LDS LDS---YIKES!

dzheremi said:

Is not being willing to compromise on Christian theology so as to commune with godless people (i.e., let Christianity be whatever Mormons or Muslims or whoever want it to be) somehow unloving, or is it being loving to God, as the two greatest commandments given to us by Christ tell us to be? Because again, I won't substitute one for the other, as Christ paired them for a reason.

Click to expand...

Wow, 'godless people', do you think highly of yourself?

BigDaddy4 said:

Is this your speculation or has the lds church made an official declaration of where the BOM takes place? Last I heard, the lds church had no official statement on the location of Hill Cumorah.

Click to expand...

Mexican ancient history declares that the first humans to come to their country came from over the seas and landed on the east side of Mexico. It does fit the BOM narrative nicely, but it is not the historical aspects of the BOM that we want to push, up and beyond the spiritual aspects of the book. So the church does not make any definitive statements as to where the BOM people lived and died.

The church, preaches the spiritual strength of the BOM, and to some degree leaves the scholarly aspects of evidence and places etc. to people interested in that study.

dzheremi said:

Is not being willing to compromise on Christian theology so as to commune with godless people (i.e., let Christianity be whatever Mormons or Muslims or whoever want it to be) somehow unloving, or is it being loving to God, as the two greatest commandments given to us by Christ tell us to be? Because again, I won't substitute one for the other, as Christ paired them for a reason.

Click to expand...

What I was getting at is that they are NOT at odds with one another in case anyone was confused thinking they were. We can not LOVE God and not LOVE one another. Sorry if my post was confusing.

He is the way said:

What I was getting at is that they are NOT at odds with one another in case anyone was confused thinking they were. We can not LOVE God and not LOVE one another. Sorry if my post was confusing.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. I agree.

Peter1000 said:

Wow, 'godless people', do you think highly of yourself?

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with how I think of myself (I'm a sinner, and quite a terrible one at that) and everything to do with how Mormonism does not include nor foster the worship or even the identification of the true God, which the Mormon god(s) taught Joseph Smith and his spiritual descendants was a monstrous fraud or some such. Your false prophet said the following absolute blasphemy, and you follow it:

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God —he would be a giant or a monster” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372.).

Should I ask if JS thinks highly of himself? I don't bother with such things as though I'm preoccupied with the man when in Christianity he is nothing but another in the endless line of false prophets who has attempted to hijack Christ. It is enough to judge the tree by what it produces. Mormonism has produced nothing but ~ 16 million people who do not worship God because of insane ramblings like the above quote. That's nothing to glory in. It's actually really awful, and it's the driving force by why I'm even still continuing to engage with you despite the fact that you're still on my ignore list. I can ignore you all day (again, it's not about "let's dump on individuals so that I can feel superior" when I'm not), but I can't ignore the fact that the Mormons are being deceived and taught falsehood like this from Satan via their false prophets. That endangers their souls, and as a Christian if you see someone trapped in such a system of course you want them to break out of it. Lord have mercy.

twin.spin said:

The Gospel is summed up by Jesus in Jn 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."​

This is message Paul preached as first importance: 1Corinthians_15:3

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"
​

Any message resembling that obedience to the commandments is the Gospel … is the lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell.

Click to expand...

How do you reconcile in your gospel, the words of Christ when he says, If you love me, keep my commandments? Are those words a lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell?

Please reconcile Christs words to your gospel. Thank you.

Peter1000 said:

Mexican ancient history declares that the first humans to come to their country came from over the seas and landed on the east side of Mexico. It does fit the BOM narrative nicely, but it is not the historical aspects of the BOM that we want to push, up and beyond the spiritual aspects of the book. So the church does not make any definitive statements as to where the BOM people lived and died.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to provide some evidence from non-mormon sources for that declaration. I'm calling bologna sandwich on that one.

While you're at it, can you update the Wikipedia entries that disagree with your BOM narrative? If I'm not mistaken, the BOM narrative has the Jaredites arriving around 3100 BC.

This entry certainly doesn't support your narrative.
Indigenous peoples of Mexico began to selectively breed maize plants around 8000 BC.
Pre-Columbian Mexico - Wikipedia

But I'm sure you know of or have other sources that provide more accurate information, right?

Peter1000 said:

The church, preaches the spiritual strength of the BOM, and to some degree leaves the scholarly aspects of evidence and places etc. to people interested in that study.

Click to expand...

The BOM is a historical embarrassment to your church. No evidence exists that can show the BOM peoples and cities actually existed. So, naturally, the lds church will not take an official position on the location. It's a complete cop out.

As for the spiritual aspect, it's easy to say that when a large portion is plagiarized from the Bible.

dzheremi said:

It has nothing to do with how I think of myself (I'm a sinner, and quite a terrible one at that) and everything to do with how Mormonism does not include nor foster the worship or even the identification of the true God, which the Mormon god(s) taught Joseph Smith and his spiritual descendants was a monstrous fraud or some such. Your false prophet said the following absolute blasphemy, and you follow it:

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God —he would be a giant or a monster” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372.).

Should I ask if JS thinks highly of himself? I don't bother with such things as though I'm preoccupied with the man when in Christianity he is nothing but another in the endless line of false prophets who has attempted to hijack Christ. It is enough to judge the tree by what it produces. Mormonism has produced nothing but ~ 16 million people who do not worship God because of insane ramblings like the above quote. That's nothing to glory in. It's actually really awful, and it's the driving force by why I'm even still continuing to engage with you despite the fact that you're still on my ignore list. I can ignore you all day (again, it's not about "let's dump on individuals so that I can feel superior" when I'm not), but I can't ignore the fact that the Mormons are being deceived and taught falsehood like this from Satan via their false prophets. That endangers their souls, and as a Christian if you see someone trapped in such a system of course you want them to break out of it. Lord have mercy.

Click to expand...

JS is not making fun of God, but he is making fun of the sectarian sayings that God is 3 Gods in 1. Which I believe would have been a strange God to Peter.

Add to that the idea that billions of people can be 1 with God and Jesus and it does make a rather in-comprehensive God.

However, if you think of God the way JS knows God, you have none of these problems. God is made up of 3 separate Gods in their own right, and they are one in purpose. The millions of people that become one with them, are one in purpose and it just makes sense.

So I do wish JS could take back some of his awkward moments of frivolous talking about sectarian sayings, he is actually right on target.

So if you want to compare God with what the bible has to say, then the position of JS of Palmyra is just as sound as the position of Alexander of Alexandria or Constantine of Constantinople.

BigDaddy4 said:

You're going to have to provide some evidence from non-mormon sources for that declaration. I'm calling bologna sandwich on that one.

While you're at it, can you update the Wikipedia entries that disagree with your BOM narrative? If I'm not mistaken, the BOM narrative has the Jaredites arriving around 3100 BC.

This entry certainly doesn't support your narrative.
Indigenous peoples of Mexico began to selectively breed maize plants around 8000 BC.
Pre-Columbian Mexico - Wikipedia

But I'm sure you know of or have other sources that provide more accurate information, right?

The BOM is a historical embarrassment to your church. No evidence exists that can show the BOM peoples and cities actually existed. So, naturally, the lds church will not take an official position on the location. It's a complete cop out.

As for the spiritual aspect, it's easy to say that when a large portion is plagiarized from the Bible.

Click to expand...

What we are talking about in the BOM is the first inhabitants after the flood which took place around 2300bc. So anything earlier than this is not in the discussion.

The Jaredites landed in the Americas around 2150bc. They came from the tower of Babel, after the flood, at the confusion of tongues. They were the first inhabitants of Mexico after the flood.

The 'confusion of tongues' couldn't have been anywhere near 2150 BC. We have written evidence of several different languages several centuries before this. The written history of Egyptian and Sumerian (the earliest languages which we have written evidence of; Sumerian is a language isolate, meaning it is not known to be related to any other language, while Egyptian is Afro-Asiatic, so a Sumerian speaker and an Egyptian speaker would not have been able to understand each other) begins in the 26th century BC, while a few centuries later c. 24th century we get the first written evidence of the Semitic languages of the Canaanites, of Akkadian (a Semitic language of Mesopotamia which would eventually be replaced by Old Aramaic c. 8th century BC; this is one of the languages that used that weird wedge writing that you've probably seen if you've visited a Near Eastern history museum/exhibit), and of Eblaite (another Semitic language, spoken in N. Syria). By 2200 BC, we have the earliest examples of written Elamite (another isolate).

Clearly there were several languages spoken already around the ancient Near East well before 2150 BC, and if these people supposedly left for the Americas "at the confusion of the tongues", as you've said, the date of the event can't really be pushed back 541 years to place it before the earliest example of written Egyptian, unless you want to say that the Jeredites were super old when they left for the Americas, and it just so happened to take them over half a millennia to build their boats or whatever.

As with everything Mormons claim, it's so much easier to admit that this stuff isn't actually historical and to just believe in it as a story to teach whatever it is meant to. Why do you have to claim that it actually literally happened as you've been told just because it's in JS' fantasy novel?

Peter1000 said:

How do you reconcile in your gospel, the words of Christ when he says, If you love me, keep my commandments? Are those words a lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell?

Please reconcile Christs words to your gospel. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Simple. Those words become the "lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell" when connecting "keeping my commandments" with the Gospel.

There is no mention of Mormonism's "keep the commandments" requirement that is revealed:


CONCLUSION: Biblical Christianity is the truth!

.

dzheremi said:

The 'confusion of tongues' couldn't have been anywhere near 2150 BC. We have written evidence of several different languages several centuries before this. The written history of Egyptian and Sumerian (the earliest languages which we have written evidence of; Sumerian is a language isolate, meaning it is not known to be related to any other language, while Egyptian is Afro-Asiatic, so a Sumerian speaker and an Egyptian speaker would not have been able to understand each other) begins in the 26th century BC, while a few centuries later c. 24th century we get the first written evidence of the Semitic languages of the Canaanites, of Akkadian (a Semitic language of Mesopotamia which would eventually be replaced by Old Aramaic c. 8th century BC; this is one of the languages that used that weird wedge writing that you've probably seen if you've visited a Near Eastern history museum/exhibit), and of Eblaite (another Semitic language, spoken in N. Syria). By 2200 BC, we have the earliest examples of written Elamite (another isolate).

Clearly there were several languages spoken already around the ancient Near East well before 2150 BC, and if these people supposedly left for the Americas "at the confusion of the tongues", as you've said, the date of the event can't really be pushed back 541 years to place it before the earliest example of written Egyptian, unless you want to say that the Jeredites were super old when they left for the Americas, and it just so happened to take them over half a millennia to build their boats or whatever.

As with everything Mormons claim, it's so much easier to admit that this stuff isn't actually historical and to just believe in it as a story to teach whatever it is meant to. Why do you have to claim that it actually literally happened as you've been told just because it's in JS' fantasy novel?

Click to expand...

Correct my timeline if you would:

The flood took place around 2300bc

The tower of babel was in the construction phase around 2150bc

The Lord came down and confused the language around this same time 2150bc

The Jaredites were lead by the Lord away from the tower of babel area and down to the sea around 2150bc.


The Jaredites were lead by the Lord to build ships and in approx. 350 days they made their way by sea to the eastern shores of Mexico.

The ancient history of Mexico, per a large tapestry in the Museum of Natural History Mexico City, after the flood is similar to this story in the BOM. JS could not have guessed the ancient history of Mexico, 99% of the people in the U.S. do not know it now.

twin.spin said:

Simple. Those words become the "lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell" when connecting "keeping my commandments" with the Gospel.

There is no mention of Mormonism's "keep the commandments" requirement that is revealed:

Luke 7:50
And he said to the woman, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”

John 3:15
"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life..”

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

John 6:39
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.​

CONCLUSION: Biblical Christianity is the truth!

Acts 16:31​

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
​

​

Click to expand...

So you can not reconcile the words of Christ, "if you love me, keep my commandments" with his gospel? You are saying that there can be no connection between Jesus's gospel, and some of Jesus's words. Would that be more the way it is?

I thought it interesting that you thought Jesus's words could become the lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell. That is pretty risky of you to put the Saviors words in such ill repute, don't you think?

I see that the centerpiece of your gospel is the word 'believe'. If you believe.... is your gospel, right?

How do you reconcile, If you believe...., with Jesus's sermon on the mount in Matthew? Where Jesus says if you do not forgive everyone their trespasses against you, God will not forgive your trespasses against him? Please reconcile these words of Jesus with your gospel of believe.

dzheremi said:

The 'confusion of tongues' couldn't have been anywhere near 2150 BC. We have written evidence of several different languages several centuries before this. The written history of Egyptian and Sumerian (the earliest languages which we have written evidence of; Sumerian is a language isolate, meaning it is not known to be related to any other language, while Egyptian is Afro-Asiatic, so a Sumerian speaker and an Egyptian speaker would not have been able to understand each other) begins in the 26th century BC, while a few centuries later c. 24th century we get the first written evidence of the Semitic languages of the Canaanites, of Akkadian (a Semitic language of Mesopotamia which would eventually be replaced by Old Aramaic c. 8th century BC; this is one of the languages that used that weird wedge writing that you've probably seen if you've visited a Near Eastern history museum/exhibit), and of Eblaite (another Semitic language, spoken in N. Syria). By 2200 BC, we have the earliest examples of written Elamite (another isolate).

Clearly there were several languages spoken already around the ancient Near East well before 2150 BC, and if these people supposedly left for the Americas "at the confusion of the tongues", as you've said, the date of the event can't really be pushed back 541 years to place it before the earliest example of written Egyptian, unless you want to say that the Jeredites were super old when they left for the Americas, and it just so happened to take them over half a millennia to build their boats or whatever.

Click to expand...

dzheremi says:

As with everything Mormons claim, it's so much easier to admit that this stuff isn't actually historical and to just believe in it as a story to teach whatever it is meant to. Why do you have to claim that it actually literally happened as you've been told just because it's in JS' fantasy novel?

Click to expand...

We believe the BOM to be a real gospel story, not a feel good story to teach whatever it is meant to teach.

To us, the BOM is exactly like the Bible. If for instance Noah is not a real man that built an arc and saved 8 souls from the universal flood, then Jesus is not a real Savior of the world.

If there was no Lehi and with a son named Nephi, who sailed from Jerusalem to the Americas, then Jesus never came to the Americas and Jesus was not born in Jerusalem to be the Savior of the world.

So either the Bible and the BOM are real histories of real events, or Jesus was not real.

Peter1000 said:

So you can not reconcile the words of Christ, "if you love me, keep my commandments" with his gospel? You are saying that there can be no connection between Jesus's gospel, and some of Jesus's words. Would that be more the way it is?

I thought it interesting that you thought Jesus's words could become the lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell. That is pretty risky of you to put the Saviors words in such ill repute, don't you think?

I see that the centerpiece of your gospel is the word 'believe'. If you believe.... is your gospel, right?

How do you reconcile, If you believe...., with Jesus's sermon on the mount in Matthew? Where Jesus says if you do not forgive everyone their trespasses against you, God will not forgive your trespasses against him? Please reconcile these words of Jesus with your gospel of believe.

Click to expand...

Once again, Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus does not include keeping the commandments as being part of the Gospel. The fault of not reconciling that truth is with those who refuse to see is quite frankly folks like yourself.

You need to be willing to accept that nowhere does Jesus include "keeping the commandments" as part of the Gospel … only "faith\believe".

Peter1000 said:

We believe the BOM to be a real gospel story, not a feel good story to teach whatever it is meant to teach.

Click to expand...

Okay.

To us, the BOM is exactly like the Bible. If for instance Noah is not a real man that built an arc and saved 8 souls from the universal flood, then Jesus is not a real Savior of the world.

Click to expand...

I'm not really seeing where this drastic leap in logic is coming from, and anyway the flood is not what we were talking about. You mentioned 2150 BC as being the time when the Jaredites came to the Americas from the flood, so I pointed out that this doesn't make sense when considered in light of what we know about the history of writing, which shows many languages that would've been unintelligible to one another used across a wide area many centuries before that date (and that is just their preserved written record; obviously they would've been spoken before being written, since writing itself is just the codification of a certain register of language in the form of little squiggles), so if they came as a result of the confusion of the tongues, then they must've waited or been delayed over half a millennia, for some reason.

You're now moving on from that to something about the flood. Why? Is it that you see that the 2150 BC date doesn't work? That would be a good sign, if so.

If there was no Lehi and with a son named Nephi, who sailed from Jerusalem to the Americas, then Jesus never came to the Americas and Jesus was not born in Jerusalem to be the Savior of the world.

Click to expand...

Maybe this is true for you as a Mormon, but Christians get along fine without belief in the BOM, and still believe that Christ was born as the savior of the world, so again this seems to be quite a leap.

So either the Bible and the BOM are real histories of real events, or Jesus was not real.

Click to expand...

No, that does not follow at all. The two are not logically related.

If the BOM is false, the Bible can still be true, and whether or not the Bible is true (whatever that means; 'true' as in a history book? 'true' as in an accurate geological record of the world?) actually has no connection whatsoever with the BOM either way. Just pretend like you'll approach the Bible same as anyone would have in any year before 1830. Was there still Christianity in those days? Yes. So obviously, the BOM is nothing at all either way. It doesn't need to be considered, and its invalidity certainly says nothing about the Bible.

twin.spin said:

Simple. Those words become the "lie of demons, straight from the dungeons of hell" when connecting "keeping my commandments" with the Gospel.

There is no mention of Mormonism's "keep the commandments" requirement that is revealed:

Luke 7:50
And he said to the woman, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”

John 3:15
"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life..”

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

John 6:39
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.​

CONCLUSION: Biblical Christianity is the truth!

Acts 16:31​

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

​

Click to expand...

Ah yes, but you are cherry picking the scriptures. What about this scripture:

(New Testament | Matthew 7:19 - 27)

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 ¶ 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.
22 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?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

(New Testament | John 14:12)

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

(New Testament | John 14:21 - 24)

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Those who keepeth not Jesus Christ's sayings do not LOVE Jesus Christ and Jesus likened them to a foolish man who's house fell.

dzheremi said:

Okay.



I'm not really seeing where this drastic leap in logic is coming from, and anyway the flood is not what we were talking about. You mentioned 2150 BC as being the time when the Jaredites came to the Americas from the flood, so I pointed out that this doesn't make sense when considered in light of what we know about the history of writing, which shows many languages that would've been unintelligible to one another used across a wide area many centuries before that date (and that is just their preserved written record; obviously they would've been spoken before being written, since writing itself is just the codification of a certain register of language in the form of little squiggles), so if they came as a result of the confusion of the tongues, then they must've waited or been delayed over half a millennia, for some reason.

You're now moving on from that to something about the flood. Why? Is it that you see that the 2150 BC date doesn't work? That would be a good sign, if so.



Maybe this is true for you as a Mormon, but Christians get along fine without belief in the BOM, and still believe that Christ was born as the savior of the world, so again this seems to be quite a leap.



No, that does not follow at all. The two are not logically related.

If the BOM is false, the Bible can still be true, and whether or not the Bible is true (whatever that means; 'true' as in a history book? 'true' as in an accurate geological record of the world?) actually has no connection whatsoever with the BOM either way. Just pretend like you'll approach the Bible same as anyone would have in any year before 1830. Was there still Christianity in those days? Yes. So obviously, the BOM is nothing at all either way. It doesn't need to be considered, and its invalidity certainly says nothing about the Bible.

Click to expand...

You said: "I'm not really seeing where this drastic leap in logic is coming from, and anyway the flood is not what we were talking about. You mentioned 2150 BC as being the time when the Jaredites came to the Americas from the flood, so I pointed out that this doesn't make sense when considered in light of what we know about the history of writing, which shows many languages that would've been unintelligible to one another used across a wide area many centuries before that date (and that is just their preserved written record; obviously they would've been spoken before being written, since writing itself is just the codification of a certain register of language in the form of little squiggles), so if they came as a result of the confusion of the tongues, then they must've waited or been delayed over half a millennia, for some reason."

What are you basing your dates on? If it is carbon dating then Adam was not the first man. I believe that carbon dating is wrong.
"Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years."

From: ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

Peter1000 said:

Neither does JS. His teaching is that all spirit (including the Holy Spirit) is made out of a
'refined matter', not just matter. If spirit was made out of matter, it could be seen by mortal eyes, so we know it is not made of just plain old matter. It is a 'refined matter', so refined that the mortal eye cannot see it.

Click to expand...

Once again what JS says doesn't add up----=it is not what the spirits are made up of that is the problem---it is our eyes. It says right there, even by JS---can't be seen by our eyes.

2Ki_6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
Num_24:4 He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open:
2Ki_6:20 And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, LORD, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the LORD opened their eyes, and they saw; and, behold, they were in the midst of Samaria.

Come on---- you really think that God changes what these beings and everything around them is changed in order for us to see them? It is our eyes that are opened---not their structure. For a few minutes God changes our eyes and we can see them. We have no idea what they are made of, but when our eyes have been opened, people end up prostrated on the ground in fear and amazement. To say that they have this kind of matter or that kind makes no sense---nobody knows, but God has designed our eyes that for now, they can not see these things. JS has no idea of what God's realm is about. And He certainly has no idea what God the Father or the Holy Spirit is made of. Jesus was seen after His resurrection and felt, and after our resurrection we will have a glorified body, but none knows exactly what the inner structure of those bodies will be, and Jesus will always be of a different structure from us for His is divine and we never will be. It is not knowing that JS doesn't like, he is so arrogant as to think he has to know everything and he has made up stuff, or Satan has confused him, and he doesn't know what he is talking about.