1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

More love directed at the Mormons!

Discussion in 'Latter-day Saints DIR' started by Katzpur, Sep 15, 2005.

  1. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    I know you read the Bible, johhny. I am glad you see it as a compass, for that is what it is. I feel if something in experience or doctrine or teaching or behaviour does not line up with the Word of God, the Word of God is our compass or map to keep us on course. In the 60s something called religious existencialism came about where people said if I experienced it it must be true. (I think of someone who is 'slain in the spirit by Benny Hinn, perhaps?) Yet if it does not line up with the Word of God, it may not be from God. So, although I know God is more than just a book, God gave us this inspired book so that he could reveal Himself and His nature to us. If someone teaches that God is something other than what the Bible says about Him, I must go with the Bible. I guess what comes to mind, is the Bible says that no man has seen the Father, that God is spirit, and I have read that some folks believe God is also flesh and blood just like us...Anyway, one must be careful of 'experience' and anything that contradicts what God has revealed to us in His Word.

    Thanks,

    Joeboona
     
  2. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Sorry you feel that way, as I said, I have read your posts, just haven't been able to respond to everything, but I am trying, as you can see, I have typed and typed...Anyway I'm trying and will keep trying, and have enjoyed your stuff you posted.

    Joeboonda
     
  3. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Good point, the circular arguement thing. I don't feel it is completely circular, but I see your point. I will try to explain why I believe God's revelation was complete with the Bible better sometime soon. I understand why, and that post made sense to me, but I honestly sometimes have difficulty conveying things I am persuaded of to others. I will try to get back to you on that. Thanks for your reply.

    Joeboonda
     
  4. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200

    Here is something that may help explain my view on ongoing revelation, hope it helps, replies welcome! It is in 2 parts (posts)

    I.

    Is God Still Giving Men
    Revelation Today?
    by Cooper Abrams


    • First, what is revelation? Revelation, according to the Bible, is God communicating Himself and His plan to man. There are two types of revelation: Special and General. General revelation applies to the knowledge of God that comes from looking at nature and the universe. We can see God's handiwork in the universe and thus know that it was created by design. Where there is design there must be a Designer and thus we see that "The heavens declare the glory of God," (Psa. 19:1) The order and design of the universe prove they were created by someone with the power to do so.

      Romans 1:18-25, states that all men can see God's handiwork and further that God reveals Himself through nature and therefore all men are with without excuse as to the knowledge of this existence of God the Creator.
      • "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because 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. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen" (Rom. 1:18-25).
      Special revelation is God speaking directly to man, and that revelation being written under the "inspiration" of God, the Holy Spirit. (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21) Special revelation is God's specific information and instructions to man. The sixty six books that comprise our Bible is special revelation from God. It tells us about God, His working with man throughout history, his past and future plans and, most of all, His plan of redemption which He has unfolded through the centuries in the coming of the Redeemer Jesus Christ. From the Bible we learn how the earth and universe came into being, who were the first man and woman, how sin came into the world, of Satan's destructive work, of what is sin, of God's plan for the Savior, of the history and purpose of God's chosen people, the nation of Israel, of Christ's coming, His life and atoning death, of the being of the institution of the local church, of its history and purpose and of the future events ending in a new heavens and earth.

      The question is did God stop giving special revelation and if so when? Biblical Christians believe that God completed the progress of revelation with the writing of the Book of Revelation. They conclude that in the sixty six Books of the Bible, God has said everything to man He desired to say and God's revelation to man was completed by 95 A.D. when the Apostle John finished the Book of Revelation.

      Further the Biblical Christian believes that although God is not speaking or giving new revelation today He is illuminating His written and preserved Word for believers. Illuminating means that God is giving understanding of the principles of the Bible and these principles are totally sufficient to guide men in all matters of life and in any decisions that believers need to make. Thus there is no need of further revelation because the Bible as 2 Tim. 3:16 says, is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." In other words the Bible is complete and adequate and reveals to us all God wants us to know. It is vital to understand that because we have the written revelation of God, the Bible, we do not need current revelation. The revelation God has given is totally adequate to instruct us in the things of God today. Not having God giving modern revelation in no way means we are lacking anything from God. The Bible as will be seen is absolute and complete and covers any subject or circumstance a man might encounter addressing matters directly or through guiding principles.

      I. The Canonization of the Bible Speaks Against God Giving New Revelation.

      One of the strongest evidences against God giving new revelation today is that the Bible was canonized by the early churches. The completeness of the Scriptures was recognized by the early Christians in the sixty six Books of the Old and New Testament. All other "supposed" scripture has been universally rejected as being the Word God.

      The word "canon" is a derivative of the Greek word, "kanon" and the Hebrew word, "kaneh" and refers to a "reed" or measuring rod or ruler. It is used in Christianity to mean a measuring the authenticity of Word of God, the Bible. The process of determining the "canon" of Scripture was the process of ascertaining which books that men purported to be God's revelation that were indeed God's revelation.

      Many books that are not found in the canon of Scripture (the 66 Books of the Old and New Testament) were alleged to have come from God. Of such books were the Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books and the so-called "lost books." The process of canonization was the procedure by which the churches discovered by examination which books were indeed given by inspiration of God and which were counterfeit. It must be understood that it was not the churches or church councils that by decree declared which books it thought were authentic, but Christians discovered what books God had given by inspiration through the process of careful and scholarly examining of the text of each of these works. For example, books which contained inaccurate historical or cultural statements were rejected as being inspired because if God inspired the writing there would be no such errors. Additionally, doctrinal errors or contradictory statements found in the books precluded its being accepted as inspired of God. The books such as the Apocryphal books were found to have not be written by the authors that bore the books names. These books contained gross doctrinal errors, contradictions, inaccurate historical and culture material and were all written long after the period in which they claimed they were authored and thus were summary rejected as being the Word of God.

      There are several standards that a book must have to be concerned as inspired of God and thus included in the canon. These standards are based on the very nature of God Himself in that He could not lie and thus anything written under the inspiration of God would not be contradictory or errors. The rules used to examine a supposed book of the Bible was as follows:
      • 1. The Book must be written by a prophet or one of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. No books written after the last Apostles died are included in the canon. The criteria for determining a true prophet is found in Deut. 18:20-22, and 13:1-3.
        • (1) He must claim to speak what God has revealed to him.
          (2) The true Old Testament prophet of God must predict the future and it come to past exactly as prophesied.
          (3) His message must be in accord or harmony with the reveled word and will of God. If the message contradicts other Scripture, even if accompanied with miracles, he is to be rejected.
          (4) His message must be true and he must lead people toward God, not away from Him.
        In regard to the New Testament, a writer of Scripture must be an Apostle, being a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, or one who worked closely with Jesus or an Apostle such as James, Mark and Luke.

        2. It must be authoritative, meaning must claim to be revelation from God such as "thus saith the Lord." The book must show evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

        3. It must be authentic, meaning written by the person who claimed to the author.

        4. It must be widely or universally recognized and accepted as the Word of God. The early Christians accepted certain books as Scripture without question. They had first hand knowledge of their authenticity, were often taught by the Apostles and attested to the genuineness of certain books.

        5. It had life-transforming power. The Word of God when believed will without exception transform the life of the believer. That transformation will be super natural in nature and be directed toward living by the principles found in the God's Word.

        6. The book must give evidence of inspiration. In simple terms is what it says in agreement with the other books of the Bible. In other words is the book written in the analogy of the faith. If within the book where are found contradictions or inconsistencies with other parts of God's Word then it was rejected because God is the God of order and truth and cannot contradict Himself. The book must be accurate.
     
  5. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Part II.

    Most Bible scholars believe that the canon of the New Testament was complete by 100 A.D. That means that those who had first hand knowledge and were eye witnesses were those who recognized the canon of the twenty seven books of the New Testament. It was 200 years later that the twenty seven books of the New Testament were recognized by all as the canon. The main reason was that during that time new books written after 100 A.D appeared and were being offered as Scripture, but in the end the early recognition of the twenty seven books was confirmed and the spurious books were rejected.



    Can modern "scriptures" compare with the Bible? The Koran, the Book of Mormon, and a host of other so called "scriptures" have been presented as being later revelation from God. However, when these books are subjected to the even the simplest of tests they are found to be instead the product of man's imaginations, philosophy and false wisdom. None of the other false scriptures even come close to presenting God as does God Himself in His inspired Word. It is the text of each of these false "scriptures" that show them to be erroneous and this was the basis by with they were rejected.

    For example, Joseph Smith, the founder and author of of the Mormon scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), presents God as being an exalted man, who lived on some planet out in the universe, who earned the right to godhood by being faithful and doing good works. This is completely counter to everything that the Bible says about the person, nature and character of God. Further, there are irreconcilable contradictions between Mormon scriptures, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price which clearly establishes its human authorship. God does not contradict Himself as the LDS Standard Works do. For example the Book of Mormon states that God created the heavens and the earth, yet they teach that he was born a man on some planet out in the universe that already existed and that he has a mother and father who had a mother and father and so on back in time. Yet, how then could their god be the creator of the universe in which he was born into and only after a human life was exalted to becoming a god? The contradiction in their Scriptures shows its blatant error which give proof of its human authorship. The LDS Scriptures do not compare to the Bible on any level and are proven to be historically, culturally and doctrinally to be in gross error with known history, archaeology, and science, therefore it is shown not be be from God. In contrast the Bible is proven to be historically, culturally and doctrinally accurate in its statements proving it to be the Word of God.

    None of the "later" so-called scriptures can meet even one of the standards on which the canon of the Bible was established. This is an extremely powerful argument that God is not giving new revelation today.

    II. The Statements Against Adding or Taking Away from the Bible Speaks Against God Giving New Revelation.
    • Another strong reason for rejecting that modern day revelation is from God is taken from His very Word, the Bible.

      Note the following Bible passages that warn about adding or taking away from the Scriptures:
      • Deut. 4:2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

        Deut. 12:32, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

        Prov. 30:6, " Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
      Rev. 22:18-19, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

      When the canon of Scripture from God was complete God had said all He needed to say to man. This was true throughout the process of revelation. When Moses finished the Pentateuch under the inspiration of God there was no need of further revelation at that time. They had the Law and God's instruction to live their lives by. As time went on God through the other prophets revealed more and more truth about Himself and His plan for the World.

      This process of revelation continued until the whole of God's plan was completely revealed with the completion of the Book of Revelation. Some would try to limit the warning of not adding or taking away from the Scriptures to just that of the Book of Revelation. However, its place as the last Book of the Bible and its revealing of what was past, present and future makes this limitation implausible (Rev. 1:19). God not only revealed the truth of John's day in the Book of Revelation, but in 18 of its 22 Chapters reveals what the future will hold until the end of this age and to eternity future.
    III. The Completeness of the Bible Speaks Against God Giving New Revelation.




    • Another evidence for the completion of God's revelation is that the Bible is totally sufficient for all man's needs today. There is no need of any further revelation from God.

      2 Timothy 3:16-17 emphatically attest to the completeness and all sufficiency the scriptures. There is not one situation where man needs direction from God that cannot be found in the revealed principles of the Bible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
    IV. The Source of Modern Revelation speaks against it being from God.



    • Another evidence against accepting modern day revelation is the source of such purported revelation. In every case the man, group or denomination that supports accepting new revelation is in gross doctrinal error or a cult. It is a fact that every cult such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, or false religion such as Islam are based on modern supposed revelation. No true Bible believing individuals or churches are offering any new revelation, but are diligently and faithfully preaching what God has revealed in His preserved Word which is the sixty six books of the Bible. One unmistakable and recognizable trait of a false preacher or church is its acceptance of modern day revelation. In every case the new revelation leads men away from God's truth and thus into doctrinal error and away from God.

      If new revelation is not from God then where does it come from? Clearly it comes from delusions of deceived men and false prophets, but ultimately and clearly modern revelation does have a supernatural origin. However, the subtle and gross doctrinal errors of modern revelation is proof positive that its origin is the father of lies, Lucifer himself. Those who follow and purport modern revelation all claim they speak for God, but in truth will not be following God, but serving the Devil all the while claiming to lead me to God. In Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus warned for these false teachers saying "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."



      Deuteronomy 32:16-17, records how Israel rebelled against God and worshiped false gods. Verse 17, God says their offerings were sacrificed to devils and not to God. False revelation is false religion and false religion is of the Devil. Paul in the New Testament also plainly states this truth in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, says, "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

      Thus for these reasons all true Bible believing individuals and churches unequivocally reject that God is giving to men new revelation today.
     
  6. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Before anyone says anything, I am sorry he used the word 'cult' !!! He did explain why we do not believe in ongoing revelation at least. Thanks, and again sorry for that word, I know it is offensive and I apologize beforehand! I will have to post something on why people use that word, I know people sometimes will say, oh, no my sister is in a cult, we gotta go get her. Like David Koresh, now that was a cult. Anyway sorry for any offense.

    Thanks,

    Joeboonda


    Joeboonda
     
  7. NoName

    NoName Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +28
    Don't worry, I'm still here, lurking around in the darkness. I just don't post very often, and I haven't figured any other questions yet. :)

    Because:
    1) I think the discussion is weak, and that there's more than enough people here already.
    2) I am of the habit of taking all my question to the Abrahamic-Mormons thread. (Hmmm. Dejavu. It seems like I told you that already. :rolleyes: )
     
  8. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Ok, so the discussion is weak in your opinion fine, kinda rude, but, fine. You did tell me of that thread, thats kinda where I was directed to here from, lol. Perhaps I will get on over there sometime.

    Joeboonda
     
  9. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    Yeah, it was moved from there to here. I think that they wanted to keep the discussion seperate.
     
  10. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,466
    Ratings:
    +5,427
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I'd like to comment on Cooper Abrams' thoughts. I'm assuming, since you did not state otherwise, that you agree with them.

    Some "Biblical Christians" believe this. I am a Biblical Christian and I don't believe it. What evidence can you provide to support your thesis? The fact that that John's gospel and three epistles were written after Revelation is a clear indication that John himself did not consider the book of Revelation to be God's final word to man.

    In other words, the Bible is complete? Excuse me, but that's not what this verse is saying at all. All it's saying is that all scripture is revealed by God and is profitable and worthwhile. I don't disagree with that in the slightest. It doesn't say that "there is no need of further revelation." Read it. Tell me again where it says that.

    Abrams is stating his own opinion and presenting it as verifiable fact. And yet he provides no evidence to support his point of view. He is essentially saying nothing more than that if God wants to talk to us, He's free to do so. But we're not listening!

    Huh? Does Abrams even have a clue as to what was involved in finalizing the Biblical canon? Even though I do not personally accept the Apocrapha, I would never presume to make the preposterous statement that "all other supposed scripture has been universally rejected" when at least half of the world's Christians fully accept it as God's word.

    Very interesting. In my opinion, The Book of Mormon meets every one of these criteria.
     
  11. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,466
    Ratings:
    +5,427
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I'm sorry he used the word "cult," too. It says a lot more about him than it does about us. Part 2 of his article was filled with inacuracies and was pretty typical of a lot of the anti-Mormon literature we've seen for years and years. I'll try to get around to commenting on it when I can, but as you know, this is a busy time of the year.
     
  12. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    I only got this far before the entire argument of your article fell apart. The Book of Revelation is the last book in the bible, but it wasn't necessarily the last book written.

    That scripture doesn't say anything about the Bible being complete or adequate. It just defines the source and purpose of scripture. In fact, if this scripture was written before the book of Revelations (as the author claims), then using the analysis of the author the additional books in the Bible should be removed.

    How is this evidence of anything? This is a weak argument. You might as well say, "it's true because I said it's true."

    I would prefer to discover what books God had given by inspiration through revelation, but since God was done talking to us after he gave the book of Revelation I guess he couldn't be included in the process.

    The author needs to do some research. This isn't a doctrine from the Book of Mormon (as the author claims). If you were to read the Book of Mormon you would discover that the belief of Jesus Christ and God is likely exactly what you currently believe it to be. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that contradicts the bible. Also, the Mormon church does not teach that God created the universe that he was born into. We don't know where or when God was born, but it is obvious that he wasn't born into something that he created (Mormons would probably use the word "organized"). Plenty of non-Christians would disagree with the historical accuracy of the Bible and use the same argument that the author uses.

    Something that Christians don't seem to get about LDS teachings is that we believe just about everything that other Christians believe. There are some things that we define differently (such as the nature of God), but in the end our core beliefs are exactly the same. What Joseph Smith did was reveal additional knowledge. The beliefs of the LDS church do not necessarily contradict the beliefs of other Christians. I believe that the LDS church provides answers to many of the holes in other Christians beliefs.

    This argument shows ignorance in the history of the Bible (which the author does not necessarily have, but seems to hope that his readers will have).

    Nah. It's because accepting the revelations of people such as Joseph Smith would be admitting that they are wrong and that would hit them where it really hurts - in their bank accounts. ;)
     
  13. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    Hey Joe,

    I understand why you believe that God was done speaking when he finished the Bible, but why do you believe that he didn't speak to anyone outside of the area around Israel before that time. Most of the Book of Mormon was written at the same time as the Bible. We know that the different tribes of Israel were scattered. Do you not believe that it is possible that prophets from these other tribes continued to keep a record of their dealings with God, just as the Jews did? If they didn't continue to keep a record, why not? If they did, why wouldn't their record be valid scripture? Is it simply because the early Christians did not have access to it?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    HI all! Well, I am finaly off for a bit for Christmas! So, Merry Christmas everyone! Well, I enjoyed the answers to my post on reasons I believe the Bible is God's finished word to us. I understand your view of why it may not be. I have gone to church in many different states and in many denominations, (Protestant), and have always been taught and always understood the Bible to be complete, that God used the apostles, with signs, miracles, and wonders following to give us the Bible, and once it was complete, I believe many of these 'sign' gifts ceased. I still believe God inspired the writers and the men who put the whole Bible together, with Revelation being the end book about the end days, even if it wasn't necessarily the last book of the Bible written, I believe God had it put just where it should be, and that the Bible is complete. I feel that in Timothy scripture interprets scripture so to speak, that it is saying that the Bible contains everything we need to be 'perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works'. However, I did enjoy your replies, I am not sure how to answer you, jonny, about why couldn't have God spoken to ppl outside the area of Israel, I figure, they are God's chosen ppl, through whom he gave us His Word through the prophets and then Jesus and the apostles. I am sure the scattered tribes took scripture with them, and had books about the scripture, but I believe God was very careful to preserve His Word as we have it in the Bible. What do you mean about the BOM being written at the same time as the Bible? I thought Joseph Smith wrote it in the early 1800's. Perhaps I show my ignorance, but I don't quite follow you. Katzpur said something about that Joseph Smith met all the criterion of a prophet, but I am not sure he was always right. Some things he said were later changed by other presidents of the church, and he changed things in the Bible, like that Lot offering his daughters in place of the angels, it seems like if it contradicts scripture, it is not right to me. Ah, anyway, I am glad you read my post, and I thank you for the responses. If you don't care, I may throw out some more stuff and see what you think of it. Not as an 'attack' on your beliefs, but more to see if I can understand what you say are the many misconceptions out there about Mormonism. I may look at the whole thing of where many say you believe in a different Jesus than we, because of your idea that God was once a man and then became God by his own effort that I have been taught you believe. If this is so, then our God, who we believe has always been God, would be different, and his Son, whom we say is the only begotten of the Father, (and you do too), but you say he and Satan and, all of us, are spirit brothers, I don't know, its just different in a way. I will try to post some stuff while I am off. I know its busy, busy, busy right now, and I hope everyone enjoys this time with their friends and family. I am so glad for the gift God gave us in the baby born in a manger, I know you are too! Merry Christmas!

    Sincerely,

    Joeboonda
     
  15. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
      • Ok, here is a short piece, tell me what you think of this...
        Who came first,
        God or man?

        An important question
        for Mormons





    • There are many serious problems with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). The most somber is their teachings about their god. Joseph Smith in inventing his new religion made some colossal errors in his thinking. For example let us look at LDS Church's teaching concerning who is God.

      The title of this paper may seem like a foolish question until you investigate the teachings of the LDS church about the god they worship. According to teachings of the LDS Church, the god of earth is an exalted man of flesh and bone. The official statement is: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's. . ." (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22 -The D& C is an official LDS Scripture) Joseph Smith taught about a process he called "eternal progression" by which a man could become a god. He explained that the god of Mormonism, through "eternal progression" became the god of our earth.

      God according to the LDS church began as a man, who lived a "worthy" life and was faithful to the god of the world he lived on. When he died he was resurrected to what they call the "Celestial" heaven, and there was made a god and given this earth to rule. This certainly brings up a puzzling and valid question: Who came first....God or Man?

      Your answer, either way, has serious ramifications for Mormonism. If you say God came first then you have a real problem, because according the LDS teaching....the god of earth is an exalted man and that means god was a man before he was a god. If you answer is man came first that presents an enormous problem too because that means man created god? Do you see the point?

      The plain fact is that the LDS church is teaching that man came first.... That also contradicts the Book of Mormon which says in Alma 22:12 "And it came to pass that when Aaron saw that the king would believe his words, he began from the creation of Adam, reading the scriptures unto the king -- how God created man after his own image, and that God gave him commandments, and that because of transgression, man had fallen." Did you know that nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it even hint that God is a god of "flesh and bone" and in no LDS scriptures is eternal progression mentioned?

      The only answer is the biblical answer which correctly says that "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth." Further on the sixth day God created man. . . "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:1, 26-27)

      So the Bible, God's word, answers the question and states that in the beginning, ...before the universe and earth existed, God created everything. Then on the sixth day of creation He created man and before the sixth day....man did not exist! Further it says that man was created complete exactly as he is today.

      The Bible also says some other important things about God that totally contradict the teaching of the LDS church. The Bible says that God has always existed and has no beginning or end. The Bible says God is the "Eternal God." (Genesis 21:33) This means that God existed before the universe and the earth and that He is not subject to time as are material men in our physical world. God created time when He made the heavens and the Earth (Gen. 1:1-2, Heb. 1:2, 11:3). Psalm 102:27, says "thou art the same, and thy years have no end" (see Heb. 13:18, James 1:17). God tells us in the Bible, that He created time, space, the earth, the heaven, and exists beyond them, and that is not subject to either.

      Yes, it is true that the LDS church says in the BOM and D&C that their god is eternal. However, this is impossible according to their teachings. Why, because their god was not always a god. The teach that their god was a man before he was a god and that even now he is a god of "flesh and bone."

      The actual teaching of the LDS church is that their god first existed as an "intelligence" who did not have a body but only existed as a formless intelligence somewhere the regions of space. This bodiless "intelligence" then acquired a "spirit body" when he was born as a "spirit child" in heaven to the LDS Heavenly Father by one of his wives. This once "intelligence," now with a spirit body, continued in eternal progression and received a human body when the Heavenly Father allowed him to go to earth and be born to human parents. The god of earth, according to LDS teaching, was once a man who lived on some planet out in the universe, who because he was faithful and worthy, after he died and was resurrected into a Celestial heaven and became a god of flesh and bone. Next this once intelligence, then spirit child, then man and now resurrected man, became a god of flesh and bone. This man-god then was given the rule of this earth by the counsel of gods that meet near the center of the universe near the star Kolob. Clearly the LDS god was not eternally god as they claim, but a man who lived in time and became a god-man. Therefore the LDS god existed first as a man before he became their god.

      This presents a serious problem for LDS church who tells its members that they worship the eternal God of the Bible. The truth is that Joseph Smith who is the founder of the LDS church invented their god and he most definitely is not the God of the Bible.

      Therefore the answer according to the LDS Church is that MAN CAME FIRST.



      God explains in Romans 1:21-23 how the teachings of false gods came about:
      • "Because 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. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things" (Romans 1:21-23).
     
  16. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    Well, I guess your anti-Mormon websites got it wrong again, joe.

    God came first, not man.

    Nice try.
     
  17. joeboonda

    joeboonda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,780
    Ratings:
    +200
    Anti Mormon is a strong word, but ok. Can you elaborate on what you mean? Do you not believe that as God once was man is, and as God is man may become?

    Joeboonda
     
  18. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    For all intents and purposes there is only one God (Alpha and Omega....the beginning and the end, etc.) and to us he has been, is, and always will be God. We worship Him. He is our Father. And we hope to return to Him some day.
     
  19. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,466
    Ratings:
    +5,427
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Joe,

    Here's what I said to you in another post. I think it should shed some light on the claims you have made:

    The Bible says that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." I'm sure you will agree that there was obviously a time when our universe did not exist. Whenever that was, it was before the beginning, "before the clock starting ticking," so to speak. We know that God existed before the creation took place. What was He doing in the eons of time before He created our universe and everything in it? The Bible doesn't tell us, because it is only a record of the period time since "the beginning."

    Unlike other Christians, we have a belief about what God may have been before the beginning, at a period of time not mentioned in the Bible. If you want to get technical, this belief is not even canonical. In other words, it can't be found anywhere in our "Standard Works." It's based on a couple of statements from men we believe to have been prophets of God -- Joseph Smith, Jr. and Lorenzo Snow). Neither one of them elaborated on their comments much at all, so we are left with little to go on. It's something that is believed by most Latter-day Saints, but it is not something you hear taught in LDS worship services. You could attend "Mormon Church" services every Sunday for over 50 years and never hear a talk (i.e sermon) or a Sunday School lesson on God's beginnings. I can tell you that from experience.

    As to the word "everlasting," as used to describe God's existance in the Bible, this word is translated from the Greek word "aion," (the Hebrew being "olam") meaning "age." Most of the time, when you see the words "forever" or "eternal" in the Bible, the original reading would have been "to the end of the age" or just "to the age." Thus, when the Bible says that God is Alpha and Omega, or the First and the Last, it is saying that He is the only being who exists from the first moment of creation forward. There are other instances in the scriptures when the word "everlasting" is used to describe things we as human beings know for a fact have existed only since God created them. (I'll come up with some examples if you'd like.) All I'm really trying to do here is explain our understanding of the word that seems to be causing the friction between us.
     
  20. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,466
    Ratings:
    +5,427
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Joe,

    This is from the opening post of a thread I started quite some time ago. I believe it should answer your question about God allowing man to progress throughout eternity:

    Through the scriptures, we learn that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations. (See Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21)

    In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and than later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

    The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology states, “Deification (Greek theosis) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is made in the image and likeness of God…. It is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become god by grace.”

    And finally, the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said (in his book Mere Christianity):
    “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

    None of this means that we will ever be equal to God. We won't. We will always worship Him and He will always be our God. Nor does it mean that we could ever hope to attain godhood on our own. We couldn't. It is only through the grace of God that we are given the potential to become like Him someday. If you believe this is impossible, you are limiting not only man's potential, but God's potential, too.
     
Loading...