Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith

[withwonderingawe]

Getting back to the topic at hand, I watch the first half min and right off there is a lie perpetuated by the anti Mormons. The movie moves to fast for me to capture it all but they say about Jesus,

“Jesus Christ a man who claimed to be God …. did he become a God through the faithful keeping of his ordinances or has he always been God.”

The idea they are trying to express is that we believe that Jesus was a created being/man meaning something from nothing, who worked his way to Godhood but that’s a false notion we don’t believe that. Jesus always existed and was always God or God like because he was always perfect in his righteousness but he simply lack a glorified immortal body which his Father in Heaven had.

“ Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” Heb 5:9

And there is another false notion in there Jesus never claimed to be God but the Son of God. It was the Jews who accused him of making himself equal with God but he made it very clear that the Son does nothing but what he sees the Father do putting himself in a lower position than the Father.

If Jesus was God in the trinity view point then why would he have learn obedience and be made perfect? It’s totally illogical.

They then quote our Gospel Principle manual saying that Jesus is our elder brother as if somehow that is wrong. When Jesus came forth from the grave he said to Mary;

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” John 20

What more can I say?

They then quote Col 1:16 and claim it says that Jesus is the God who created all things even the angels but let’s look at it in context. And remember the word ‘things’ is not actually in the original passage it was add later on. You are suppose to understand what things he created by the context of the passage.

“Giving thanks unto the Father, …Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Who is the image of the unseen God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and unseen, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all were created by him, and for him”

It was Yahweh/Jesus the firstborn making him our elder brother who decides what is going to happen on this earth. He ordained Jeremiah a prophet before he was born so while he was unseen to the human eye. He preplanned Nebuchadnezzar and all the kingdoms right down to the last one before they were in the world.

What more can I say except we’re right and you are wrong!

 

[GracetotheHumble]

What more can I say except we’re right and you are wrong!

I think you better watch the entire video and do some more research.

Remember the Churches creeds and doctrines were set hundreds of years before Smith.

 

[withwonderingawe]

I think you better watch the entire video and do some more research.

Remember the Churches creeds and doctrines were set hundreds of years before Smith.

I’m glad you realize the brand of Christianity you follow is only a few hundred years old and not the original Gospel taught by Christ.

 

[GracetotheHumble]

I’m glad you realize the brand of Christianity you follow is only a few hundred years old and not the original Gospel taught by Christ.

The original gospel was taught by Christ in the first century. We do our best to follow it. I doubt anyone has it down perfectly.

 

[FredVB]

What matters is observing what we are told to do from God's word, which is the Bible, not any writing that is contradicting it.

 

[Ironhold]

What matters is observing what we are told to do from God's word, which is the Bible, not any writing that is contradicting it.

...which gets back to "Prove that there's a contradiction, and then we'll talk."

 

[ToBeLoved]

The original gospel was taught by Christ in the first century. We do our best to follow it. I doubt anyone has it down perfectly.

Yet you doubt the very same Bible that documented Jesus life. The same Bible that his disciples were documented in?

So did Joseph Smith tell you all about Jesus then?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Yet you doubt the very same Bible that documented Jesus life. The same Bible that his disciples were documented in?

So did Joseph Smith tell you all about Jesus then?

*Yet you doubt the very same Bible that documented Jesus life. The same Bible that his disciples were documented in?

Our Article of Faith on this subject reads;

“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.”

Anyone who knows anything at all about the Bible knows there are miss translations, some accidental and some deliberate.

A little interesting example;

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” Matt 5:22, KJV

When Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon he found the same sermon given to the people on his continent by the Savior but he says it this way.

“ But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment”

The ‘without cause’ is left out. Joseph also leaves it out when he makes his adjustments to the New Testament.

I’m going to refer you to a paper found at BYU’s Religious Studies Center called Adding and Taking Away “Without a Cause” in Matthew 5:22 by Daniel K Judd and Allen W. Stoddard

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/adding-and-taking-away-without-cause-matthew-522

They go through the very long history of how ‘without cause’ was either added or omitted to the different Bibles. The phrase is not found in the oldest copies of Matthew and I’ve noticed that most of the newer translations omit it.

The point is with 25 year old Joseph Smith’s limited background and knowledge about the Bible and history of Christianity in general he would not have known about the conflict. He grew up reading a KJV and there is no evidence that he ever saw any of the early versions of the Bible like the Wycliffe Bibles (1382) and the Tyndale Bible (1526) which omitted it.

*So did Joseph Smith tell you all about Jesus then?

Well as my answer to the video says, God the Father is our Father and Jesus is our elder brother. They are two distinct individuals and not some illogical being without body parts and passion. What he did is open up the scriptures so that we have a better understanding of them.

1John 2
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

1 John 4
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1John 3
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

The Trinity concept denies the father son relationship which exists between the Father and His Son.

The first passage is aimed at the Jews who no longer worshiped El as their God and Father. Malachi pleaded with them “ Have we not all one father? hath not one God/El created us?” He accused them of worshiping “ the daughter of a strange God” . They had wielded El and Yahweh into one being. This is why they would not recognize Jesus as their Messiah or the Son of El, why they tried to stone him. John is saying that to have a true knowledge of God is to acknowledge the exists of both the Father and the Son as individuals. The Trinity concept tries really hard to do that but fails for it insist they are one being rather than two united in one purpose.

Another point is with the Trinity the Father has no gender but is an ‘it’ and an ‘it’ is not a Father. When the Father appears to those who are designated “sons of God” we will see that He is like us, that we are truly made in His image.

 

[Albion]

*Yet you doubt the very same Bible that documented Jesus life. The same Bible that his disciples were documented in?

Our Article of Faith on this subject reads;

“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.”

It really doesn't matter that you translate the Bible differently from other churches. That you have another book which is considered by your people -- and quite openly affirmed in your post -- the "word of God," is the big issue. Even if the Book of Mormon were NOT bogus, subscribing to its contents as divine revelation amounts to believing in a different religion.

 

[withwonderingawe]

It really doesn't matter that you translate the Bible differently from other churches. That you have another book which is considered by your people -- and quite openly affirmed in your post -- the "word of God," is the big issue. Even if the Book of Mormon were NOT bogus, subscribing to its contents as divine revelation amounts to believing in a different religion.

I’ve shown using the Bible that the theory of the Trinity is bogus, does that not bother you?

 

[Albion]

I’ve shown using the Bible that the theory of the Trinity is bogus, does that not bother you?

No. The world is full of people who are wrong about that. I'm not going to hold it against you in particular.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Our Article of Faith on this subject reads;

“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.”

Anyone who knows anything at all about the Bible knows there are miss translations, some accidental and some deliberate.

A little interesting example;

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” Matt 5:22, KJV

When Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon he found the same sermon given to the people on his continent by the Savior but he says it this way.

“ But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment”

The ‘without cause’ is left out. Joseph also leaves it out when he makes his adjustments to the New Testament.

I’m going to refer you to a paper found at BYU’s Religious Studies Center called Adding and Taking Away “Without a Cause” in Matthew 5:22 by Daniel K Judd and Allen W. Stoddard

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/adding-and-taking-away-without-cause-matthew-522

They go through the very long history of how ‘without cause’ was either added or omitted to the different Bibles. The phrase is not found in the oldest copies of Matthew and I’ve noticed that most of the newer translations omit it.

The point is with 25 year old Joseph Smith’s limited background and knowledge about the Bible and history of Christianity in general he would not have known about the conflict. He grew up reading a KJV and there is no evidence that he ever saw any of the early versions of the Bible like the Wycliffe Bibles (1382) and the Tyndale Bible (1526) which omitted it.

*So did Joseph Smith tell you all about Jesus then?

Well as my answer to the video says, God the Father is our Father and Jesus is our elder brother. They are two distinct individuals and not some illogical being without body parts and passion. What he did is open up the scriptures so that we have a better understanding of them.

1John 2
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

1 John 4
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1John 3
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

The Trinity concept denies the father son relationship which exists between the Father and His Son.

The first passage is aimed at the Jews who no longer worshiped El as their God and Father. Malachi pleaded with them “ Have we not all one father? hath not one God/El created us?” He accused them of worshiping “ the daughter of a strange God” . They had wielded El and Yahweh into one being. This is why they would not recognize Jesus as their Messiah or the Son of El, why they tried to stone him. John is saying that to have a true knowledge of God is to acknowledge the exists of both the Father and the Son as individuals. The Trinity concept tries really hard to do that but fails for it insist they are one being rather than two united in one purpose.

Another point is with the Trinity the Father has no gender but is an ‘it’ and an ‘it’ is not a Father. When the Father appears to those who are designated “sons of God” we will see that He is like us, that we are truly made in His image.

If you're so worried about mis-translations, why not go back to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic?
Do you know how idiotic that whole point sounds? Why not just own it and say that you do not want to follow the Bible. God loves honesty.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I’ve shown using the Bible that the theory of the Trinity is bogus, does that not bother you?

You don't even believe the Bible. lol.

You are kidding us, right?

 

[ToBeLoved]

It really doesn't matter that you translate the Bible differently from other churches. That you have another book which is considered by your people -- and quite openly affirmed in your post -- the "word of God," is the big issue. Even if the Book of Mormon were NOT bogus, subscribing to its contents as divine revelation amounts to believing in a different religion.

Especially after the Biblical cannon closed, some 1600 years later.

 

[smaneck]

Especially after the Biblical cannon closed, some 1600 years later.

On Oliver Cromwell's authority?

 

[Albion]

That post was a bit confusing, but I think ToBeLoved was saying that the Book of Mormon made its appearance 1600 years after the canon closed.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You don't even believe the Bible. lol.

You are kidding us, right?

Mormons do believe in the Bible, and study it frequently. They do have a different understanding of it though (like WonderingAwe's Trinity examples), and don't believe that it's the only word of God (i.e. closed cannon).

 

[ToBeLoved]

Mormons do believe in the Bible, and study it frequently. They do have a different understanding of it though (like WonderingAwe's Trinity examples), and don't believe that it's the only word of God (i.e. closed cannon).

Of course.

I find that ironic though to use a book that you find only somewhat authoritative if translated correctly, although we have the originals in manuscript to prove a Christians understanding wrong of the Trinity using a book most Christians find to be the only authority.

That's irony. Lol. Some good ole Monday irony.

 

[drstevej]

Mormons do believe in the Bible, and study it frequently. They do have a different understanding of it though (like WonderingAwe's Trinity examples), and don't believe that it's the only word of God (i.e. closed cannon).

The Mormons (JST) changes the Bible with NO manuscript support (ex. Romans 8:30). They excise an entire book (Song of Solomon).

 

[Ironhold]

They excise an entire book (Song of Solomon).

You know that this is an inaccurate statement.

The church uses the KJV as the main English-language text, with the JST revisions and notes confined to the footnotes and appendix. No books have been physically removed from the main text.

Please quit making this claim.