure that pain exceeded the physical that He experienced.

I'm assuming your using "spirit" in place of "God" when asking how the Father being God can forsake Himself? Again, you still do not understand the Trinity. The Father and Son are not the same person. You are confused with Oneness Theology. Are you sure you studied the Trinity for 25 years? No offense, but you can't seem to seperate the persons of God. God is omnipresent. He can be anywhere and everywhere at the same time. Remember that.

If the Father and the Son are the same spirit, then you’d have to admit that the Father once had a body of flesh and blood in the person of the Son. Right?

They are not the same person. Jesus had and still has a body of flesh. Do you know why He has a body of flesh still? I'll give you a hint. It has to do with the priesthood. The Father never had a body of flesh. He is unseen just like the Holy Spirit (Ghost). Jesus makes it very clear that spirit is not the same as flesh and bones. Again i'll post this.

John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Luke 24:39, " “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Jesus says He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. Not "except in", or "only if". Jesus is the TRUTH. He is absolute. There is no such thing as relative truth. Jesus makes this clear. Everything He says is absolute TRUTH and cannot be argued because He is TRUTH. He is the embodiment of truth. So when He says that spirit is not flesh and bones, I believe Him. If God the Father is spirit, then He is not flesh and bones. This coming from the One who embodies absolute truth.

you asked,

Once again David, I will ask whether your God is three spirits, three bodies of flesh and bone, or three personalities? But please, by all means.. please clarify how many spirits are in your ONE GOD (singular).

I ask again. How many Holy Spirits are there? I'm sure we both can agree on ONE Holy Spirit, correct? How then can the Holy Spirit being ONE be indwelt in millions of believers at the same time. Again apply that logic to the three persons of God and you not only have something beyond our comprehension (which is exactly what God is, beyond our comprehension) but something that makes sense. An omnipresent, omniscient being. Notice I said being, not being(s). If this being can be anywhere at any time at the same time, then whey can't He be One being in the form of just three persons? If you claim that all Three are seperate Gods, then you take away the omniprecence of God which is what enables us to have a personal relationship with God.

We try to find unity in our lives with everything. We are fathers, sons, workers. In a diverse world we struggle to find unity in diversity. Not the other way around. Claiming that all three are Gods is the need for diversity to make unity. We go to college or a university. University simply means that, unity in diversity. We get married and become "one flesh". That is unity in diversity. We long as humans to have some kind of unity in a such a diverse world. No where in the world can you find such unity in diversity than within the unity and diversity of the Trinity. If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three different Gods, then we should be looking for diversity to find unity. That doesn't make much sense there does it? Diversity in unity? Are we to exclude those who do not look like us in skin color or have the same beliefs so that we can have unity? This is what three different Gods would suggest to me. That since the "Gods" are diverse they must be right. We must be diverse as well. Diversity only unites those who are willing to participate. Unity in diversity unites all. The unity in diversity that the Trinue God brings is what example we should lead by in life, othewise we continue to search for diversity which never brings unity. That's my moral speech for the day and how the Trinity brings unity and all others bring diversity. God intends unity, not diversity. You know this and I know this. How can we strive for unity if our own God or Gods cannot be united?

I'm done for now. Thank you and have a blessed day.

God bless

Hi David:

You may be away for good but I know you won’t be able to at least come back and read my response.

I am curious, why would you think that I haven’t studied the Trinity, or any other of your criticisms against Mormonism? The truth be told David I have been studying the “trinity” and Catholic and Protestant interpretation of it for 25 years.

I think what bothers you most about my questions they cast serious doubt on the logic, consistency and connection with the doctrines of the Bible and you don’t know how to respond. You want “me” to “obey” trinity “laws” that are not enumerated in the Bible? David, that is just plain silly.

You said:

“God (singular) manifests Himself in three distinct persons”. (By the way I have meditated and thought about your trinity doctrine – I found that it is 95% inconsistent with the Bible – Old and New Testament revelations about God – but I digress)

David, one of your “laws” of the trinity is that God is not divisible. But then you try to argue that your God is divisible into three persons. We can all see and understand that this is what your claim that the Trinity is (a doctrine not found in the Bible – this is what you THINK God is – do you understand that point?)

On one hand your God is one but on the other hand he is three. Your trinity states that your God’s SUBSTANCE cannot be divided. Okay. You don’t like the terms Gods. I understand why it drives your crazy. Let’s use another term. Let’s use the term “spirit”. Is God one spirit or three spirits? How about that?

Jesus said “Father, into your hands I commend MY spirit”. If God the Father and God the Son, who are distinct persons, are the same spirit, then how can Jesus commend his spirit to the Father’s spirit, if they are already one spirit?

When Jesus crys out “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?” how could the Father, who you say is God, forsake himself, if the Father and the Son are the same spirit? Did the Father forsake Jesus’ body or his spirit?

If the Father and the Son are the same spirit, then you’d have to admit that the Father once had a body of flesh and blood in the person of the Son. Right?

Once again David, I will ask whether your God is three spirits, three bodies of flesh and bone, or three personalities? But please, by all means.. please clarify how many spirits are in your ONE GOD (singular).

David, these questions MUST BE EXPLAINED if your trinity doctrine is to be consistent with God’s word in the Bible.

About the true Church – there is only one Church on the earth that holds the priesthood keys given to Peter – that power is the priesthood power to bind on earth and in heaven. There is no other Church on the earth that 1) claims access to it and 2) regularly exercises it – the one true Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not enough to claim to have “priesthood” it is quite another to actually EXERCISE it through the covenant making process which the LDS Church alone exercises. The numbers of revelations does not make a prophet – exercising priesthood keys does. Such as with Peter – a prophet and leader of the New testament Church who did not constantly receive new revelations but was the priesthood leader ordained and set apart to exercise priesthood keys, rights, privileges and ordinances and lead the Church and keep the doctrine pure.

By the way, I first looked into the Book of Abraham controversy in 1990 and it sounds like you’ve been reading antimormon literature on the topic. David, if the Book of Abraham is a fraud, then why do we find corroboration between details revealed in the Book of Abraham and recent ancient documents found about Abraham? I mean, if Joseph Smith just made it all up, then why do we find corroboration with other ancient texts -details not known in Joseph Smith’s day. These evidences have to do with the traditions of Abraham. Do you have a logical explanation? I am all ears. Did he just get lucky?

The Book of Mormon plagiarized? David, you’re reading old anti-mormon material. The Book of Mormon stands on its own as an ancient work more so today than at any time in history. Word print studies show that the Book of Mormon has multiple authors as indicated by the multiple prophets who wrote it. Further, many other analyses have been conducted on the text of the Book of Mormon including Stylometry (word print studies) to determine authoriship of various texts. In 1987, an analysis was completed which verfied earlier studies that show it is STATISTICALLLY improbable that Joseph Smith or any other purported modern authors (including Smith, Cowdery, & Spaulding). In the study, the oldest Book of Mormon manuscripts were used.

There are other evidences too – other linguistic studies, archeology, history, etc. However, would you listen?

On the Book of Mormon, let’s ask a real question. David, have you read it? Have you read about the 1000s of verses in that testify of Jesus Christ and plainly teach his gospel of faith in Jesus Christ, sincere repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the receiving of the gift of the holy ghost? Millions have and have received a witness through the power of the Holy Ghost that it IS true. I am one of them. My children are some of them. I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true – a direct revelation from God, who is merciful unto all those who humble themselves and come unto him.

I wish that you could know this wonderful truth. Will you humble yourself to “know” through the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true?

Best,

James

David,
I don't really want to be the last one "holding the baton" here, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt by realizing that this very last post was from a person who had been put on the defensive, whereas your Saturday posts were something refreshing and enlightening to remember you by. I am going to choose to remember you by those. Thanks for those comments, and thanks for sharing Ravi's thoughts that really made a lot of sense.
Best to you and your family.

James,

I knew I couldn't stay away! I just need to clarify something with you. I agree about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I don't know where you were going with that.

You have no understanding of the Trinity. It seems that all arguments opposed to the Trinity show that you either have a hard time recognizing that they are three distinct personages or have a hard time recognizes that they are not three seperate Gods. Whenever you propose an argument it seems to conflict with one of those two. When I spoke of God not being seen, I'm speaking of God the Father. That personage of God that cannot be seen.

Your arguments opposing the Trinity break two laws of the Trinity which show to me conclusively that you cannot get a grip of understanding to Him. Either you argue that all three are seperate Gods or that they are all the same person. This is the main point. GOD (singular) manifests Himself in three distinct personages. Think about that. God manifests Himself in three distinct personages. You would need to meditate on that to get a clear understanding.

Finally, I'm done. I don't expect you to understand the Trinity. Pre-suppositions do not allow for understanding sometimes. You claim the LDS is the only true Christian church on earth. Sorry to break it to you James, but the LDS is not even Christian. I may be brutally honest about it, but I'm being honest. Trust me I've been there. I believed in Armstrongism. They held the same mind control schemes that the LDS have. They make you believe that somehow the Bible was tainted. They make you believe that the true gospel was lost. Just like the LDS they have a leader who seems to have a "revelation" once in awhile. A leader who is "appointed" by God. The claim to the only "true church" on the planet. All lies, all lies. I thank God the truth was revealed to me. The only difference is that I was willing to accept it regardless of how much I believed in the previous lie. Now it's your turn.

I'm gone for good. You needed to know most importantly that those who believe in the Trinity acknowledge the bodily resurrection of Christ. This no way opposes the Trinity. It's your understanding that opposes it. I wish you the best of luck. I pray that you will one day look away from the LDS faith and examine the evidence. Examine the book of Abraham. The Egyptian funeral book I should say. Examine the plagarized book of mormon from other excerpts that Joseph Smith stole. Examine your "secret" temple worship that resembles the Masonic rituals that Joseph Smith once studied himself. Examine the opposing archaeological evidence. When all the evidence wheighs out, you will know it to be false. You will feel betrayed. Your "feelings" will seem to betray you as well. But then is when you can know truth. And the truth will set you free, my friend. It did for me when I finally let go of that cult, Armstrongism. I wish you the best of luck. Take care James. Much love to you and your family.

God bless

Hi David:

I don’t have time to go through point by point on your posts but I’ll try to clear up some confusion in your mind regarding my own.

First, the term “no one hath seen” and when I had said that on one had seen him up until that time. I should have clarified that I was actually speaking about your position and NOT mine. You don’t believe that Moses or anyone has actually seen God either before or since that time.

I was pointing out that if you tried to use this verse against Joseph Smith, it would be moot since it said “hath”. I was just having a little fun with it.

I think your main confusion over the doctrine of the Godhead may be related to a limited view of what the nature of God is revealed to be in the bible and in the doctrines of the LDS Church.

First, we believe that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all eternal spirits. So when you present to me that God is spirit (doesn’t say God is a spirit) this agrees with LDS theology and the anthropomorphic doctrine of the Godhead.

Spirits are all the same. They have bodies including a face, a mouth, hands, legs, etc. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ also have “physical” bodies of flesh and bone (as opposed to flesh and blood). How do we know?

Since Jesus’ spirit never died on the cross and he remained “alive” then what died? His physical tangible body. What was resurrected? His physical tangible body of flesh and bone. How do we know it was physical and tangible? Because he allowed eyewitnesses to touch him and feel “mano-a-mano” or hand-to-hand that he was LITERALLY resurrected – that his PHYSICAL body had been raised from the dead. And so it was with others who were ALSO resurrected at the time of Jesus’ resurrection. The graves were opened and the spirits of children of God, re-entered their bodies, but this time, their physical bodies were perfect – these bodies were restored to them and they are incorruptible – they cannot be destroyed.

So it was with Jesus Christ who was the FIRST to rise – remember the empty tomb? Why was it empty? Because Jesus’ physical body had been raised up, changed, perfected, and made glorious.

David, what I am describing to you is the MIRACLE and gift of God called the resurrection. It’s all literal – it’s physical.

So when Jesus appeared to his apostles, when Thomas had NOT been there, and then when Thomas arrived. Jesus discerned his thoughts and knew that although Thomas could behold Jesus with his eyes, he thought he was seeing an “aberration”.

Luke 24:
36 ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

David, I think what you’re trying to argue here is that Jesus is either saying that he is NOT flesh and merely spirit or that he is ONLY flesh and NOT spirit? Something like that?

What LDS are preaching and declaring is that Jesus Christ is spirit AND glorified flesh &bone after his resurrection. This is the meaning of the resurrection. Resurrected persons are not just flesh shells – we ourselves are spirits inside human bodies of flesh and blood. The resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the perfected tangible and literal flesh and bone.

In the verses above, when it says that the Apostles feared that they had seen a spirit, spirit in this verse refers to a an “aberration”. When Jesus clears up the matter, He’s not referring to his spiritual essence himself – but speaking to their fears. When the Apostles suppose that they see a “spirit” – they themselves are not claiming to see something “tangible” – they think they are seeing something that is in our terms a “ghost” – a false representation of something that is real. They were confused – they didn’t understand.

No David, think about the reality of seeing “spirits”. The only way to see those who dwell on the other side of the veil, is through the power of God – a vision, or a special visitation so that our natural eyes can see a “spirit” that is NOT flesh and bone.

In this case, Jesus is all three – he is spirit, flesh and bone and requests that the Apostles come to him and TOUCH him so that their flesh (hands) can touch his flesh and see that he is physical.

This is why Jesus asks them to come forward, and HANDLE him to test that he is TANGIBLE and he specifically directs them to his hands and feet. Why? Because his hands and feet would bear the marks of the crucifixion and would convince his apostles that is was the RISEN Jesus. That is was truly him.

Resurrection is not a metaphor which I think you are arguing (you may not even be aware that you’re trying to make this point).

LDS declare and believe that Jesus Christ is LLITERALLY resurrected from the “grave” or that his physical body has been raised from the dead and that His eternal spirit dwells in a body of perfected, incorruptible flesh and bone – and will forever remain in that state.

This is the hope that Jesus Christ offers us all that when we die, WE TOO with our spirits, will be reunited with our bodies in their perfected incorruptible flesh and bone form.

I know that Orthodox Christians really don’t accept the reality of what I have just described. Why? Because it radically conflicts with the Trinity doctrine. If the person of the Son is God and God the Son has a body of flesh and bone, how does this same God of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost therefore, AVOID having a body of flesh and bone? Because if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same God, the same ontological substance – all coequal, all co-substantial – then the Father and the Holy Ghost ALSO have a body of flesh and bone – they cannot HELP having a body of flesh and bone because in the Trinity you cannot separate the “substance” of God.

After all of this discussion it should be clear that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only Christian Church that teaches the LITERAL and CONTINUAL resurrection of Jesus Christ and all mankind.

Best,

James

I can't believe I left out part of my story. RRRRRRR......

Ok when I got back from the store my wife made breakfast and as I was eating on the breakfast counter she showed me this coupon for carpet cleaning. She wants to get our carpets cleaned, and this seemed to be a good offer. I looked at the coupon and in the bottom right corner was the Christian fish and right below that it said "Tit 2:11". I wasn't sure what that verse was so I checked it out wondering if God was still speaking to me after the message I recieved from the CD.

11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

WOW. Just to confirm what I already heard. God reveals Himself to everyone. I wish I included this in my previous post, but I forgot to mention it. Oh well, Take care. And God bless

Hello all,

I want to make this my final post and my final farewell to you all. I have appreciated all your time and your efforts. I do thank you greatly for expressing your beliefs. I want you to know that I have try to use this post as a place of witnessing because the Lord knows that no matter how it may occur or when or why or by whom, He will reveal Himself to others. I don't find it coincidental that we all have come here to discuss our thoughts. The Lord brought us all together to bring out truth.

First before I finish my thought I would like to respond to the Isaiah verses posted by Anon. I appreciate your thoughts and opinions. When I look at scripture and see how God defines Himself, He is very clear. If we take out all the pre-suppositions whether it be One God or many, how could God describe Himself. Now, if God wanted to say that He is the only God in existence and there are no other gods, how would He go about saying this? I know no other? There are no other gods but Me? No other gods have been formed or will be formed? I the Lord God am One? God has used every descriptive language possible to define Himself as the only God in the universe and that He is one and all the rest are false. I cannot deny how God has described Himself. It would have been just simple enough to say He is the only God, but He insisted that He describe Himself as ONE by many other means. By all descriptive purposes possible, He said He is ONE. The Lord Jesus says the greatest commandment is Mark 12:29 The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."

Jesus made the greatest commandment to love the Lord God with all your heart. He made it a point at first to include that the Lord is "one". The greatest commandment to follow out of all laws is to love the Lord God, and this is so important that Jesus says that the Lord God is ONE. For me, I love God with all my heart and I worship the one and only God and acknowledge that there is only one God. We can disagree, but I just wanted to make my point. Thank you.

To finish this I wanted to share with you what God was saying to me this morning. First, I want you to know that you all have been on my mind and in my prayers continuously and I have felt the burden of wanting to change your hearts. I have continued to feel that burden until this morning. I have mentioned his name before and I will again. Ravi Zacharias. I ordered some CD's from his website the other day and just happened to put one in this morning on my way to the store. I knew I couldn't listen to the whole thing but I thought I would begin with it. It's a question and answer CD from a Baptist church that had questions for Dr. Zacharias. The very first question was from a woman who was trying to witness to a relative who had become an atheist. This woman was crying so much because she knows the consequences if one does not accept Christ. She felt the same burden on herself that I have felt for you. She wanted to change his heart. Dr. Zacharias responded as gently and honestly as anyone could. He said that it is not by any man that can change the heart of another. If that were true then another could have the power to change it right back. Only the Holy Spirit can change hearts. No matter the evidence or argument, it is up to the individual to allow the Holy Spirit to show them the truth. And it is by God's Word that the truth will be revealed...... The burden is lifted off my chest. I leave it up to you and the power of the Holy Spirit to know truth. You claim to know it already, and I claim to know it as well. We have different truths so they both can't be right. Either one is and the other isn't, or they are both wrong. That is for you to decide and for me to step away. It is not by chance that you are here on this site. For me neither it is by chance but, we were somehow guided here to discuss our beliefs. I've given all the evidence and argument that I can give. It is now up to the individual to accept that or not. My only advice after hearing the testimony of all the indivuduals on here is to please trust God's Word. I've heard the continual argument that the Bible is not trustworthy. If the Bible is not trustworthy, then how can we trust our faiths?

I'll end with an uplifing story I heard this morning about how God really does reveal Himself to everyone, no matter where you are and no matter the circumstances.

Two missionaries were in Iran spreading the gospel. A husband and wife. They were driving through a hostile city in Iran when they stopped at a store to get some water. Standing in front of the store was a man with gun strapped over his shoulder, waiting. For what? Just waiting. The husband and wife sit in the car before entering the store and the wife tells the husband to give that man a Bible. She reaches in a backpack and pulls out a Bible translated in farsi. The husband says no. The wife insists. Finally the husband takes it and puts it in his pocket and goes into the store. The man with the gun follows. The husband comes out with the waters and walks to the car and enters it. The man with the gun walks out behind him and waits again, in front of the store. They drive off. The wife said to the husband "you did not give him that Bible did you?" The husband replies, "no I don't think it was the right time". The wife says that it was the right time and he should've given him the Bible. The husband and wife argue and the husband finally says "do you want me to die today?" The wife starts to pray out loud. "Lord if that man goes to hell, let his blood be on my husbands head and not mine, because I listened to you and he didn't". Furious the husband says, FINE. I'll go back and give it to him. They turn around. The husband gets out of the car, approaches the man with the gun. He pulls out the Bible and gives it to him. The man stares at it. He opens it up to the first page and looks intently. The man started to cry....deeply. The man told the husband "I am not from this town but a town about three miles away. An angel came to me last night and told me to come here to this very spot and that I would recieve the Book of Life". The husband astonished, goes back to his car and the man with gun walks off.

The Lord will reveal Himself in the most subtle and seemingly impossible ways to everyone, so that no man has an excuse on judgement day. I hope that He will reveal His true self to you. Maybe He has, and maybe you haven't accepted it. Maybe you have, but denied it. I don't know and that's not for me to judge. I will keep you all in my prayers and thoughts. I have appreciated this conversation and I wish you all the best of luck in your lives. May you all be blessed greatly. This is definately my final post. Maybe I'll catch up with you all another time. Thank you very much.

God bless

Anon,

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Finally someone addressed those verses. I thank you so much for that. I'm a little short on time right now, but I do want to respond later on. My response probably will be quite long, so that's why I prefer to come around a little later when I have more time. For now, I appreciate your time on explaining to me how the LDS use those verses.

The Lord really spoke to me this morning and later on I would like to share with you on what He told me. It's truly amazing how God works. You may not be able to hear His voice, but He finds ways to speak to you through other means. This morning He just wouldn't stop talking. I love it.

I'll be back later. For now, have a wonderful day

God bless

David,

Once again, James replied to your questions earlier regarding similar scriptures, but if you want a more detailed explanation on Isaiah 43:10, you can peruse through this dialogue that occurred a while back:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=310

However, to make it simpler for you, I've taken an entire excerpt out so you don't have to read the whole document (it is rather large). Here is the gist of the passages you referred to. (Some sentences may not be relevant as it was taken from a previous discussion regarding other topics as well):

----------------------------------------------------begin-quoted-text---------------------------------------------------------------------
And that brings us around to the Isaiah passages which form the backbone of your argument for "absolute monotheism." My brother's sources (and he quoted a lot of them, mostly non-LDS) showed that biblical Judaism was henotheistic or monarchistic; rather than believing that God was utterly unique and alone, they pictured him as the ruler of a myriad of other similar beings. The meetings of the sons of God in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 are "representative," to use your word, of this picture. So when we look at what Isaiah reports, how is it different?

You quoted Isaiah 43:10 as follows (p. 57):

Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

There are three rather glaring things about this passage. First that the Lord is talking about Gods being "formed." Idols, which are false gods, are "formed," or made by hand. The Lord is clearly saying that no God is ever "formed," either before him or after him, and yet, idols get formed all the time. Clearly idols, being formed, are not Gods.

Second, and following from this, we can understand that when the Lord speaks of Gods, he does not mean idols; for these are not Gods. If we find other instances in which the Lord speaks of Gods but does not clearly signal that they are false gods, or idols, then he is probably talking about something else.

Third, we have to get a handle on what is meant by "before me" and "after me." One point on which you and I agree is that the Lord has always existed and always will. Thus nothing happened before him, because he always was, and nothing will happen after him, because there is no after with regard to him. Thus if there were to be other Gods, this passage tells us that they would neither be his predecessors nor his successors; they would have to be his "contemporaries."

This, therefore most assuredly does not cancel out eternal progression, since, come the day that you enter into your exaltation, the Lord will still be there—he will not come to an end so that you can come "after" him. On this, more later.

On page 57 you also quoted Isaiah 44:6–8 thus:

Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them show unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

The key word in all this is beside, but this is used to translate a Hebrew word that could just as well be rendered "apart from" or "away from" or even "not associated with" or "in preference to." So while the passage in English looks pretty uncompromisingly monotheistic, it would be hard to make the same argument from "don't have any God in preference to me." This looks a whole lot more "monarchistic," as my brother would put it. Baal, Molech, and Astoreth are not gods because they are apart from the Lord and their worshipers preferred them ahead of Yahweh.

But again, the real thrust of this passage is to emphasize, not the Lord's unique aloneness, but his unique covenant relationship with Israel. And in fact there is an element here that makes "strict monotheism" impossible to maintain, since the Lord refers to himself in verse 6 as "the first, and . . . the last." This crossreferences nicely to no less than four places in Revelation (see Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13) that make it abundantly clear that Jesus is the "first and the last" in these passages. These passages, taken together, are strong support for the LDS view that Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, in which case he can't possibly be excluding the Father in what he is saying. This, after all, is a personal title that he is using. But even if you take the sectarian view that Jehovah is the Father, you would have to agree that he can't be excluding Jesus.

And when Isaiah quotes God as saying, "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any," does that mean that Jesus does not know his Father? Or that the Father does not know Jesus? I rather think that they do know each other.

I know that you argued this point yourself, trying to say that the Father and the Son are not separate beings. This, if I may say so, is another example of forcing a verse to conform to your presuppositions; for if John 17 means anything at all, it means that Jesus is not his Father—and that his followers can or should have the same kind of unity that Jesus and his Father enjoy. Thus whatever Jesus meant when he said that he and his Father are "one" is something that can also apply to all Christians. So I ask you: if you got all the Christians in the world in one place and excluded everybody else, how would the total number of "beings" present compare with the total number of Christians? I daresay they would be equal. All Christians are separate beings, but united, they are one—thus it is with the Father and the Son.

From the New Testament we learn that Jesus is fully divine. I'm sure I don't need to quote passages to prove that. And he always either addresses his Father in the second person (in prayer) or refers to him in the third person (in conversations with others). He makes no confusion in person or number in his discourses. But in the Old Testament, Jehovah is calling himself "I"—first person, singular—and insisting that he is in some way unique. Shall we conclude a contradiction? Do we insist that Jesus isn't really God in order to preserve the "strict monotheism" that you see in this passage? Or do we accept that Jesus and the Father are truly both divine beings and that Jehovah (whichever one he be) is saying something that does not exclude the other members of the Godhead? I vote for the latter. Apart from anything else, it seems more—Christian, for want of a better word.

You also gave the following quotations (p. 58), which I here reproduce in full:

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:5–6)

For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:18)

And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21–22)

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (Isaiah 46:9–10)

I especially like the quotation from Isaiah 45:21, wherein the Lord calls himself a "Saviour." And when in Isaiah 43:11 he insists that he is the only Savior, then according to your reasoning, that means that the Savior, "Christ the Lord," announced to the shepherds in the field near Bethlehem can be only one person.

But that is aside from the subject at hand: is Jehovah alone in the heavens or not? It is possible to read these Isaiah passages in isolation, and draw that conclusion, but the only trinitarian doctrine that could survive this interpretation is modalism—and you made it clear that you don't believe that.

If we read these chapters in their entirety, it is clear that the Lord is contrasting himself to idols—the false gods that men foolishly worship. I like your phrase, "the trial of the false gods." The Lord is not rejecting true Gods, if such there be, that nobody on earth worships because they are out of our reckoning. Isaiah 46, for instance, starts off by talking about Bel and Nebo—burdens to their worshipers. Isaiah 44 describes men cutting down trees and making a barbecue with part of the wood and an idol with the other part. But nowhere in all of this does Jehovah say, "I have no divine Father" or "I have no divine son," which lets both of us off the hook; what he says is something like "there is no God to be preferred to me." Bel and Nebo are not Gods, they are just earthbound, useless man-made objects that never enter into the Lord's presence.

Karen,
If you happen to come back to this discussion, I just wanted to briefly answer your implied question. If you think of the major tests of faith of Abraham and Sarah, I question whether anyone could think those tests of faith would have been logical to them. Have a baby at age 90? Be asked to sacrifice him later? Do you think Abraham and Sarah had to exercise faith, to believe they weren't being deceived? I think so. I think Abraham had learned how to understand the principles of faith and revelation, so he did not question when asked to do something way beyond reason and logic. I also think Sarah had to have faith before she conceived Isaac. God tested Abraham's faith by commanding him to do something and then later, when he knew Abraham was going to completely obey, withdrew the command.

Knowledge of divine truths is aided by studying the Bible under the inpiration of the Holy Ghost, but the primary undeniable source is revelation. This the Bible clearly teaches again and again. Nevertheless, those who choose to live by Bible teachings are doing a good and proper thing, and though they also have trials of their faith, I think they limit themselves as to how much growth in spiritual understanding they will achieve on their own.

I hope I've answered your implied question, and that your presentation went very well.
Karen and David, I appreciate your good and well-intentioned hearts, and the spirit of friendship you convey. I hope that you may explore the process of revelation in your own lives, to be guided in your families. I am so grateful for the insight and inspiration I receive from time to time when I seek it for the benefit of my children. Again, adieu.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

And I'm supposed to agree with you and that there are many gods? Or that we can become gods?

I don't expect a reply, because I can't seem to get one on these verses anyway. I can understand why you avoid them.

Anon,

We're not literal childeren of God.

Just wanted to point that out really quick.

No, no one has addressed 1 Cor 15.

Jesus' resurrected body was exactly that. A resurrected body. Quite different from God the Father who is an unseen Spirit.

By the way, your wrong about your biblical history. The Bible does not contradict itself. It contradicts your beliefs and maybe that's why you have to hold on to the lie that it is contradictory. Or is it because the BOM was changed over 4000 times and has many contradiction that the only way to justify it is by bringing down the true Word of God? Hmmm.. Please do some more research on the Bible. You will see that the only scripture that was added was by the catholic church post-reformation which is called the Apocrypha. Here's what I do not understand. How can you justify your faith in something that you cannot trust? How do you have faith in a book or set of writings that contradict themselves or your beliefs. That is not truth. Truth is non-contradictory. My faith is based on the inerrant Word of God. How else can we know Him and trust Him if His Word is wrong?

You say that the Trinity was a pagan belief, huh? Well, where do you think your polytheistic views come from? Roman society had many gods, just as you do. The Trinity is ONE God. You believe in many. How many paganistic cultures have we heard of that believe in many gods? Most of them!!

Anon,

I never said you are for sure going to hell. I am worried for you though. This is being Christ-like. This is being Christian. I worry for anyone who believes in a god that lives on another planet who has a wife. Or a Jesus who was created by this father by a goddess wife who is the brother of lucifer. This is the wrong Jesus. This Jesus never existed. You have faith in a non-existant Jesus. This kind of faith does not save you. Please trust God's Word. I see you continue to not do that, but trust in man for your so-called "interpretation". When Jesus says God is spirit and that spirit is not flesh and bones, why don't you listen? If Jesus says that there is no marriage in heaven, why do you insist there is? If the Lord God says He is One and knows no other God, why do you believe in many? And most importantly, if God the Father cannot be seen, why believe Joseph Smith saw Him?

God gave you logic and reason. These are traits that He created for us to use. Logically when the Bible says that God is One and there are no other gods, then my reason tells me that that is the truth. So why should I believe you? What is more logical, believing in the book that presented us with Jesus and the knowledge of how to know Him, or you? I trust in God's Word because I trust in Him. I trust that He allowed the trasmission of His Word to remain pure and non-contradictory. You mentioned how the Bible was written by fallible men. Yes it was, BUT, it was written through fallible men by God. How do we know? King David was a fallible man, so how do I know his writings were divinely inspired? He knew Jesus was going to be crucified 400 years before the invention of crucifixtion. He knew Jesus would be pierced in His side 1000 years before it happened. Prophecy. That is how I know the Bible is inspired by God through man.

I want you to be saved. I want HJ to be saved too. It is your choice. Accept God's Word and the TRUE Jesus. I've tried my best to show you that you have been misled. I'm still appalled at the fact you can believe what you believe. I read certain passages about those who preach another gospel and that they will be "eternally condemned". I don't want this for you or anyone. This is why I beg, I plead that you open your heart to the truth. There will be a judgement day one day for all of us. Are you sure that your not that one that God will say "I never knew you"? Matt 25:12.

Please think about it.

David,

You said:

"Indeed, the Bible is the Word of God. To claim that there are contradictions is to claim a false and lying god. God does not contradict Himself. That is not in His perfect nature. This is why it is so important to take the WHOLE of scripture in applying meaning and doctrine. 1 Tim 3:16."

David, when will you see that as much as you claim the LDS to have pre-suppositions, you too have one. You insist that the bible is 100% correct, that it is directly the word of God and that it does not contradict itself. This, my friend, is also a presuppostion. I really think you need to do a little more research and find out about things that have been added and changed in the bible. The bible is NOT written with the HAND of God or directly by God. It was written by humans. HUMANS ARE IMPERFECT. You keep injecting that the Bible cannot contradict itself and it says so. The bible was not written as one solid book. The bible is a compilation of many works written by different people over different periods of time. Many people who came across these transcripts, decided that it should be included into scripture. In fact, you should already know that there are differing bibles. Some Christian sects have added and removed books in the bible that the KJV does not contain. Why is that? How, can you determine what book should be accepted and which one is rejected, if you have no pre-suppostions as you claim you do not have?

There are also MANY books that were referenced in the bible which we have NO account of today. Where are all these books? If you pick up a good historical book on Christianity, you will find that many rulers changed words in the bible in the early centuries because they were afraid that many people would believe in multiple diety and confuse that with Greek mythology. Entire sentences were completely changed because of this. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity was actually a Pagan belief - and you can check that out if you like.

you also said:

"So to answer your last question in short. Could I explain what God as a Spirit would look like. Yes, Gen 1:26. In "our" image. IMAGE. Ex 33 says God has a face, does it describe it? No, but we know He has a face of some sort. But it is spiritual, not earthly, incorruptable, not corruptable, spirit, not flesh. 1 Cor 15. Read that. It also explains that earthly comes first, then spiritual which contradicts the doctrine of pre-existence."

David, I think you are confusing two things. There is an incorruptable body and a corruptable body. Our bodies are corruptable. When we are resurrected, our bodies become incorruptable. Hence Jesus' incorruptable, but tangible body of flesh and bones. Did not the apostles and many witnesses put their fingers in his wounds? And I think to support Jim's argument, you say that a spirit is not a body. Yes, but do not our spirits live in our corruptable bodies? And won't our spirits live in our incorruptable bodies once we are resurrected?

Also, why do you continue to return to 1 Cor 15 again and again after it has been explained over and over. I feel like you are not listening and I can tell you many people will begin to stop communicating with you if you do not at least observe other's beliefs, especially when they have been explained.

For someone who claims that they have no knowledge of God's being, you seem to argue as though you do. Just think with me for a second here. Wouldn't you, as a father figure to your children, want to love and raise your children to be the same, if not better than you? Isn't that love? So why would you not assume that God, the Supreme Being, the epitome of love, would not want the same for us, His children? I am in no way saying that we can become better than our Father in Heaven, but certainly I can think that if He is our Father, He would want to show us everything, give us everything and teach us everything that He has, wouldn't you? If you believe in the bible so much, then you should not have a hard time understanding that this structure has been with us since the beginning of time (as Christians define it) through Adam and Eve.

Last, I would appreciate it if you did not tell people here that they are going to go to hell because they do not believe like you do. How is that Christlike and full of love, if that is what you profess to have? I am apalled that Henry James doesn't speak up right now. I remember a while ago when RTC blogged here, everyone was on her case about how bold she was. But she never proclaimed that people were going to hell. What do you think of Henry James - do you think he's going to go to hell also?

I would ask you for the last time to refrain from comments such as these. I guarantee you that you will get no where with them.

Romans 1:21-23

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their IMAGINATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the UNCORRUPTIBLE God into an image made like to the CORRUPTIBLE man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Please read the whole of Romans 1. Then read 1 Cor 15. Incorruptible is a spiritual being, corruptible is an earthly fleshly being. They are not the same. Paul says that those who have changed the nature of God to their IMAGINATIONS, making God out to be a man with flesh and bones is wrong. They do not know the true God. You do not know the true God because you have done exactly what Paul was saying. Unless you come to knowing the true God you cannot recieve salvation. This is not a "non-essential". You will go to hell according to the Bible. I don't want that. You need to see the truth. I feel urgent about this! I don't want you to experience the second death. I just wish you could trust God's Word! But unless you continue to close your hearts to what God says you will not be able to see truth. Truth is absolute. The truth is there is only ONE God.

I continue to pray for you all. But you all continue to deny His word. I'll continue to pray.

God bless

Jim,

One more thing.

Where in the heck do any of those verses you posted show that God has a body of "tangible flesh and bones"? Where does it say literally that God has a body of flesh and bones. I'll send you a $1000 check if you can show me that one.

Jim,

I'm so glad you posted those verses. It saves me the trouble.

No I cannot describe what a spirit looks like. Obviously the mild description we get from the Bible is that God the Father is a spirit with an "image". Does this mean flesh and bones or not? Jesus says Spirit is not the same as flesh and bones. Paul confirms in 1 Cor 15 that earthly and spiritual flesh are different. Can they both have "images"? Certainly. The word image does not conclude that the personage with an image has flesh and bones. Why cannot spiritual beings have an image as well? Just because we cannot see them does not mean that they do not have an image in our likeness. Likeness does not mean flesh and bones, but exactly what it says "LIKENESS".

Yes, the OT folks saw God. But Ex 33, John 6 and 1 Tim 6 says that God cannot be seen. Is this a contradiction. NO WAY!. This again is where the Trinity is affirmed. If the Father can not be seen, but the OT patriarchs saw God and Jesus is God as well, then who do you think they saw? The pre-incarnate Son! The second personage of the Godhead! The Bible is non-contradictory my friends. It is our understandings that sometimes can make it seem that way. Also, having pre-suppositions gets in the way of knowing truth. When I researched the Trinity doctrine, at first I could not accept it. I couldn't fathom how One God could be three people. It seems impossible. But nothing is impossible for God Almighty creator of all. He defies all laws of physics. When I researched the Trinity and took the Bible as a whole, the Trinity explains everything without breaking the laws of non-contradiction.

Indeed, the Bible is the Word of God. To claim that there are contradictions is to claim a false and lying god. God does not contradict Himself. That is not in His perfect nature. This is why it is so important to take the WHOLE of scripture in applying meaning and doctrine. 1 Tim 3:16.

So to answer your last question in short. Could I explain what God as a Spirit would look like. Yes, Gen 1:26. In "our" image. IMAGE. Ex 33 says God has a face, does it describe it? No, but we know He has a face of some sort. But it is spiritual, not earthly, incorruptable, not corruptable, spirit, not flesh. 1 Cor 15. Read that. It also explains that earthly comes first, then spiritual which contradicts the doctrine of pre-existence.

Have a great day,

God bless

David,
I believe you are partly correct- God the Father is spirit, clothed in a perfect, glorified body.

Here are references that in the Bible that point to God having a tangible body of flesh and bones:

Gen. 1: 27 God created man in his own image.
Gen. 5: 1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.
Gen. 9: 6 in the image of God made he man.
Gen. 32: 30 I have seen God face to face.
Ex. 24: 10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet.
Ex. 31: 18 (Deut. 9: 10) written with the finger of God.
Ex. 33: 11 Lord spake unto Moses face to face.
Ex. 33: 23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not.
Num. 12: 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth.
Matt. 3: 17 a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son.
Matt. 17: 5 a voice out of the cloud

For me, the most compelling scripture is that God created us in His image.

Can you describe what God as a spirit would look like?

The true nature of God the Father is spirit, not flesh and bones Jim. Not because I said so, but because the Bible does, plain and clear. That my friend is the simple truth.

James,
I, too, appreciate the very thorough explanation you provided of the true nature of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. It is beautiful to have clear, simple truth. Thank you for contributing here.

James,

Very well thought out explanation. I appreciate your time. Let me begin with mine.

First, your argument is based on some pre-suppositions. I'll quote the D & C

D&C 130: 22
22 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.

John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Luke 24:39, " “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

I guess I should back up scripture with scripture regarding if anyone has seen the Father. First I will address John 1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

Yes, this means exactly as you say. That God has not been seen in the past. So is it possible to see Him in the future so as Joseph Smith claimed?

1 Tim 6:16-17

16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

How about (Exodus 33:20) – “But He [God] said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !"

"Whom no man hath seen, nor CAN see". "For no man can see me and live". Who do I believe? Joseph Smith says he saw the Father and that He has flesh and bones. Jesus says He is spirit and that spirit does not have flesh and bones. I can't think of the verse on hand, but I do recall Paul rebuking those who have made God as a body that is corruptable (meaning flesh), when He is spirit. I'll try to find that one later.

Concerning the Trinity,

You bring up historical arguments. You also bring up the pre-supposition that we need apostolic leadership to decide what is doctrine. These are irrelevant. What we are searching for right now is truth. Does it matter who argued over what in history? Does it matter when the Trinity was actually called the "Trinity"? No. What matters is truth.

First I'd like to point out in your argument that you made a severe contradiction to yourself. You claimed that no one has seen the Father in the past using John 6 as a starting point in time, but later claiming that He was seen in the OT by the patriarchs. According to the laws of logic this one fails the law of non-contradiction severely.

But back to the Trinity. It is neither relevant or important that some people in history debated this issue. We are debating it right now, so does that mean it's false because WE are debating it? No, let's find truth.

I will show you how simple it is to arrive to the doctrine of the Trinity using scipture.

The first step is to establish how many Gods exist: one! Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:5-6; Gal. 4:8-9

I don't think I need scriptural backing to prove to you that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, or as you call them Gods. The Trinity doctrine affirms that each member of the Godhead is a person. Not seperate gods, but personages. The three persons make the ONE God. Being that they are persons, they must have an image of some sort. We are made in "Their" image. But scripture says that the Father can't be seen so how do we know he has an image. Because Gen 1:26 says "our". We can't see spirit. We can't or no one can see the Father or the Holy Spirit. How can we conclude that they have images in the form of us. We cannot know because no one has seen them. We know because God says "our image". So we know by faith, not by scientific proof or witnessing proof but by simple old faith. What's wrong with that?

You have broght historical arguments against the Trinity, not scriptural. There is no possibility of bringing a scriptural argument against the Trinity because it covers ALL of scipture therefore your not left with breaking the non-contradiction laws that the LDS have done so many time.

You claim that through revelation Joseph Smith's claim covers scripture. No it doesn't. It highly and easily contradicts scripture. The Father does not have flesh and bones and cannot be seen according to scripture. Not just by John 6, but by Exodus 33 and also 1 Tim 6. And I will be back later after I find that passage where Paul rebukes those who created a God with a body that is corruptable.

So, in conclusion, you need to fix the error of contradicting yourself claiming that the Father could not be seen until Jesus said so, but then claim He was in the OT. Also, I would like to hear some scriptural arguments against the Trinity, not historical.

Again, how do you address the Isaiah verses and still address the fact that you believe in many gods? This again is contradictory to your beliefs, but not contradictory to the Trinity.

Thanks for the discussion James.
Have a great day my friend.

God bless

James,

If you're still there, could you email me at blogusanonymus@gmail.com. I have a few questions I'd like to take offline, if that's ok with you?

James,

Wow! That is amazing stuff you wrote. I am VERY impressed! I was able to follow that very easily. It not only makes a lot of sense but flows smoothly. I have to admit, I do appreciate David's comments, but was struggling quite a bit to follow David's interpretation and just couldn't put it together.

I also agree with your Christian History comments. I've read historical books (written by non-lds historians) where they actually show changed verses in the new testament from what they originally were, to what they are now; and these weren't simple small changes.

But your connections and descriptions given above about God the Father and Jesus Christ couldn't be any more clearer than what you have presented already. You ought to write/publish a book on this so many others can be enlightened as well.

Great work here and hope to see you post more again!

oops. Sorry for the double post!

Hi David:
I left this discussion some time ago but returned today to see the progress or lack thereof. I am glad to see everyone is being kind and respectful. When everyone declares the gospel with the sound of rejoicing it is a pleasant experience.
Before I get into the details of doctrine I would like to discuss my feelings of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and how I love him and how words cannot express the love that I feel from him; for his mercy, his longsuffering, his forgiveness, and his grace and his patience with me – finding myself in a carnal state and lower than the dust. I don’t say these things as false humility – instead I choose to raise up Christ and show his generosity and willingness to save mankind. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t acknowledge the wisdom and magnificence of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I have read through the last few posts. I recall from our conversations in the past that I wanted to tell you something that I think might help you: study Christian history and the history of Christian doctrine.
While these conversations can be interesting, what oftentimes can happen is that, if we haven't studied Christian history, we can begin to believe that we propose explanations of doctrine that have never been heard before. Worse, that have never been "tested or tried" before. The Trinity doctrine is NOT such a doctrine – it has been debated, argued, written, rewritten and debated and written over and over for the last 1500 years.
I know that you accept and believe that the Trinity is a “biblical” doctrine. Mostly because of the “these three are one” or “No God beside me” scriptures. But the Bible is not the source of the Trinity doctrine. I know that you’re probably saying that this cannot be, but I am afraid it is true. I am not stating this from our personal points of view of scriptures we read in the Bible such as those I mention above. I am speaking from a historical Christian view.
The 3 persons in one God (ontological substance to be exact) is not a Biblical doctrine. I quoted Bible scholars (not LDS) who have proven this theses and it has been peer reviewed and found to be a fact of Christian history.
The Bible came first, and then a raw Trinity doctrine followed by a few hundred years. Then about a hundred years later, it was changed and formulated once again, not with Biblical language or words and phrases from the Bible, but instead concepts borrowed from the Greek philosophy of the day. In replaced the New Testament term “Godhead” with a NEW term called “Trinity”. It removed subordination within the Godhead and replaced it with the terms “coequal”, “cosubstantial” in favor of a new philosophy of the day.
None of these attempts, to formulate the meaning of the nature of God, were directed or overseen by Apostles or prophets, who the New Testament specifically declares as the sole authority in such matters.
These Catholic councils that met at various times and that were created nearly 300 years AFTER the death of the Apostles, did not declare “revelation” but instead “settled disputes”.
Now, if the Bible was completely silent and the scriptures such as “the Father and I are one” or “there is no God beside me” were the only ones to define God’s nature, or if the Apostles or even Christian Bishops has taught the “trinity” doctrine within the first 150 years of the Apostles, I could understand why one would want to persist with this doctrine. But here are the facts:
1. The Apostles didn’t teach the Trinity doctrine as has been confirmed by non-LDS Bible scholars.
2. The early Christians, within 150 years of the Apostles, did NOT teach the Trinity doctrine.
3. The mere existence of the councils in 325 AD and 400 AD were evidence of the fact that “false doctrine” had crept into the Church and further evidence that there was no Apostolic authority to settle the matter.
4. Hundreds of years of debate (not among Christian church members but among the TOP leaders themselves) also continued to be evidence that the Orthodox Christian church was incapable of receiving direct revelation from God to settle the doctrinal dispute. This dispute was not small matter – it is the doctrine regarding the nature of God – the most important and first doctrine of God.
Now you might want to say, “I am going to ignore all of that and just read the Bible and find out for myself”. Great! We applaud you. But something has gone wrong. You’re still quoting the language and doctrines of the former Church councils and their “non-biblical” terms regarding the nature of God.
You subordinate the terms “we”, “our”, “us” and declare that they are metaphorical. For no biblical reason at all, you define “image” as something that doesn’t mean “image”. You want to argue that “likeness” really doesn’t mean likeness at all.
Why? Because if you allow these words to just stand on their own, the trinity doctrine literally crumbles before your eyes, and you’re left with a true anthropomorphic doctrine of the nature of God which the Bible declares in many instances.
In your latest post, you argue that no one has seen the Father. I’ll quote your proof:
John 1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
If I had a dollar for every Orthodox Christian that presented me with this verse… I’d be much richer today.  By the sound of this scripture, the matter is settled, right?. No man has seen God at any time. Period. End of story. No one has seen God. “Wait,… Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God. Oh… sorry Joseph, you’re just plain flat wrong. Don’t you see Joseph , it says right here in John (that was written in the first century AD), no man hath seen God at any time.” “Joseph, what you saw was something else… a devil perhaps….because this verse right here, (did I mention that it was written in the first century AD), says no man has seen God at ANY time.

Forgive me for belaboring this point, but it’s all quite silly. The scripture says no man hath (past tense until that time) seen God at anytime. “Joseph, when did you claim to see God? 1820? Wow, that was 1720 years after that scripture was written… hmmmm.” “Wait! There’s another problem. Jesus is God. If no man has seen God, then no one has seen Jesus? What? This doesn’t make any sense.”

Of course, I digress here… just having a little fun… but although these are good points above – it’s not the main point.

What I am getting at here is related NOT to Joseph Smith (although his testimony clears up the trinity controversy in an instant), instead I am going to turn to OTHER New Testament verses to get an idea on what this verse means. Why? Because we have several “EYEWITNESSES” who saw God in the Old Testament. Who were the first? Adam and Eve. They both saw God. How do we know? Because they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also saw God. God appeared unto them (three different occasions) Exodus 6:2-3. God also appeared to Moses. Look at Num 12:6-8. God himself declares that He does not appear to Moses in his mind, but that Moses beholds his very “FORM”. In these verses God says that I will speak with Moses “man to man” or “eye to eye” and in those times it was “mouth to mouth” but the meaning remains the same – it was a personal and intimate LITERAL appearance of God to man when man SAW God and beheld God’s form.

Let’s take a look at the next New Testament scripture that is connected with this Old Testament scripture.
John 5: 37
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
This confirms that 1) God has a literal voice and 2) has a literal shape. What does the shape look like? We are made in the IMAGE of God – his shape is the shape of a body of flesh and bone, arms, hands, feet, head, face, mouth, etc. Who is “ye”? Ye are the people who he is talking to. Therefore no one in THAT congregation had ever seen the Father – not that he cannot be seen.
John 6: 46
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Finally! The context for the last two New Testament verses – it’s not that one cannot see the Father, but he must be OF GOD. If you are qualified YOU CAN SEE THE FATHER. And if you see him, what will he look like? What will his shape be like?
John 14: 7, 9
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
This simple statement by Christ in John 14:9 was surely not meant to tell us that Christ is the same person or being as the Father, for Christ prayed to the Father, sought to do not His own will but the Father's, said that His Father was greater than He (John 14:28), ascended after His Resurrection to return to His Father, called His Father His God (John 20:17), and was later seen standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55,56). No, what Christ surely meant was the same concept that Paul conveys in Hebrews 1:3 when he states that Jesus is "the express image of his [the Father's] person." In other words, Christ is in the image of the Father and looks like Him, enough so that to see the Son is to see the Father, just as He is so one in mind and purpose with the Father that to know the Son is to know the Father (John 14:7).

Adam's son, Seth, was said to be in the likeness and image of his father, Adam (Gen. 5:1-3), using the same words from Gen. 1:26,27 that tell us that we are physically created in the image and likeness of God, an unmistakable reference to the physical image. If the son of the first man, Adam, looked like his father, it should not strain our faith to know that the Son of the Ultimate Man and Father should look just like His Parent.

Christ was born with a physical body and was resurrected with that body, so real and tangible and in the same image as us that He could not only be recognized but handled and felt (Luke 24:36-43).

All of the scriptures dismiss the belief in the trinity doctrine as taught by Church councils.

The only revelation that agrees with all of these scriptures is the revelation received by Joseph Smith from God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in 1820.

D&C 130: 22
22 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.

Best,

James

Hi David:

I left this discussion some time ago but returned today to see the progress or lack thereof. I am glad to see everyone is being kind and respectful. When everyone declares the gospel with the sound of rejoicing it is a pleasant experience.

Before I get into the details of doctrine I would like to discuss my feelings of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and how I love him and how words cannot express the love that I feel from him; for his mercy, his longsuffering, his forgiveness, and his grace and his patience with me – finding myself in a carnal state and lower than the dust. I don’t say these things as false humility – instead I choose to raise up Christ and show his generosity and willingness to save mankind. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t acknowledge the wisdom and magnificence of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I have read through the last few posts. I recall from our conversations in the past that I wanted to tell you something that I think might help you: study Christian history and the history of Christian doctrine.

While these conversations can be interesting, what oftentimes can happen is that, if we haven't studied Christian history, we can begin to believe that we propose explanations of doctrine that have never been heard before. Worse, that have never been "tested or tried" before. The Trinity doctrine is NOT such a doctrine – it has been debated, argued, written, rewritten and debated and written over and over for the last 1500 years.

I know that you accept and believe that the Trinity is a “biblical” doctrine. Mostly because of the “these three are one” or “No God beside me” scriptures. But the Bible is not the source of the Trinity doctrine. I know that you’re probably saying that this cannot be, but I am afraid it is true. I am not stating this from our personal points of view of scriptures we read in the Bible such as those I mention above. I am speaking from a historical Christian view.

The 3 persons in one God (ontological substance to be exact) is not a Biblical doctrine. I quoted Bible scholars (not LDS) who have proven this theses and it has been peer reviewed and found to be a fact of Christian history.

The Bible came first, and then a raw Trinity doctrine followed by a few hundred years. Then about a hundred years later, it was changed and formulated once again, not with Biblical language or words and phrases from the Bible, but instead concepts borrowed from the Greek philosophy of the day. In replaced the New Testament term “Godhead” with a NEW term called “Trinity”. It removed subordination within the Godhead and replaced it with the terms “coequal”, “cosubstantial” in favor of a new philosophy of the day.

None of these attempts, to formulate the meaning of the nature of God, were directed or overseen by Apostles or prophets, who the New Testament specifically declares as the sole authority in such matters.
These Catholic councils that met at various times and that were created nearly 300 years AFTER the death of the Apostles, did not declare “revelation” but instead “settled disputes”.

Now, if the Bible was completely silent and the scriptures such as “the Father and I are one” or “there is no God beside me” were the only ones to define God’s nature, or if the Apostles or even Christian Bishops has taught the “trinity” doctrine within the first 150 years of the Apostles, I could understand why one would want to persist with this doctrine. But here are the facts:

1. The Apostles didn’t teach the Trinity doctrine as has been confirmed by non-LDS Bible scholars.
2. The early Christians, within 150 years of the Apostles, did NOT teach the Trinity doctrine.
3. The mere existence of the councils in 325 AD and 400 AD were evidence of the fact that “false doctrine” had crept into the Church and further evidence that there was no Apostolic authority to settle the matter.
4. Hundreds of years of debate (not among Christian church members but among the TOP leaders themselves) also continued to be evidence that the Orthodox Christian church was incapable of receiving direct revelation from God to settle the doctrinal dispute. This dispute was not small matter – it is the doctrine regarding the nature of God – the most important and first doctrine of God.

Now you might want to say, “I am going to ignore all of that and just read the Bible and find out for myself”. Great! We applaud you. But something has gone wrong. You’re still quoting the language and doctrines of the former Church councils and their “non-biblical” terms regarding the nature of God.

You subordinate the terms “we”, “our”, “us” and declare that they are metaphorical. For no biblical reason at all, you define “image” as something that doesn’t mean “image”. You want to argue that “likeness” really doesn’t mean likeness at all.

Why? Because if you allow these words to just stand on their own, the trinity doctrine literally crumbles before your eyes, and you’re left with a true anthropomorphic doctrine of the nature of God which the Bible declares in many instances.

In your latest post, you argue that no one has seen the Father. I’ll quote your proof:
John 1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

If I had a dollar for every Orthodox Christian that presented me with this verse… I’d be much richer today.  By the sound of this scripture, the matter is settled, right?. No man has seen God at any time. Period. End of story. No one has seen God. “Wait,… Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God. Oh… sorry Joseph, you’re just plain flat wrong. Don’t you see Joseph , it says right here in John (that was written in the first century AD), no man hath seen God at any time.” “Joseph, what you saw was something else… a devil perhaps….because this verse right here, (did I mention that it was written in the first century AD), says no man has seen God at ANY time.

Forgive me for belaboring this point, but it’s all quite silly. The scripture says no man hath (past tense until that time) seen God at anytime. “Joseph, when did you claim to see God? 1820? Wow, that was 1720 years after that scripture was written… hmmmm.” “Wait! There’s another problem. Jesus is God. If no man has seen God, then no one has seen Jesus? What? This doesn’t make any sense.”

Of course, I digress here… just having a little fun… but although these are good points above – it’s not the main point.

What I am getting at here is related NOT to Joseph Smith (although his testimony clears up the trinity controversy in an instant), instead I am going to turn to OTHER New Testament verses to get an idea on what this verse means. Why? Because we have several “EYEWITNESSES” who saw God in the Old Testament. Who were the first? Adam and Eve. They both saw God. How do we know? Because they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also saw God. God appeared unto them (three different occasions) Exodus 6:2-3. God also appeared to Moses. Look at Num 12:6-8. God himself declares that He does not appear to Moses in his mind, but that Moses beholds his very “FORM”. In these verses God says that I will speak with Moses “man to man” or “eye to eye” and in those times it was “mouth to mouth” but the meaning remains the same – it was a personal and intimate LITERAL appearance of God to man when man SAW God and beheld God’s form.

Let’s take a look at the next New Testament scripture that is connected with this Old Testament scripture.
John 5: 37
37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

This confirms that 1) God has a literal voice and 2) has a literal shape. What does the shape look like? We are made in the IMAGE of God – his shape is the shape of a body of flesh and bone, arms, hands, feet, head, face, mouth, etc. Who is “ye”? Ye are the people who he is talking to. Therefore no one in THAT congregation had ever seen the Father – not that he cannot be seen.

John 6: 46
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Finally! The context for the last two New Testament verses – it’s not that one cannot see the Father, but he must be OF GOD. If you are qualified YOU CAN SEE THE FATHER. And if you see him, what will he look like? What will his shape be like?

John 14: 7, 9
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

This simple statement by Christ in John 14:9 was surely not meant to tell us that Christ is the same person or being as the Father, for Christ prayed to the Father, sought to do not His own will but the Father's, said that His Father was greater than He (John 14:28), ascended after His Resurrection to return to His Father, called His Father His God (John 20:17), and was later seen standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55,56). No, what Christ surely meant was the same concept that Paul conveys in Hebrews 1:3 when he states that Jesus is "the express image of his [the Father's] person." In other words, Christ is in the image of the Father and looks like Him, enough so that to see the Son is to see the Father, just as He is so one in mind and purpose with the Father that to know the Son is to know the Father (John 14:7).

Adam's son, Seth, was said to be in the likeness and image of his father, Adam (Gen. 5:1-3), using the same words from Gen. 1:26,27 that tell us that we are physically created in the image and likeness of God, an unmistakable reference to the physical image. If the son of the first man, Adam, looked like his father, it should not strain our faith to know that the Son of the Ultimate Man and Father should look just like His Parent.

Christ was born with a physical body and was resurrected with that body, so real and tangible and in the same image as us that He could not only be recognized but handled and felt (Luke 24:36-43).

All of the scriptures dismiss the belief in the trinity doctrine as taught by Church councils.

The only revelation that agrees with all of these scriptures is the revelation received by Joseph Smith from God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in 1820.

D&C 130: 22
22 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.

Best,

James

David,

The superman analogy was actually better than an explanation I gave on here once when I tried to explain the trinity as three "entities" along with some other gibberish. I felt compelled to come back a few minutes later for damage control. Since then I've engaged more in philosophy than theology when I occasionally comment on these boards. You live, you learn.

One more thing, I can't in all honesty give myself much credit for that line. That one really came to me if you know what I mean. I reckon it was for someone somewhere who has been following this thread.

HJ,
If you are still following this, thanks for the Fire & Ice poem. That one is a classic!

Thanks Ghostbuster. I appreciate that. I think the subject of God's nature or Jesus' pre-incarnate nature are hard to fathom. I guess no one can find a real explanation for that. But I do thank you for your compliment. I must say however that my Superman explanation was the worst and I just felt the need for an analogy. Should have thought harder. :) No matter all the explanations on here I must say that there was a particular one-liner that caught my attention more than anything and held so much truth in such little words. It's what you said.

"It's not about what you do, but what has been done for you".

That line continuously reminds me of how Christ's blood is sufficient enough. Thanks for that.

Anon,

Sorry I couldn't give a better explanation on that. I really don't see how anyone can describe something spiritual since we are of the earthly. It kind of reminds me of when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus and told him (John 3:12) 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? It would seem that spiritual or heavenly things are out of our realm to explain for some. But thanks for the conversation. Thank you all. It seems that this conversation has dwindled down a bit so I guess this is goodbye until next time. Take care all. Much love to you and your families

God bless

David,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. While I disagree with your beliefs and have my reasons for doing so, I do appreciate the time you've given to answer them. I am not going to delve further in this discussion now because I am lacking the necessary time, but hope we can pick up again another day. There is a reason for my asking these questions.

David,

I think you are doing a great job explaining the nature of God, the doctrine of the trinity and the importance of baptism. I am learning quite a bit from your answers. The superman analogy was a stretch as you know, but it was funny. I especially liked your last response when you admitted you can't give a definitive answer to every single question about the nature of God.

Some characteristics of God are not revealed to us. For instance, save for the scars, we have no other defining characteristics of how Jesus physically looked. His height, weight, build, hair color and style, favorite shirt... are not mentioned in his biographies.

Regards
GB

Anon,

Like I said before, the Trinity is three persons but One God. In 'our' image signifies that the three persons of God are actually persons. I've never seen any three of those persons so I cannot say for sure of what nature they are. I cannot tell you for sure that spiritual nature has a likeness of man or not. The Bible says the Father cannot be seen. Seen by whom? Us humans. So, therefore he can have an 'image' without being seen. I'm sure God can see Himself, right? Since Himself consists of three persons, then it is "our image". I can see what you are trying to set up here, Anon. The hard part for you is understanding how three persons can be one. This of course is because how can us humans think of three equalling one. This is spiritual, not earthly. When God says "let us make man in our image", He is referring to Himself.

So, I'm not too sure where this is going. I can't give you a definitive answer on this. God describes Himself in a plural sense. The Trinity affirms that all three are PERSONS, meaning they must have an image of some sort, not necessarily an image that can be seen by us. I'm not describing God as a "blob" of some sort as you say. But I wonder how anyone could describe a spiritual being that can't be seen. Could you? I just know that He (all three persons of He) created us humans in His (or their) image. Just image. Who knows what that exactly entails. We can't say that God has a mole on His left cheek or size 12 shoes. We just know we are made in His IMAGE, maybe something like looking in the mirror in the dark and seeing just the outline.

I think the best Biblical aspect I can give is in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul talks about the difference in earthly bodies and spiritual bodies. I advise you to study that.

David,

Ok, so if God doesn't have any form, then who is He referring to when he says "let us make man in 'our' image?" Who is the other person?

Jim,

Thanks for your analysis. As I've said before, I do think baptism is important. What I am talking about is justification. I guess we should look by example.

If a man repented with all his heart and professed Jesus with his mouth is he saved? Well, what happens if he does this then walks across the street to a local church to be baptized, but then gets hit by a car and dies? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If he goes to hell then doesn't that contradict scripture that grace by faith alone justifies you and saves you? Eph 2:8-9, Tit 3:5?

Now, according to Acts 8, your right. The Holy Spirit wasn't given to them until after baptism and after the laying on of hands. The whole context has a message though. It seems to focus on Simon the Sorcerer. He too claimed to believe in Christ as well, and was baptized, but of course had not yet recieved the Holy Spirit. Then after the laying on of hands by the apostles those who professed Christ recieved the Holy Spirit. (A note to point out too is that the Holy Spirit did come BEFORE baptism without the laying on of hands in Acts 10). So, Simon offers the apostles money to give him this gift. Of course they rebuke this offer and say he is still in his sin. Why is he still in his sin if he professed the Lord Jesus and was baptized? Because he did not have true faith and repentance. I believe the Holy Spirit did not indwell these people for a reason of course until the apostles bestowed Him upon them. To make a point. You cannot just proclaim Christ and still live in your sins. He obviously was not convicted by the Holy Spirit or he would not have offered the money. Simon claimed to have faith and was baptized with water. But he chose to still live in his sins. This is not a true faith that leads to righteousness. The moral of this story is that baptism does not save. True faith does. The Holy Spirit was held back until the apostles could come to bestow it on those who had true faith. Simon was not one of those even though he professed Christ and was baptized.

So in Acts 10 many people recieved the Holy Spirit before baptism with no laying on of hands. Acts 2 says some did after baptism.(Baptism could mean baptism of the Spirit in this instance and is confirmed by the following 'and ye shall recieve the Holy Spirit'). I believe Acts 8 was a different story to make a point. So we know that those with faith can recieve the Holy Spirit before or after. This of course should be left up to God. But to proclaim that you MUST be baptized to recieve the Holy Spirit is contradictory to Acts 10. No one knows the hearts of men except God. So if one's faith can save, then it's up to God to decide that whether it be on proclamation of faith or after baptism who knows? Maybe that person never experienced true faith until they were baptized with water. I really don't know. But baptism is not a requirement for salvation along with laying on of hands according to Acts 10 and according the the fact that adding works to faith cannot save anyone.

One question for you. Do you know why Jesus was baptized? You seem to indicate that He needed to be saved. How can someone who provides salvation need to be saved? So, I ask, do you understand why Jesus had to be baptized?

Anon,

This is where the Trinity comes in. God the Father (First person of the Trinity) cannot be seen. The Son (second person) can. God manifests Himself in three persons. The Father who is spirit and can't be seen and the Son (who pre-incarnate could be seen). I couldn't describe the exact nature of the Son (pre-incarnate) but John 1 says the "Word BECAME flesh". Therefore He never was flesh until becoming flesh on earth. I believe God manifested Himself in the form of the Son to appear to those in the OT. Whether that be some spiritual being or not doesn't matter too much. I know He appeared as a form recognizable by man but not unseen like the Father. I guess for a terrible analogy I can say let's assume Superman can't be seen but Clark Kent can. Same being but different person. So when I say God has no hand, I'm referring to God the Father or first person of the Trinity who can't be seen. The Son is God as well, but a different form or person of God. The person of God that can be seen. The other two cannot.

Hi David,

I ask because I wonder what you believe to be a Spirit. You mentioned that God does not have a body. So I'm confused to know what you describe Him to be? You seem to describe Him to be some sort of a "blob" form of a ghost of some sort? You said that he has no hands, but I don't get what you think He is. If you believe God has no body then wouldn't you (in your belief) describe Him to be the same that Jesus was prior to Jesus receiving a body; a Spirit?

David,
To simplify, I'll quote from our Bible dictionary: "The Holy Ghost is manifested to men on the earth both as the power of the Holy Ghost and as the gift of the Holy Ghost. The power can come upon one before baptism, and is the convincing witness that the gospel is true. It gives one a testimony of Jesus Christ and of his work and the work of his servants upon the earth. The gift can come only after proper and authorized baptism, and is conferred by the laying on of hands...."

Think about the example of Jesus- he was baptized, THEN the Holy Ghost descended upon him.

In Acts 2:37-38 we read, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In Acts chapter 8, Phillip had baptized with water (v. 12), but note verses 14-17: "14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

The baptism by water alone was insufficient. The apostles, with authority to confer the GIFT of the Holy Ghost, needed to come to perform this ordinance by the laying on of hands, and this came AFTER baptism by water.

If you read, I believe you will see a pattern of: people hearing the word of God, feeling "pricked in their hearts" or some other confirming witness from the power of the Holy Ghost, desiring to repent and follow Christ through baptism, and then receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which will then remain with the disciple of Christ as long as he/she is worthy and striving to keep the commandments.

Again from the Bible dictionary: "The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost. More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin. Thus it is often spoken of as “fire” (Matt. 3: 11). The manifestation on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the gift of the Holy Ghost that came upon the Twelve, without which they were not ready for their ministries to the world."

Ghostbuster
Thanks for the poem. Nice choice. I have many Frost Poems by Heart. A couple of quotes for you:

"Earth's the right place for love. I don't know where it's likely to go better." (from Birches).

Fire and Ice

Some say the world
will end in Fire.
Some say Ice.
From what I've tasted of Desire,
I tend to side with those
Who Favor Fire.
But if we had to perish twice
I think I know enough of Hate
To say that for destruction Ice
Is also great
And Will Suffice.

Jim,

You are right. Believe it or not I am in 100% in agreement with your reasoning. Grace is not logical. And it certainly isn't fair.

Grace is the point at which "religion" becomes relationship. We can't do enough to work our way to the God who is described in the bible. God bridged the gap for us. The "essential" thing one has to do is to walk over the bridge.

"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

Now here is a short poem for our resident literary scholar Henry James:

"I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
- Frost

Regards

Parker,

Thanks for yours as well. And Karen of course you have my prayers tonight. I'm gonna write that one down so I don't forget.

Anon,

Concerning Jesus' pre-incarnate body. What are you looking for in specific? I don't believe the Bible is very specific on this subject. At least as far as I know. What I do know is that the Father aspect of God cannot be seen. It was the Son (pre-incarnate) that was seen by the patriarchs. I would assume that His body was somewhat like the post-resurrection body. A glorified un-corruptible body, not necessarily a body of flesh and bones though. This of course is based on assumption alone but by somewhat of an examination of scripture. I know Jesus has a body now because of the bodily resurrection, but pre-incarnate I would assume it it more of a spiritual body that He could allow whomever He wanted to see Him. I don't really know what else I can say on this subject. I find this to be non-essential as well. I'm sure I could be wrong on this, but I'm curious why it would matter?

Have a great evening.

God bless

David,
I really appreciate the point of view and insight you have expressed in your last post. I again want to apologize for sometimes reacting negatively to some of your commentary. I have felt badly about having done so.

Karen,
I imagine several of us are praying that your presentation goes well, as I'm sure it will.

Adieu, folks. Thanks for sharing your perspectives.

Ghostbuster,

you said,

It's not about what you do Jay. It's about what has been done for you

By far the best line yet. Thanks and I love it.

Jim,

you said,

About baptism, yes, there are two parts- baptism by water and baptism by Spirit, which is another name for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which we believe is performed by the laying on of hands by one holding the authority of the priesthood. The two baptisms go together, and in fact baptism by water is a pre-requisite for baptism of the Spirit.

If this was non-essential, why did Jesus send his apostles to teach and to baptize?

I would like your scriptureal basis for this? How is water baptism a pre-requisite for baptism of the Spirit? Let's look at scripture for truth shall we?

Acts 10:44-46 says, "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days" (NIV)

So people recieved the Holy Spirit by just hearing the words Peter said without laying on of hands and water baptism? Doesn't this contradict what you just said? Every instance in the Bible people are baptized AFTER they are saved. Baptism is a covenant. An outward expression of in inward change. It's a public declaration of faith in Jesus. It's a covenant just like circumcision in the OT. Trust me I believe water baptism is important, just like taking communion. Is it necessary for salvation? NO. If it were then it contradicts the Bible. Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5. Rom 5:1.

You asked GB if we can just continue to lie and party it up since we are forgiven anyway. Paul mentions this type of argument as well. He said "should we continue to sin so that grace may increase". Of course not! You must realize that faith PRODUCES works. Upon faith we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This regeneration causes us to do good. To TRY to refrain from sin. To feel the conviction of our sins. You asked why do we need commandments then? I ask you then, have you kept all the commandments without breaking even one in your life? Can you live the rest of your life without breaking any commandment? I know I can't. It's impossible. I can try, but my sinful nature as a man causes me to sin once in awhile. But now I recognize that sin and know when I do it. The Holy Spirit convicts me of my sins.

So please just answer me one question? Can you live without breaking even one commandment?

Jim
further clarification: i actually said, quote, "Do you think God is unable to tell the good people from the bad people unless they are carrying a certificate of baptism?????"

So you see, I did assume your God would take account of people's behavior.

Also, in the post I just made, I meant to say that a just God would reward an equally Good Buddhist or Atheist *or Mormon* equally, whether or not they had been baptized.

Jim
You are right, I did not say a God would reward her children regardless of the kind of life they had led.

I in fact said that if a Buddhist and an Atheist had all led equally good lives, a just God would reward them equally, whether or not they had been baptized.
To say, as Mormons do, that a Mormon of mediocre character who has been baptized would have greater capacity for eternal progression than Gandhi, assuming Gandhi does not choose to be baptized in the afterlife, is patently absurd even within the mormon system.

By the way, God is actually a Woman. So you should say "HER truths."

HJ:
Regarding your last post, on the other hand, what kind of God would whimsically and arbitrarily reward his children without regard to the type of life that was led? This is intentionally an exaggeration of your comment, and I realize that this isn't what you would say.

Instead, God is a God of order, and a God of justice. Yes, he does love all of His children, and I believe that we will all have an equal opportunity to learn and to accept His truths. It is our choices that make our character and reveal our true selves, so as I have said in a previous post, it is almost as though we become our own judge as we choose whether we seek truth, love, etc.

As Parker has mentioned, life is not a sprint nor a contest to see whom reaches the finish line first. Our mortal lives are just one small part of our eternal progression.

Jim
You must believe that Mohammed made up the commandments in the Koran, rather than getting them from God.
You must believe the same about the Hindus who worship Vishnu.

I believe that Joseph Smith and Moses made up the commandments that they claim came from God.

99% of the societies in the history of the world have followed the moral precepts in the 10 commandments, whether or not they believed in a God, or in 5,000 Gods.

Do you think God is unable to tell the good people from the bad people unless they are carrying a certificate of baptism?????

Ghostbuster

I agree with your parable of Jesus's thief, tho I fear people are going to argue about what Jesus meant by "paradise."

I take a broader view. If there is a God, I can't imagine that he will deny any good people the same rewards as other good people.

Most of the world's population do not believe in Jesus and will never be baptized. Do we truly believe that good Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Confucians, will be less exalted than Christians in the afterlife??? What kind of God would have such a system of rewards?

Ghostbuster,
So, from the logic of your last post, we can just do whatever we want, party it up, have fun, lie, cheat, steal, etc., and since Jesus suffered for our sins, it will all be washed away without any effort on our part? Why even have commandments if that is the case?

Jay said referring to baptism: "If this was non-essential, why did Jesus send his apostles to teach and to baptize?"

Jay,

Could the thief on the cross get baptized? Did he have time to make amends for his sins? Did he have time to get his life in order? Could he even help alleviate the pain of the bleeding man next to him? No, the thief was totally helpless in his condition.

So what is essential?

It's not about what you do Jay. It's about what has been done for you.

Regards

HJ,

Thank you for the in-depth response. You more than answered my questions. The historical link between your family and Joseph Smith certainly is unique as are your perspectives and insights in this debate.

Regards

David,

About baptism, yes, there are two parts- baptism by water and baptism by Spirit, which is another name for receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, which we believe is performed by the laying on of hands by one holding the authority of the priesthood. The two baptisms go together, and in fact baptism by water is a pre-requisite for baptism of the Spirit.

If this was non-essential, why did Jesus send his apostles to teach and to baptize?

Oh by the way Anon,

sorry I know it seems I'm avoiding you, but I'll try my very best to get back to you today. If not, I'll have a little more time tomorrow. But, I'm curious really quick. Does it matter what my opinion or "interpretation" may be? It is going to affect you any? Just curious if it's worth even discussing? And why don't you give me your opinion first since I can't get into it right now?

Gotta be quick. Kinda busy.

Here's a hint Jim.

John 1:32-34

32Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is HE WHO WILL BAPTIZE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. This is the baptism that saves, not by water. Baptism has two meanings. I do find baptism important, but it is an added work to faith. It is by faith alone that we are saved apart from works. I know you disagree, but oh well. You have your pre-suppositions from the Mormon church so I don't expect you to understand. And by the way, there is no longer a need for a priesthood. You might want to research the reason why the curtain tore in half when Jesus died on the cross. Gotta run.

Have a great day

God bless

I find it odd that David indicates that baptism is a "non-essential" difference between Christian denominations. To me, baptism is an essential ordinance of Christ's gospel.

I had a very interesting experience on my mission in Spain. Obviously, nearly everyone there is Catholic, at least by tradition. I met a man that felt he had just as much authority as the Catholic church, so this man baptized his own children himself instead of the traditional Catholic way. While I admire his initiative and faith, we do believe that Jesus taught baptism by immersion by one holding the priesthood- the authority to perform these ordinances. Jesus himself was baptized by immersion by one holding the priesthood, and I believe that he expects the same of us. Does not the Bible teach that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism"? See Ephesians 4:5.

I also find it strange that David continues to say that LDS have no biblical basis for doctrines such as pre-existence and God (the father), Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as three separate and distinct beings. There have been many posts containing biblical references for our support of these doctrines, yet David seems to ignore those and instead focuses on his own verses. It would be nice to just say that we agree to disagree than to continue insisting that his is the only interpretation and claiming that our view is anti-biblical when we have given biblical support ad naseum.

Finally, about President Hinckley, I believe he intended to convey that the question being asked was not a critical doctrine. It is unfortunate that we have to try to defend every last word ever uttered by any prophet, but I guess that's how it goes. I would prefer to concentrate on more fundamental beliefs....

Ghostbuster

I was a church-going Mormon until I was 19, the son of two Utah Mormons who had moved to Massachusetts. My father's great grandfather was in jail with Joseph Smith when the Prophet was martyred. So I am dyed in the Blood of the Lamb.

As the only Mormon family in our town, I was aware that I had to keep myself free of the corrupting influences of the Gentiles in order to stay on the right path. I believed Mormon doctrine, but was always more drawn to the moral precepts of life on earth than to the promises of Celestial Glory and my progression to be a God myself. I guess i thought i was already a God (joke).

Though I accepted the afterlife stuff cuz that's what i had been taught, I never had a burning conviction of it. Tho that didn't stop me from telling my catholic friend bobby in 6th grade that he was going to hell and i was going to heaven. (I know, I know, truth is he was going to the terrestrial kingdom, but i was in 6th grade).

When the time came to decide about going on a mission, i had to ask myself, could i honestly "sell the product?" Could i tell people that they had to join the Mormon Church in order to achieve the highest degree of glory in heaven and be one of those humans who were destined to become Gods themselves. (as man is God once was, and as God is man may become, we were taught).

I looked at my Jewish friend who was much more Godlike than even I was, and I said to myself: "does it make sense that I, and joe schmoo from Idaho, are going to become Gods cuz we were baptized in the mormon church, but my Jewish Friend and Mahatma Gandhi couldn't become Gods cuz they weren't? Even tho they had much stronger Godlike qualities than Joe Schmoo?"

No, I couldn't believe in a God who had a plan like that. And I certainly couldn't tell my Jewish Friend he had to become a Mormon in order to be a God like me.

So I didn't. And at that point, it didn't work for me to remain a member of a church that taught me things that i couldn't believe.

My family respected me and my decision. I was lucky. I was also a boy. My older sister had many more fights with my parents about her leaving. She was a girl.

Ahhh... the nerve racking jitters before a big presentation. I know what you're going through Karen ;) Good luck to you and I'll definitely keep you in my prayers!
.
.
.
David - have you given any thought to my question yet? I saw you were online last night and responded to other questions. I don't know if you overlooked my question. I'm curious to know your thoughts.

Thanks!

Parker: thank you for taking the time to respond in detail to my questions and comments. I apologize that I will not be able to do the same. I am traveling today for work and will be gone for the rest of the week with limited internet time.

I agree with you that our faith and trust in the Lord are put to the test every day. But again, I do not think that God would on purpose confuse us to test us. There are enough tests in every day life.

You are right in that I find in the non denominational local church the type of worship, structure and support that greatly enriches my life. Because I have seen so much confusion once people of various denominations add to the Bible things that are not there (such as the concept of Mary being born without sin which is not biblical) that I feel it is safest to stick to the Bible. As a book inspired by God though written by man, I believe that it gives us all we need to understand God's purpose in our lives and His immense love for us and desire for fellowship with us.

I have greatly enjoyed the exchanges with everybody. HJ, I'll be interested in your response to GB's last question.

Have a great week everybody. I have a big presentation to give on friday. If you're a believer please say a prayer for me and if not, wish me luck and steady nerves!

Karen

Jim, You Stretch the Truth Beyond the Breaking Point

when you write "there is no conclusive proof (nor should we expect such) that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, written anciently and translated by a prophet called of God, yet there are significant findings that support the archaelogical veracity of the Book of Mormon. Millions, including myself, have put the Book of Mormon to test and can testify of its truthfulness based on the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost."

Righto!!! There is NO proof at all that the BoM has ANY basis in historical fact. And most non mormons find it literally "incredible" that the purported history of a major civilization in the Americas left no verifiable archeological trace. The "recent" support is only accepted by Mormons. And the BoM is riddled with biological and geological errors.

You have read it and think its true. I have read it and think it is a third rate plagiarism of the Bible and other religious writings. Which of us has more note as a literary critic?

"True for you" is very different than "True."

Love
Henry

Hello Parker
re your post of 1152 pm

You may have "logic that makes sense to (you)", but that doesn't make it Logic, just as believing 1+1=3 doesn't make 1+1=3.

And believe me, your argument was fallacious at its base. Check an independent source if you have doubts. And please feel free to correct me on any logic errors i might make. William certainly does.

I am happy you prayed for the end of the Black priesthood ban. Your prayers and its eventuation had virtually no causal relation, but I applaud your sentiment. Though even if you had never known any blacks on your mission, it was the right position to take.

BTW, since you tire of triteness, a word of warning. your phrase "I met so many wonderful blacks on my mission" sounds perilously close to the cliche "some of my best friends are (black/gay/transsexual/whatever). Use of this cliche is generally not considered to put the user in a flattering light.

I am not sure how I am "speaking for Dawkins." I noted that he thinks belief in God is a Delusion. He feels it strongly enough to title his book "The God Delusion." So my "interpreting" that he doesn't really believe in God and was being rhetorical in his use of that hypothetical was not a brilliant or difficult interpretation on my part. I have made plenty of briiliant interpretations, but this wasn't one of them.

Peace
henry

HJ,

I have a few questions for you...

What were your main reasons for leaving the LDS church at the time of your departure?

Did you wholeheartedly believe Mormon theology at one time?

What did your family/friends think of your decision to leave the church?

Regards
GB

Karen,
I don't feel like I gave you a very complete answer to some of your questions. As to reading the Book of Mormon and feeling like it was a strange book, I would expect that to be the case 100% of the time from a scholar. Why? Because they are trained to be skeptical, so skepticism would preclude any easy "this sounds true" sort of reaction. I guarantee that if you were to re-read the first five books of the Bible, then read Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hebrews 11 and the Book of Revelation twice each, then read the Book of Mormon five times (why that many? because it's about as deep as Isaiah and a scholar would have to overcome the skepticism that has been embedded into their thinking process), then you will begin to feel "this Book of Mormon could be the words of prophets of the same God of the Bible".

Secondly, this life is a test of faith on different levels. If you believe Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac as a trial of his faith, you might acknowledge that God has not asked you to do something like that. That's an example of what I am talking about. It makes sense to me that Joseph Smith didn't make up the idea that the early saints were being asked by God to live plural marriage as a trial of their faith. Why would JS introduce such a practice, knowing it would bring intense dislike among the people he loved and intense ridicule from the outside world? In the early 1900's, it was time for a new trial of faith for the "faithful saints". Will I follow the living prophet when he says, "Plural marriage is no longer required, and should no longer be entered into"? Also in the early 1900's, tithing and the Word of Wisdom receive greater emphasis and become "trials of faith" for the saints. Today the saints have plenty of trials of faith to choose from: the Book of Mormon is ridiculed now more than ever, the source of the Book of Abraham has become a source of trial of faith for some people, the fulfilling of ancient promises for the blacks and trying to understand that whole dichotomy is a trial of faith for some people--one can take their pick from among those, or there are plenty of doses of faith trials through the media and the ridicule of the scholarly world.

But those trials of faith are, like the test Abraham had with his son, not given to Protestants or Catholics or other faith groups, though their faith is also being tested: "Will I believe the Bible?" "Do the ten commandments have relevancy for me and my family?" etc. I think God respects the trials of faith you have had and continue to have, and honors you for your belief and trust in Him. As far as I am concerned, it is to be expected that people who follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will confront trials of faith throughout their lives, be "tried in the furnace of affliction" and be able to say as John the Beloved foresaw, "I have overcome by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

HJ and Karen,
HJ, I apologize for my last hastily written post that didn't acknowledge the following: you have great love for mankind and all living things, I feel that from you; you have a keen intellect and good logic that works for you; you expressed a spiritual dimension that I found refreshing; and I assume you have had experiences that have led to the entirety of your belief system. I respect you for all of that, especially the love you convey. Having faith in revelation and divine power is not for everyone, and I don't think for a minute that it means a person without these dimensions in their life is less of a person. I think, though, that they have made a concious choice during their life to arrive at that conclusion. Choices during life can change, people can change, perspectives can change (I hope they do for all of us.) Sorry to have been disrespectful of you by that hasty comment.

Karen,
You have a great sense of peace about you that comes across in your writing. I have met so many wonderful people who have attended the kinds of small denominations you have talked about. I don't think for a minute that they will have any less of an opportunity in the hereafter than I will have to learn about the kind of faith I talked about earlier, and decide whether it is what they want. I don't think everyone would want that--too much commitment, too much patience required watching children make mistakes among each other yet loving them all.

I of course won't speak in any sense trying to interpret what President Hinckley said in that brief comment, but did you want him to give a two hour talk? Sometimes the media (in fact usually) needs quick answers, which of course leads to people jumping to conclusions.

I don't think we got enough doctrinal teaching from Joseph Smith to understand the statement about "God was once a man like us" (he was killed soon thereafter), but we have plenty else to think about and grow into. I love the following words written in the Liberty Jail to the men and women of the church:
"Let thy bowels also be full of charity toward all men,... and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever." These blessings are available to all. They involve a long process, trials of faith, lots of repentance and forgiveness and trust in a loving God whose help is ever promised.

(the previous post by "Evidence" was me....)

David,

There is a lot to read at this site, but if you go to this link, the second question deals specifically with non-LDS scholars and the Book of Mormon:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMEvidence.shtml#arch

Also, articles by LDS authors often reference non-LDS sources. It seems to me that asking for non-LDS sources for archaelogical evidence of the Book of Mormon is akin to asking an atheist to provide support for their position from only theists.

Finally, as has been mentioned, there is no conclusive proof (nor should we expect such) that the Book of Mormon is true scripture, written anciently and translated by a prophet called of God, yet there are significant findings that support the archaelogical veracity of the Book of Mormon. Millions, including myself, have put the Book of Mormon to test and can testify of its truthfulness based on the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost.

Henry James: very well said as usual.

Ghostbuster: totally agree with you.

Sidebar: There are many christian denominations but the majority hold to the same essentials of the faith. I think that this is what David is trying to say. I am at this point most comfortable in a local Bible-believing non denominational church but I can attend many other churches and feel at ease with the doctrine being taught ie methodist, anglican, baptist, AME, presbyterian etc. The theological differences between these denominations tend to center on what St Augustine would call non-essentials of the faith. I prefer the small non denominational church because I am weary of large religious institutions and I believe that the small local church best approaches the biblical chuch at the time of the Apostles. But if I could not go to one, I could go somewhere else and still feel in union with what is taught.

Aside from that, I have a really hard time with a God that changes His mind and reverses Himself on major commandements and doctrinal point.

I am curious to hear what is the LDS response to Henry's post about the interview with Hickley. This is the kind of stuff that non mormons find absolutely preposterous: the Living Prophet is not quite sure what the church teaches? More likely, he fudges so as to perpetuate the notion that the LDS church is not so different from mainstream christianity. I mean, if the LDS church truly believes that God once was a mortal man with a physical body, that he lives on the planet Kolob, and if they believe that this is direct revelation from God, why the equivocation? Isn't Hinckley's approach deceitful?
I would say the same thing about a pastor that fudges the answer on the virgin birth or the resurrection so as not to seem ridiculous to a secular audience. As Phaedrus said before: let the sun shine on the whole doctrine and let people make up their own mind.

Sidebar,

Good question. What are the differences in theology that seperate Christian sects? First of all, Orthodox (or Protestant) theology teaches ONE God, being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They teach justification by faith alone and not works, the deity of Christ, and the gospel being the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ which by faith alone will give you grace. These are essentials to Christianity. Many different Christian "sects" teach the same thing with only non-essentials such as if baptism should be by immersion or not, or the different types of worship. I can think of many so-called "Christian" churches that teach a false doctrine. Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th day adventists, Oneness Pentacostal, and of course my favorite....MORMONISM. So you say that there are many different sects of Christianity that do not recognize the Trinity. I'd like to know which ones. Every non-denominational church I have ever attended teaches it. Every Baptist church I ever attended teaches it. Even Lutheran and Catholic churches teach it. The only reason why I said somewhat close doctrine is because of the non-essentials. The Baptism thing, when to take communion (once a week, once a month,etc.), different musical tastes seperate churches as well, but the doctrines remain the same.

I do think you are way too caught up in the word "Trinity". Trinity is just a descriptive word of Biblical truth. Taking the whole of scripture and creating doctrine is ok. 2 Tim 3:16. If the Bible says that there is ONE God and the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then you have the Trinity. Isn't it much nicer to say Trinity instead of saying all that? You believe in many gods. This is anti-Biblical. That's how I know the LDS is false because it doesn't match up to scripture. If the Bible tells me there is ONE God and you tell me NO, there are many, who do I believe? Take a guess.

you said,

(oh and I'm also wondering by whose authority you are going by since you deny the LDS to believe in the convincing power of the Holy Ghost and say that it is Satan who is deceiving the LDS. Well, if it's Satan who is deceiving through those "feelings" then why should anyone believe that YOUR assumption is correct?)

Because I don't claim to have "feelings". I confirm beliefs by scripture. Read Jer 17:9. The heart is decietful. If I went on "feelings" I could be misled. I find the truth in God's Word. I still don't understand what "feelings" have anything to do with knowing truth?? I've never said I have a "feeling" that the Bible should be "interpreted" a certain way. I've backed up scripture with scripture to prove my points. I would never expect anyone to believe me if I just told them I had a "feeling". No one should believe me based on feelings. That's how people are misled.

you said,

You have to admit David, your beliefs ARE your interpretation (or an assumption) since you did not get word directly from God or Jesus that your interpretation is in fact the right one. You can state that one needs to read the bible "as a whole", but again, that is YOUR belief. To deny this would be illogical.

If they are my only beliefs, why do millions of other people on this planet believe the same exact thing I do? And yes I did get the word directly from God. It's called the Bible. Let me ask you why you should not take the Bible as a whole? Wouldn't it be illogical to take the parts you want and leave out the rest? When Joseph Smith claimed many gods, did he leave out all those Isaiah verses? Did he leave out the first commandment? Ex 20:3?? So what is illogical on my part that we should take the whole Bible in regards to creating doctrine. It's kind of like your pre-existence doctrine. You take a bunch of verses out of context and then oops...we'll just leave out 1 Cor 15:46-47?? This is why the Trinity doctrine is Biblically correct. You cannot find a contradiction to it. Plain and simple.

Concerning all those historians views of the Trinity, I could care less. I could care less if they don't even want to call it the Trinity. As long as someone doesn't believe in multiple gods and recognize that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make the ONE God, then that's fine. The Trinity is biblically accurate. It's just a name to simplify it. So many people use excuses like "the word 'Trinity' isn't even in the Bible". Of course not. It's doctrine. Where is the word "pre-existence"?

HJ,
You have a perfect right to your beliefs and the logic that supports them. I have logic that makes sense to me, experience that I can't deny because I've experienced it, a communication from the heavens in a purer form than written communication that I am familiar with, and I feel love for people even though I sometimes tire of triteness. I stood up and gave a talk in a sacrament meeting in January 1976 right after my mission, and said "I look forward to the day when the blacks will receive all of the blessings of the restored gospel, and hope it will be soon, for I met so many wonderful blacks during my mission." Two and a half years later, what the Spirit had impressed upon my heart as something to expect to happen, came into fruition as the announcement came from Salt Lake City.

As for Dawkins, I think he said what he said because he thought the very words that he wrote. I don't see why you now have to speak for him. Can't he speak for himself? (you have to interpret for him?)

a: Mormon Prophets get revelation from God on Matters of Church Doctrine.
b. Mormon prophets reverse those revelations from time to time.
c. therefore, God must have make a mistake in making the revelation in case a,unless God is not infallible, immutable, and omniscient.

...and if "God" is not infallible, immutable and omniscient then that "God" is a different "God" than the one who is described in the bible.

David:

Reading through your many posts, your logic seems broken and does not appear to be sound. You state that all Christian churches are the one true church (combined), but then say God is not changing. Well if God isn't changing, why would he want so many different interpretations of his doctrine? For aren't there multiple christian sects in the world today because of different beliefs that exist? Where did God or Jesus say that multiple interpretations of His word were ok? I think you will agree (and have agreed) that there should really be one correct interpretation.

Then you said that LDS are too different from the other christian religions but that the other christian religions are just somewhat different; and that's ok. (Reference your post saying "I believe unity comes to all believers who have the same or close enough doctrinal beliefs") Then you say that your interpretation of the gospels are right but much of your interpretations do indeed differ from an enormous amount of Christian sects. (oh and I'm also wondering by whose authority you are going by since you deny the LDS to believe in the convincing power of the Holy Ghost and say that it is Satan who is deceiving the LDS. Well, if it's Satan who is deceiving through those "feelings" then why should anyone believe that YOUR assumption is correct?)

You have to admit David, your beliefs ARE your interpretation (or an assumption) since you did not get word directly from God or Jesus that your interpretation is in fact the right one. You can state that one needs to read the bible "as a whole", but again, that is YOUR belief. To deny this would be illogical.

So, I'm wondering, how can ALL these churches preach different doctrines and be right, all at the same time?

You said "I guess the best way to describe why we could not be united in the gospel is for example; let's say you and I go door to door and try to preach the gospel, I'm sure we would end up arguing over who's right, right in front of the person. I guess that's not the unity that Jesus had in mind."

So with that in mind, you believe in the trinity, which is not practiced or believed by many other christians (not just Mormons). So who do you believe is the "true" church if they so disagree with your interpreted version of the gospel?

In case you'd like to know, I came across these previously published references that I would like to share with you. I remember a few posts ago you asked someone to show non-mormon references, so I have already skipped that step and am listing them here:

"...no doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament ... there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers ... to judge the Apologists by post-Nicene theology would be grossly unfair. Isolated passages could be cited to support the notion that the Apologists taught subordination within the deity"
- William G. Rusch, Lutheran Scholar ("The Trinitarian Controversy. Sources of Early Christian Thought", Fortress Press, 1980, 2,3,6)

"... it is absurd to imagine (as some fundamentalists seem to do) that Christians today, armed with no knowledge of Christian history but only with their Bibles, could arrive at orthodox theories of, say, the Incarnation or the Trinity ... tradition helps us to grasp - as we see preeminently with the doctrine of the Trinity - that a doctrine or idea can be deemed normative for Christians despite the absence of any clear proof texts specifically teaching it"
- Stephen T. Davis, Conservative Protestant Philosopher, Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Claremont McKenna College, "Philosophy and Theological Discourse, St. Martin's Press, 1997, 47-68

"...we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message ... Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word 'Trinity', but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness to the faith ... [the idea of the trinity is] 'theological tradition'"
- Emil Brunner, "The Christian Doctrine of God. Dogmatics", volume 1

"... thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature"
- William J Hill, "The Three-Personed God", Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of American Press (1982, 27)

"...In the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity is not yet spelled out as church councils would later define it. Trinitarian language and awareness emerged gradually and spontaneously, as early believers sought to articulate the divine glory they beheld in Jesus, and to describe and claim the life-transforming presence and power of God that they experienced through the Holy Spirit"
- Philip W. Butin, Pastor of Albuquerque New Mexico Presbyterian Church (Ph.D from Duke Divinity School), "The Trinity", Louisville, Kentucky, Geneva Press, 2001, 13)

"... the Trinity is not mentioned in the New Testament. Nor has this foundation dogma of the Church's faith ever been expressed in a single, final formula accepted as formally unalterable by the whole Church. The Apostles' Creed makes no mention of it whatever"
- R.P.C. Hanson, Anglican Scholar, "The Attractiveness of God. Essays in Christian Doctrine, John Knox Press, 1973, 47-48)

"... there is no single passage in Scripture which sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity in formal, creedal statement."
- Loraine Boettner, Evangelical, "The Trinity", Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938), 321-351, 55-92)

"...[In the Gospel of John] all these relationships between Father and Son are described in function of the Son's dealings with men. It would be the work of later theologians to take this gospel material pertaining to the mission of the Son 'ad extra' and draw from it a theology of the inner life of the Trinity."
- Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, Garden City, Ny, Doubleday, 1966, 407)

"... there is still no doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, But there is evidence of a slow development of understanding that Jesus Christ, the Father and the Spirit are equally God. Indications of the understanding appear here and there in 'triadic formulas.' These cannot be lumped together to provide comprehensive proof of revelation of the Trinity"
- Leonardo Boff, Franciscan Priest and Professor of Theology, "Trinity and Society", Orbis Books, 1988, 35)

"... exegetes and theologians are likewise agreed that the New Testament does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity. The New Testament does not contain the technical language of later Trinitarian doctrine ... that the doctrine of the Trinity did not emerge until the fourth century"
- Catherine LaCugna, Catholic Scholar, "The Trinitarian Mystery of God," Systematic Theology. Roman Catholic Perspectives, Volume I, Augsburg Press, 1991, 151-192)

and so on and so on... there are tons more. I want to be clear. I am not listing all these references to refute your belief in the trinity, that is your belief if you so choose. Rather, I am listing a vast number of different Christian sects that believe differently than you do regarding the trinity. With such a drastic difference in belief, how can you not "get into an argument preaching God's word door to door" if you believe so differently from all these other religions as well?

Jay
sorry to keep you from the family. thanks for all your thoughts.

btw, i am a 5th generation mormon. i have read the bom and know church doctrine inside out.

you write:
"When prophets of any age declare official doctrine, they speak for God, so to say that what was declared before was wrong would be to say that God was wrong. Of course they’re not going to say that."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Correlating syllogism:

a: Mormon Prophets get revelation from God on Matters of Church Doctrine.
b. Mormon prophets reverse those revelations from time to time.
c. therefore, God must have make a mistake in making the revelation in case a,unless God is not infallible, immutable, and omniscient.

To a logical person who is not a mormon, such as Karen, the reversals on polygamy and black priesthood are very damaging to a claim to be a church guided by continuing revelation from god.

Parker
Good to see you defending the faith and lashing out at its opponents.

Regarding God once being a man, here is Hinckley’s hedge in his T