LDS LDS, The Father, and the Trinity

[BigDaddy4]

BigDaddy4:
Smith has claimed he saw a spirit, an angel, 2 angels, many angels, Jesus, Jesus and God. Seems like he's confused to me.

The reason JS wrote his history, which included the first vision, was because so many erroneous reports were flying around the country as to what had happened. You have to believe the excitement in the air, when a young man steps forward and says that he saw God and that he was told the true church of Jesus Christ was not on the earth at the time. Wow, what a sensational story, right? Well, you know that was not going to sit well with the well established churches of the day and so many interesting and false stories started to circulate.

Only the "official" account was about 18 years after the fact. And contradicts what is previously recorded, including in his own handwriting. That alone should be sending red flags up the lds flagpole. Smith himself contributed to any "false stories" that may have been circulating. He couldn't even figure it out!

But it is true that JS saw God and Jesus

Then you are calling Jesus a liar. I wouldn't want to have to account for that on judgment day!

, he also saw many angels, he also saw resurrected angels and spirit beings, but it was not confusing except if one tries hard to make it confusing. The heavens were again communicating with earth in a direct manner and bringing the true church of Jesus Christ back to the earth. For instance, one of the reasons I am a Mormon is because when JS was translating the BOM, he translated an event where priests were baptizing people, and it came to his mind that this could be a possibility with his situation, but he knew he had never been to a pastor school and had not been trained for the ministry, so he felt like he was not authorized to baptize. So he and his friend that was helping him translate went to pray about these things, and while they were praying John the Baptist appeared to them and gave them the authority to baptize. (The Aaronic Priesthood), then a few months later, Peter, James, and John, the 3 pillars of the church at Jesus's time, appeared to them and layed their hands on their heads and gave them the Melchisedec Priesthood and the same keys that Peter received from Jesus himself. If this doesn't happen, I am not a Mormon. If JS does not see God and Jesus and other angels, I am not a Mormon. It is because of these things, that I am a Mormon.

If so, you are a mormon under false pretenses. The Aaronic priesthood was for Israel and was replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, of whom Jesus is the only priest. Peter, James, and John did not have this priesthood and did not have the authority to give it away. Again, satan can only imitate, not create.

BigDaddy4:
An actual heavenly encounter? Nope. Doesn't pass the Scripture sniff test like the Bereans (Acts 17:11).

So you say it doesn't pass the scripture sniff test and then you refer us to Acts 17:11? These are people reading the scriptures, but only the OT because the NT didn't even exist yet. I'm not sure how that supports one way or the other that the first vision of Joseph Smith passes a scripture sniff test.

What does that matter? The OT scriptures proved Jesus was the Messiah. The point is, they tested what was said to them. had Joseph done so, it would have failed such a test.

Maybe you should have referred us to Moses, when he first saw God, but all he saw was a burning bush and out of the burning bush words entered his mind and he knew the mind and will of God. Now if you had compared Moses's vision to Joseph Smith's vision then you could have said, hey, wait a minute, Joseph didn't say anything about a burning bush, so this couldn't have been a true vision because it doesn't pass the Moses-vision-scripture-sniff-test. Now, I have a pretty good idea why you didn't refer us to Moses, and it is because then in order for any prophet's vision of God to pass the scripture sniff test, there would have had to be a burning bush present, and we know that didn't happen ever again, so you referred us to people reading the OT. Acts 17:11 doesn't claim they were seeing a vision of God or anything of the sorts, so can you explain to me why JS's first vision did not pass the scripture sniff test per Acts 17:11?

Why would I refer you to Moses when he didn't have any scriptures to test (i.e, the Law)? Nor did he have instructions on identifying a false prophet. Your reaching due to your position of weakness.

BigDaddy4:
Sniff, sniff. No one has seen God. (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, John 5:37, 1 Timothy 6:16, Exodus 33:20, among others)

How many scriptures can I quote you where God the Father has been seen by men? I can think of 2.
So who is lying? We are both using the bible. So who is lying?
Let's take a closer look at Acts 7:55-56
55 But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man (Jesus) standing on the right hand of God.

So in 55 Stephen not only sees the glory of God the Father, but also sees Jesus standing on the right hand of God the Father. In 56 Stephen then tells the Jews what he sees, and it is that he sees Jesus standing on the right side of God the Father. It must have been important to God the Father and Jesus to make sure the 2 of them were seen together, side by side, because the same thing is said twice in 2 verses in the bible, one after the other, for emphasis. God the Father did that so the Christian world would know Him and that He, in His glory, had been seen, and that He and His Son Jesus are 2 separate and distinct individuals.

Good scripture to support fundamental nature of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Also now, at least 1 man has seen God the Father and Jesus together.

Re-read. Stephen saw Jesus and God's glory, NOT God Himself!

The second man to see Him is John, the Relvelator.
See Rev. 4:2-3
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne (God the Father).
3 And he that sat (God the Father) was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

Your interjections (God the Father) into the scripture are cute, but incorrect. Read Rev. 4:11 where the creatures are worshipping he who sits on the throne:

“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”

Who created all things? Jesus! See John Chapter 1 to help you out.

See also Rev. 5:5 & 7 to show that God the Father and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals:
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, (Jesus) hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
7 And he (Jesus) came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne (God the Father).

Clearly, this is the second man to see God the Father and Jesus together.

Selective texts do not support your position. It is clear you do not understand this. Jesus is still the one sitting on the throne. Did God the Father and Jesus suddenly swap seats from Chapter 4 to Chapter 5?

BigDaddy4
All the more confirms Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. A true prophet of God relies on God, not himself or a gun to protect him.

All of the apostles of Jesus Christ died horribly, I guess if they had been true apostles, God would have protected them. This is a silly statement, just like yours. Sometimes God allows his servants to be murdered so as to seal their testimonies with their blood. JS sealed his testimony with his blood.

The apostles knew they would face brutal deaths beforehand. They went willingly, as their Lord did, as a testimony to Christ, without weapons, lest their testimony be invalidated. Smith was not testifying about Christ when he died. He was defending his life, not the gospel, trusting a gun instead of God.

 

[fatboys]

Only the "official" account was about 18 years after the fact. And contradicts what is previously recorded, including in his own handwriting. That alone should be sending red flags up the lds flagpole. Smith himself contributed to any "false stories" that may have been circulating. He couldn't even figure it out!


Then you are calling Jesus a liar. I wouldn't want to have to account for that on judgment day!



If so, you are a mormon under false pretenses. The Aaronic priesthood was for Israel and was replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, of whom Jesus is the only priest. Peter, James, and John did not have this priesthood and did not have the authority to give it away. Again, satan can only imitate, not create.




What does that matter? The OT scriptures proved Jesus was the Messiah. The point is, they tested what was said to them. had Joseph done so, it would have failed such a test.



Why would I refer you to Moses when he didn't have any scriptures to test (i.e, the Law)? Nor did he have instructions on identifying a false prophet. Your reaching due to your position of weakness.


Re-read. Stephen saw Jesus and God's glory, NOT God Himself!



Your interjections (God the Father) into the scripture are cute, but incorrect. Read Rev. 4:11 where the creatures are worshipping he who sits on the throne:

“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”

Who created all things? Jesus! See John Chapter 1 to help you out.



Selective texts do not support your position. It is clear you do not understand this. Jesus is still the one sitting on the throne. Did God the Father and Jesus suddenly swap seats from Chapter 4 to Chapter 5?



The apostles knew they would face brutal deaths beforehand. They went willingly, as their Lord did, as a testimony to Christ, without weapons, lest their testimony be invalidated. Smith was not testifying about Christ when he died. He was defending his life, not the gospel, trusting a gun instead of God.

Stop with the first vision accounts. If it bothers you that they are different think about the audiences he was speaking to. Think about the point he was trying to get across. If th accounts were exactly the same you would not be happy with that. They were too rehearsed. There should have been some differences. Holy cow think about the accounts in the bible so stop

 

[Ironhold]

Stop with the first vision accounts. If it bothers you that they are different think about the audiences he was speaking to. Think about the point he was trying to get across. If th accounts were exactly the same you would not be happy with that. They were too rehearsed. There should have been some differences. Holy cow think about the accounts in the bible so stop

Plus, remember that when someone has a massive, shocking event happen to them, it can take a while to recall everything that happened.

This happened with me a few years ago when I was witness to a fatal traffic accident. Thanks to the adrenaline and whatnot, it took me a few days to remember details I'd noticed but had straight-up forgotten about in the confusion.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Stop with the first vision accounts. If it bothers you that they are different think about the audiences he was speaking to. Think about the point he was trying to get across. If th accounts were exactly the same you would not be happy with that. They were too rehearsed. There should have been some differences. Holy cow think about the accounts in the bible so stop

If one can't get the foundation of your religion right, what does that say about the rest of it?

Gordon B. Hinckley - the current Prophet of the Mormon Church stated the following: "We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, "Yes, sir. That's the miracle of it." That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens." (General Conference Oct. 2002)

It's the foundation of your religion. If it didn't happen, then your religion crumbles into nothing. So of course you have to believe it and try to defend it. Or, in your case, dismiss any evidence against it as no big deal.

 

[fatboys]

If one can't get the foundation of your religion right, what does that say about the rest of it?

Gordon B. Hinckley - the current Prophet of the Mormon Church stated the following: "We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, "Yes, sir. That's the miracle of it." That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens." (General Conference Oct. 2002)

It's the foundation of your religion. If it didn't happen, then your religion crumbles into nothing. So of course you have to believe it and try to defend it. Or, in your case, dismiss any evidence against it as no big deal.

He is actually dead a few years ago. President Monson is the prophet today. It doesn't make any difference if the accounts are not perfect word for word. Again think of the times he was in. Think of the audience he was speaking to. Joseph Smith did not have a very long life. The account that was written later on is the account he wanted the world to know. The earlier accounts were given I trouble perilous times. He finally told most of what happened during the visitation so there would no longer be any question about what really happened. You don't have to accept this. There are no words I can give you that would convince you other wise. If you really want to know get on your knees and ask God iof it is true. But you have to have a sincere heart and know that if you get an answer you are going to seek more truth

 

[BigDaddy4]

Plus, remember that when someone has a massive, shocking event happen to them, it can take a while to recall everything that happened.

This happened with me a few years ago when I was witness to a fatal traffic accident. Thanks to the adrenaline and whatnot, it took me a few days to remember details I'd noticed but had straight-up forgotten about in the confusion.

Yes, I'm sure that's the same exact thing. A horrible tragedy vs. a heavenly encounter. Sheesh! Confusing God with an angel, or angels, or Jesus, or ... ? Multiple versions. This isn't a matter of a few days. The "official" version was written 18 YEARS after the supposed encounter and not taught within the church until 4 years after that. And very little mention of it prior to 1835.

 

[BigDaddy4]

He is actually dead a few years ago. President Monson is the prophet today. It doesn't make any difference if the accounts are not perfect word for word. Again think of the times he was in. Think of the audience he was speaking to. Joseph Smith did not have a very long life. The account that was written later on is the account he wanted the world to know. The earlier accounts were given I trouble perilous times. He finally told most of what happened during the visitation so there would no longer be any question about what really happened. You don't have to accept this. There are no words I can give you that would convince you other wise. If you really want to know get on your knees and ask God iof it is true. But you have to have a sincere heart and know that if you get an answer you are going to seek more truth

So because Hinkley is dead, his words are not true anymore? There are plenty of past so-called "prophets, seers, and revelators" who have said similar things. You blame "perilous times". I say it a demonic encounter, or at the very least, it never happened and he made it up.

Are you assuming I have asked God about it? Shame on you for assuming!

 

[Ironhold]

Yes, I'm sure that's the same exact thing. A horrible tragedy vs. a heavenly encounter. Sheesh! Confusing God with an angel, or angels, or Jesus, or ... ? Multiple versions. This isn't a matter of a few days. The "official" version was written 18 YEARS after the supposed encounter and not taught within the church until 4 years after that. And very little mention of it prior to 1835.

Any reason for all the snark and put-downs?

 

[Peter1000]

If one can't get the foundation of your religion right, what does that say about the rest of it?

Gordon B. Hinckley - the current Prophet of the Mormon Church stated the following: "We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, "Yes, sir. That's the miracle of it." That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens." (General Conference Oct. 2002)

It's the foundation of your religion. If it didn't happen, then your religion crumbles into nothing. So of course you have to believe it and try to defend it. Or, in your case, dismiss any evidence against it as no big deal.

You are exactly correct. We will be happy to continue discussion about the first vision. As with Paul the apostle, his vision of Jesus Christ was his central theme. So is this vision to our central theme. And as President Hinckley said, if JS really saw the Father and the Son, It is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens. If not, then this work is a fraud.

 

[Peter1000]

So because Hinkley is dead, his words are not true anymore? There are plenty of past so-called "prophets, seers, and revelators" who have said similar things. You blame "perilous times". I say it a demonic encounter, or at the very least, it never happened and he made it up.

Are you assuming I have asked God about it? Shame on you for assuming!

There was a demonic experience, that was thwarted by a heavenly experience. If JS really did see the Father and the Son then it is the most important thing that has happened in the world since the death of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Your tradition will not let you even investigate it by going to the source of all truth. If you say you will not even consider asking Jesus if the encounter is true, then so be it.

I wonder what you would have done if you were a Jewish person at the time of Christ and your Jewish leaders continually taught you that Jesus was demonic, using the power of satan to do his miracles. Would you have prayed about that, or refused because your leaders were so righteous and good and your religion had been established for thousands of years by Moses. So blindly listening to them in stead of going to the source and asking? Would you have believed in Jesus, even seeing him in the flesh?

You investigate JS only to find negatives. When the negatives are explained to you, you immediately dismiss them as blind, and duped adherents to JS. There is no true investigation, no true sincere desire. No asking God, the true source. Therefore, no answer. It will be your loss. Like I say, Mormon doctrine gives us an advantage against satan in this sinful world.

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, I'm sure that's the same exact thing. A horrible tragedy vs. a heavenly encounter. Sheesh! Confusing God with an angel, or angels, or Jesus, or ... ? Multiple versions. This isn't a matter of a few days. The "official" version was written 18 YEARS after the supposed encounter and not taught within the church until 4 years after that. And very little mention of it prior to 1835.

Where are you getting your information from? You do realize that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between 50-90 AD. This is 18-57 years after the resurrection of Jesus. So don't be too hard on JS. There was a whole generation of people that died and did not have anything but oral traditions to lean on about Jesus. You know how oral traditions can be altered by time.

 

[Peter1000]

BigDaddy4 says:
What does that matter? The OT scriptures proved Jesus was the Messiah. The point is, they tested what was said to them. had Joseph done so, it would have failed such a test.

Could you explain to me how JS first vision does not pass the scripture sniff test based on Acts 17:11 slowly, I'm not getting what you are saying?

BigDaddy4:
Re-read. Stephen saw Jesus and God's glory, NOT God Himself!

Answer these 2 questions:
Did Stephen see Jesus's whole body and face?
Does Jesus have the same glory as His God, God the Father?


BigDaddy4:
Your interjections (God the Father) into the scripture are cute, but incorrect. Read Rev. 4:11 where the creatures are worshipping he who sits on the throne:

“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”

Who created all things? Jesus! See John Chapter 1 to help you out.

So you are saying that "he who sits on the throne" in chapter 4 is Jesus, because it describes this person as the one that created all things...

Now read Hebrews 1:2
2 (God the Father) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son (Jesus), whom he (God the Father) hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he (God the Father) made the worlds;
God the Father is the creator of all things and he did it through and by Jesus His Son. Although Jesus did all the heavy work, God the Father chose Jesus to do the work of creation. Kind of like developer (God the Father) choosing the building contractor (Jesus) to do the building. When the building is done, it is the developer that gets all the accolades, but the contractor receives lots of kudos too.

So I say "he who sits on the throne" in chapter 4 is God the Father.

I confirm that because the same God the Father "who is sitting on the throne" is the same person in chpater 5 "who is sitting on the throne", handing a book to Jesus, who is standing in from of "him that sitting on the throne.

So "him that is sitting on the throne" is God the Father in 4 and 5 and Jesus is standing in front of "him who sits on the throne" recieving a book from "he that sits of the throne".

BigDaddy4:
Did God the Father and Jesus suddenly swap seats from Chapter 4 to 5?

The answer to your question is no. God the Father is the "one sitting on the throne" in both 4 & 5.

If Jesus were the "one sitting on the throne" in chapter 5, he would have to hand the book somehow to himself and simultaneously receive it, while also standing in front of the "one sitting on the throne" (which you say is Jesus). John did not see that. In fact that would be quite a feat, even for Jesus to pull off.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Guess will have to dismiss Paul's account too

 

[BigDaddy4]

Any reason for all the snark and put-downs?

Your comparision was not even in the ballpark. A fatal car accident vs. a supposed encounter with a heavenly being?? One is bad, really bad. The other should be really good, a monumentally memorable event. But one that your founder couldn't seem to get straight. And not for several years after the alleged event occurred.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You are exactly correct. We will be happy to continue discussion about the first vision. As with Paul the apostle, his vision of Jesus Christ was his central theme. So is this vision to our central theme. And as President Hinckley said, if JS really saw the Father and the Son, It is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens. If not, then this work is a fraud.

Huge difference. Paul's encounter changed his life and was immediately verified by Ananias. He proceeded to preach the Gospel, the same Gospel as the Apostles. JS, not so much. No confirmation by anyone, not talked about by his followers for years, different gospel. The bold seems more true.

 

[BigDaddy4]

There was a demonic experience, that was thwarted by a heavenly experience. If JS really did see the Father and the Son then it is the most important thing that has happened in the world since the death of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Yes, since that would make Jesus a liar. You can't escape that fact.

Your tradition will not let you even investigate it by going to the source of all truth. If you say you will not even consider asking Jesus if the encounter is true, then so be it.

Why do you make such a false claim? You have no idea what my tradition is or how I personally encountered Jesus.

I wonder what you would have done if you were a Jewish person at the time of Christ and your Jewish leaders continually taught you that Jesus was demonic, using the power of satan to do his miracles. Would you have prayed about that, or refused because your leaders were so righteous and good and your religion had been established for thousands of years by Moses. So blindly listening to them in stead of going to the source and asking? Would you have believed in Jesus, even seeing him in the flesh?

Irrelevant. I wasn't alive back then.

You investigate JS only to find negatives. When the negatives are explained to you, you immediately dismiss them as blind, and duped adherents to JS. There is no true investigation, no true sincere desire. No asking God, the true source. Therefore, no answer. It will be your loss. Like I say, Mormon doctrine gives us an advantage against satan in this sinful world.

Incorrect. I investigated JS and found only negatives. And again, you are making false claims when you have idea of my personal experience.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Where are you getting your information from? You do realize that Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between 50-90 AD. This is 18-57 years after the resurrection of Jesus. So don't be too hard on JS. There was a whole generation of people that died and did not have anything but oral traditions to lean on about Jesus. You know how oral traditions can be altered by time.

The information is on your lds website. Do you not know your own history? The "official" version wasn't written until 1838 and not published until March 15, 1842 in your Times and Seasons. There are 7 earlier known accounts that have different facts, including none of which identify 2 personages as God the Father and Jesus Christ. Only 1 of those says 2 personages, the rest are an angel, many angels, Jesus only, and my favorite, the Willard Chase 1833 account of an 1827 story told to him by JS, Sr., where JS opened a box in the woods, saw the book, tried to take it out, and was hindered by a toad that suddenly transformed into a man and knocked JS in the head each time he tried to grab the book.

That's a heavenly encounter??? Regardless, inconsistancies in all of them. House of lds was built on sand, not the solid rock of Jesus Christ. In order for the lds to be right, Jesus Christ has to be wrong.

 

[BigDaddy4]

BigDaddy4 says:
What does that matter? The OT scriptures proved Jesus was the Messiah. The point is, they tested what was said to them. had Joseph done so, it would have failed such a test.

Could you explain to me how JS first vision does not pass the scripture sniff test based on Acts 17:11 slowly, I'm not getting what you are saying?

Acts 17:11 - Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Other than the oft-quoted James 1:5, what evidence is there that JS searched Scripture to see if his experiences were from God? Scripture speaks against divination, which JS practiced. It speaks of false prophets false gospels. Not to mention that no one has seen the face of God and lived, satan can appear as an angel of light. Sniff, sniff... not good.

BigDaddy4:
Re-read. Stephen saw Jesus and God's glory, NOT God Himself!

Answer these 2 questions:
Did Stephen see Jesus's whole body and face?
Does Jesus have the same glory as His God, God the Father?

The first one is irrelevant. We are not talking about Jesus, but God the Father. The 2nd one is incorrect God the Father is not Jesus' God. Jesus IS God.

BigDaddy4:
Your interjections (God the Father) into the scripture are cute, but incorrect. Read Rev. 4:11 where the creatures are worshipping he who sits on the throne:

“You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.”

Who created all things? Jesus! See John Chapter 1 to help you out.

So you are saying that "he who sits on the throne" in chapter 4 is Jesus, because it describes this person as the one that created all things...

Yes.

Now read Hebrews 1:2

2 (God the Father) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son (Jesus), whom he (God the Father) hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he (God the Father) made the worlds;

God the Father is the creator of all things and he did it through and by Jesus His Son. Although Jesus did all the heavy work, God the Father chose Jesus to do the work of creation. Kind of like developer (God the Father) choosing the building contractor (Jesus) to do the building. When the building is done, it is the developer that gets all the accolades, but the contractor receives lots of kudos too.

Your example is not quite right. In Hebrews 1:2, Jesus still is the Creator. Jesus is the developer, architect, and contractor. God the Father is the authority and gave his authority to Jesus.

So I say "he who sits on the throne" in chapter 4 is God the Father.

And you are still wrong, according to Scripture.

I confirm that because the same God the Father "who is sitting on the throne" is the same person in chpater 5 "who is sitting on the throne", handing a book to Jesus, who is standing in from of "him that sitting on the throne.

So "him that is sitting on the throne" is God the Father in 4 and 5 and Jesus is standing in front of "him who sits on the throne" recieving a book from "he that sits of the throne".

Verse 6 identifies the one who took the scroll as the Lamb, who has having 7 eyes and 7 horns. Is that Jesus? No. It goes on to say the "seven spirits of God sent out to all the earth." There is the Holy Spirit. But as a non-Trinitarian, that may not jibe with your theology.

BigDaddy4:
Did God the Father and Jesus suddenly swap seats from Chapter 4 to 5?

The answer to your question is no. God the Father is the "one sitting on the throne" in both 4 & 5.

If Jesus were the "one sitting on the throne" in chapter 5, he would have to hand the book somehow to himself and simultaneously receive it, while also standing in front of the "one sitting on the throne" (which you say is Jesus). John did not see that. In fact that would be quite a feat, even for Jesus to pull off.

 

[Peter1000]

[QUOTE="BigDaddy4, post: 69314981, member: 2


BigDaddy4 says:
The first one is irrelevant. We are not talking about Jesus, but God the Father. The 2nd one is incorrect God the Father is not Jesus' God. Jesus IS God.

Jesus is God the Son, but not God the Father.

If Jesus says, "he has a God" will you believe Jesus?

I won't even make you answer that question. I will just quote Jesus from the bible:
Mat. 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
(Jesus is asking why his God has forsaken him)

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, 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.
(From Jesus's own mouth, he says he is ascending to his Father and our Father, and tohis God and our God) From Jesus's own mouth, and written in the Bible, Jesus says he has a God, in fact His name is Eli. It also turns out that Jesus's God is the same God as our God.

Jesus also says from his own mouth, and written down in the Bible, that Jesus's Father, is our Father Now how can that be, knowing that Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God his Father? Please answer this question, please.

BigDaddy4:
Your example is not quite right. In Hebrews 1:2, Jesus still is the Creator. Jesus is the developer, architect, and contractor. God the Father is the authority and gave his authority to Jesus.

So what are you saying, does God the Father get no credit for the creation? God the Father can not say, He created anything? God the Father created the heavens and the earth through His Son Jesus.

BigDaddy4:
Verse 6 identifies the one who took the scroll as the Lamb, who has having 7 eyes and 7 horns. Is that Jesus? No. It goes on to say the "seven spirits of God sent out to all the earth." There is the Holy Spirit. But as a non-Trinitarian, that may not jibe with your theology.

Is that Jesus, Yes? What other person in the universe can open the book. The Lamb of God (who is none other than Jesus Christ) is the only one that could. Also if you read verses 5 & 9 you will get other descriptions of who this person is who is standing in front of "him that sits on the throne":
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. This describes Jesus, the Lamb of God.

Jesus is the Lamb of God
Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Juda
Jesus is the Root of David
Jesus is the one that wast slain
Jesus is the one that hast redeemed us to God by his blood.

It is Jesus standing in front of "him who sits on the throne".

The real question is who is "him that sat on the throne" tha John saw in chapters 4 & 5? It is NOT Jesus, Jesus was standing in front of the throne, receiveing a book from "him that sat on the throne". It was God the Father, Jesus's God. So now Stephen and John has both seen God the Father. Besides, if you insist that Jesus is the ONLY God, thousands have seen him. Somethings got to give

 

[ToBeLoved]

BigDaddy4:
Smith has claimed he saw a spirit, an angel, 2 angels, many angels, Jesus, Jesus and God. Seems like he's confused to me.

The reason JS wrote his history, which included the first vision, was because so many erroneous reports were flying around the country as to what had happened. You have to believe the excitement in the air, when a young man steps forward and says that he saw God and that he was told the true church of Jesus Christ was not on the earth at the time. Wow, what a sensational story, right? Well, you know that was not going to sit well with the well established churches of the day and so many interesting and false stories started to circulate.

But it is true that JS saw God and Jesus, he also saw many angels, he also saw resurrected angels and spirit beings, but it was not confusing except if one tries hard to make it confusing. The heavens were again communicating with earth in a direct manner and bringing the true church of Jesus Christ back to the earth. For instance, one of the reasons I am a Mormon is because when JS was translating the BOM, he translated an event where priests were baptizing people, and it came to his mind that this could be a possibility with his situation, but he knew he had never been to a pastor school and had not been trained for the ministry, so he felt like he was not authorized to baptize. So he and his friend that was helping him translate went to pray about these things, and while they were praying John the Baptist appeared to them and gave them the authority to baptize. (The Aaronic Priesthood), then a few months later, Peter, James, and John, the 3 pillars of the church at Jesus's time, appeared to them and layed their hands on their heads and gave them the Melchisedec Priesthood and the same keys that Peter received from Jesus himself. If this doesn't happen, I am not a Mormon. If JS does not see God and Jesus and other angels, I am not a Mormon. It is because of these things, that I am a Mormon.

So JS saw God, John the Baptist, Peter, James and John as angels?

It seems odd that some are always telling us 'How do you know the Bible is true', but the same people don't bat an eye when those in the Bible are seen by their prophet.