LDS Celestial Marriage...100% false.

[Rescued One]

So who is Elohim in the first chapter of Genesis?

Elohim is not a name; it's a word: God. You have an English Bible, don't you?

 

[HeartenedHeart]

Well, I have always used this scripture to prove that God the Father and God the Son are 2 distinct and separate Persons. This scriptures supports that belief. 2 Persons, one on earth, the other in heaven, and, OK, they both have the same name. That is odd, but if you insist.

JS in his first hand written notes about his first encounter with God and Jesus, said the same thing. JS says, I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord>opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.
Scholars have analyzed this statement and have concluded that since there are 2 scriptures in the OT that refers to 2 Lords as separate Persons, with the same name, this is what JS was referring to also.

So thank you for Genesis 19:24. The other 2 Lord scripture is Psalms 110:1.

I rejoice that you understand that there are (at least) 2 Persons (Father and the Son). I even rejoice to some degree that the LDS actually understand that these two persons have "form" (though the LDS takes it to extreme in the manner of masculinity, and err there). This is scriptural. There are way more than two scriptures, but at least there are two for a witness.

I am not so much interested in what Joseph Smith taught, as I am in what the Bible teaches. I would hope that the LDS I am speaking to, take up their Bible (KJB) and begin to read it for what it says, rather that what others have made it to say.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

You have said the truth here. Not in persons, but in heart, or purpose. 3 Persons, united in one heart and one purpose.

Truly. Thank you. Many persons err in thinking that 'God' (Elohiym) is a three-headed hydra. That is pagan foolishness. They often take the spiritual unity and make it physical unity, which is error. And they go further by making all kinds of "God" diagrams, even though God cannot be so represented, and is incorrect in what those diagrams show to begin with. God is not a triangle.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I have already discussed 'closed-doors' with Jane. She refuses truth presented to her. Notice, I didn't say she refuted (or even bothered to try) what I shared with her, I said she refused it. If she has anything further to "chat" about, let it be done openly. Someone might think that cold, but it was she that closed the earlier door.

Again: I've had bad experiences here and no longer feel comfortable posting on the ChristianForum public boards.
Hence my offer to discuss things elsewhere. If that's not okay with you, that's your choice.

I am not so much interested in what Joseph Smith taught, as I am in what the Bible teaches. I would hope that the LDS I am speaking to, take up their Bible (KJB) and begin to read it for what it says, rather that what others have made it to say.

Again, I am happy to discuss things respectfully on another venue.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

OK, that is true. It would be a little less confusing if it had said Jehovah the son, on the earth, and Jehovah the Father sending fireballs from heaven. Something to distinguish to 2 Lords.

Excellent. In actuality it does say, or does make the distinction, but not directly in the verse, which is why we must always go line upon line, here a little and there a little, having precept upon precept (Isa. 28:10,13). Carefully reading Gen. 17-19 we see that the Bible makes the distinction between the Persons called JEHOVAH (Father and Son, and so also the Holy Ghost). Once we read those texts, we simply plug them into the text at hand, Gen. 19:24, or elsewhere.

For instance, we have the text, 'No man hath seen the father ...', but that is not the end of the text, and many take that out of context, but it also goes on to say that the Son has revealed Him, and that those who are in Christ have seen the Father (as Daniel did, John, etc), or even just the disciples in the example that Jesus gave, John 14.

Therefore, it could not have been the Person of the Father that Abraham saw directly on earth, but it could only have been the Person of the Son, and therefore, we know who was the JEHOVAH on earth, and Jesus already told us in the NT, that we pray to our Father which is in Heaven, and thus the other was the Person JEHOVAH the Father in Heaven. Knowing that, and from other places, we plug it back into Gen. 19:24 and we get understanding, though it was there the whole time.

Most times, a text is not clear to us, because we do not read far enough out, or think in the manner of how the Bible was written, being a cohesive whole, and that other texts help explain these texts.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I might agree with you, but many years after this knowledge was given to the people by Jesus, Paul said there was 'meat' that the people would not receive. So apparently not.

That's what your religion thrives on... "but". You won't accept the Gospel as it is written. There is always a "but" - "but Jesus taught more in the 40 days after the resurrection that wasn't recorded", "but there's another gospel..." , "but all doesn't mean all", "but we can be gods too"... etc. Your religion has too many "buts" to be considered a Christian religion.

Are you 100% sure this is the 'meat' Paul was talking about to the Corinthians?

I'm 100% sure you don't know what the milk and the meat are. 1 Cor 3:3 tells you why Paul made the milk statement. Do you honestly believe that the "meat" was not described anywhere else in the rest of the New Testament? That it's all just "milk" to you?

So you do not believe that God is the Father of our spirits? You do not believe that you even have a 'spirit' in your body? You do not believe in a 'spirit paradise' or a 'spirit prison' after we die and our eternal 'spirit' lives on?

As I said, I do not believe the fairy tale that Joseph made up about pre-existence.

Well apparently what Paul wanted the Corinthians to know, they would not receive, so how do we know that the 'meat' of the gospel was preached? We know the 'milk' of the gospel was preached, but we do not know that the 'meat' was. How do you know that Paul talking about Melchizedek was 'meat', since it is pretty simple(closer to 'milk' than 'meat'). Jesus is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Again, good chapters to read, but is it 'meat', I don't think so.

Again, I doubt you understand what the meat is; therefore, you cannot see it plainly in front of you. New believers are to crave spiritual milk, as Peter states “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.”
(1 Peter 2:2-3).

If, as you say, "We know the 'milk' of the gospel was preached, but we do not know that the 'meat' was." then are you seriously suggesting that no one "grew up" in their salvation while Paul, Peter, John, and the other Apostles were alive and preached the Gospel?? I wonder how the Gospel has lasted for almost 2,000 years if they were all so spiritually immature? You position is ridiculous and has no merit.

 

[Peter1000]

I rejoice that you understand that there are (at least) 2 Persons (Father and the Son). I even rejoice to some degree that the LDS actually understand that these two persons have "form" (though the LDS takes it to extreme in the manner of masculinity, and err there). This is scriptural. There are way more than two scriptures, but at least there are two for a witness.

How do we err in the manner of masculinity? Have you ever read that God is anything but a man?

 

[Peter1000]

That's what your religion thrives on... "but". You won't accept the Gospel as it is written. There is always a "but" - "but Jesus taught more in the 40 days after the resurrection that wasn't recorded", "but there's another gospel..." , "but all doesn't mean all", "but we can be gods too"... etc. Your religion has too many "buts" to be considered a Christian religion.

Read any book on the subject and you will find that nobody can know all that Jesus taught during his ministry, and certainly not all that he taught his apostles in the 40 days. It is not difficult to know that. Why are we debating it?
John 21:25 King James Version (KJV)
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

I'm 100% sure you don't know what the milk and the meat are. 1 Cor 3:3 tells you why Paul made the milk statement. Do you honestly believe that the "meat" was not described anywhere else in the rest of the New Testament? That it's all just "milk" to you?

Paul's writings are 3/4 of the NT. His mission was to 100% of the cities and people that have titles to books in the NT.
Paul says that the Corinthians would not accept the 'meat'. (1 Corinthians 3:2)
Paul says that all Asia have abandoned him. (2 Timothy 1:15) did they accept the 'meat'?

So in just 2 simple scriptues, I can prove that 1/3 of all first century Christians did not hear or accept the 'meat'.

As I said, I do not believe the fairy tale that Joseph made up about pre-existence.

This "fairy tale" is turning out to be your biblical nightmare, since the 'spirit existence' is clearly taught in the bible. Ignore it if you wish, but every time you read the word 'spirit' and it is not talking about the 'Holy Spirit' (capitalized) you have to wonder is JS right?

If, as you say, "We know the 'milk' of the gospel was preached, but we do not know that the 'meat' was." then are you seriously suggesting that no one "grew up" in their salvation while Paul, Peter, John, and the other Apostles were alive and preached the Gospel?? I wonder how the Gospel has lasted for almost 2,000 years if they were all so spiritually immature? You position is ridiculous and has no merit.

We do know what the 'meat' is. I have shown you that 1/3 of the church in the first century did not mature. Who was Diotrephes? He rejected the apostle John to come to his church. (3 John 1:9) How many more Diotrephes were there in the church at this time? How much more of the church did not mature?

Our position is very biblically strong.

 

[Peter1000]

Elohim is not a name; it's a word: God. You have an English Bible, don't you?

Is El a name?

Is Eloi (Mark 15:34) a name?

 

[Peter1000]

Excellent. In actuality it does say, or does make the distinction, but not directly in the verse, which is why we must always go line upon line, here a little and there a little, having precept upon precept (Isa. 28:10,13). Carefully reading Gen. 17-19 we see that the Bible makes the distinction between the Persons called JEHOVAH (Father and Son, and so also the Holy Ghost). Once we read those texts, we simply plug them into the text at hand, Gen. 19:24, or elsewhere.

For instance, we have the text, 'No man hath seen the father ...', but that is not the end of the text, and many take that out of context, but it also goes on to say that the Son has revealed Him, and that those who are in Christ have seen the Father (as Daniel did, John, etc), or even just the disciples in the example that Jesus gave, John 14.

Therefore, it could not have been the Person of the Father that Abraham saw directly on earth, but it could only have been the Person of the Son, and therefore, we know who was the JEHOVAH on earth, and Jesus already told us in the NT, that we pray to our Father which is in Heaven, and thus the other was the Person JEHOVAH the Father in Heaven. Knowing that, and from other places, we plug it back into Gen. 19:24 and we get understanding, though it was there the whole time.

Most times, a text is not clear to us, because we do not read far enough out, or think in the manner of how the Bible was written, being a cohesive whole, and that other texts help explain these texts.

Then you believe that at the baptism of Jesus, God is in the heavens, Jesus was on the earth, and the Holy Spirit is half way between God and Jesus and eventually falls on Jesus. 3 different places at exactly the same time. Right?

 

[Peter1000]

Truly. Thank you. Many persons err in thinking that 'God' (Elohiym) is a three-headed hydra. That is pagan foolishness. They often take the spiritual unity and make it physical unity, which is error. And they go further by making all kinds of "God" diagrams, even though God cannot be so represented, and is incorrect in what those diagrams show to begin with. God is not a triangle.

So you do not believe in the Trinity as put forth by most of the Christian pastors?

 

[He is the way]

Again: I've had bad experiences here and no longer feel comfortable posting on the ChristianForum public boards.
Hence my offer to discuss things elsewhere. If that's not okay with you, that's your choice.

Again, I am happy to discuss things respectfully on another venue.

Sorry to see you go.

 

[dzheremi]

Sorry to see you go.

Same. For all I know, some of those "horrible experiences" were probably with/because of me (Jane and I did tend to get into it a bit back when she posted here), but I always found Jane to at least be as honest as the Mormon religion allows (i.e., honest up to the point of discussing things your religion considers not up for discussion like its temple rites), if a bit sometimes fuzzy on the relationship between it and Christianity, though not any more so than any other Mormon who sincerely believes their religion to be a/the continuation of Christianity. (There have been a range of opinions on this matter expressed by Mormons here on CF since I first began interacting with you guys here, so I've learned to stop assuming that every Mormon believes any particular thing about Mormonism's relationship to Christianity.)

 

[HeartenedHeart]

Then you believe that at the baptism of Jesus, God is in the heavens, Jesus was on the earth, and the Holy Spirit is half way between God and Jesus and eventually falls on Jesus. 3 different places at exactly the same time. Right?

Yes. At the Baptism of Jesus (AD 27) at the river Jordan, the Person of the Father was in Heaven speaking to the Person of the Son who stood in the water, the river Jordan on earth, while the Person of the Holy Ghost was sent down from Heaven from the Person of the Father anointing the Person of the Son, Jesus, as per Luk. 3:21-22, 4:1,14-19. JEHOVAH Elohiym. All three Persons united in a single purpose, not in Persons.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

So you do not believe in the Trinity as put forth by most of the Christian pastors?

One must be careful here. The word "trinity" is not found in scripture, and so it would depend upon the definition that that word is given.

I do not believe in the grievous erroneous theological definition that Roman Catholicism has given the word, and so also others in like manner.

However, the word can simply mean three Persons/Beings (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit) working together in unison (one in their purpose, not in their Persons), which is fine.

So when people ask that question, I always have to make sure I give the clarifiying answer. So that would have to be my answer to the question.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

Is El a name?

Is Eloi (Mark 15:34) a name?

It would depend on what is being used for the definition of the word "name". Are the following names?

For instance (and please do not think me sacreligious):

"Dog/dog". Is this a name, or an identification of type? (for instance we call the beast/animal that has four legs, a tail, barks, with a nose and ears, paws, ect, "a dog". We called this creature "a dog". We 'named' it "a dog", but then if a personal pet we give this 'dog' "a name", "Wolfy", etc)
"Cat/cat". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Bird/bird". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Fish/fish". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Man/man". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Judge/judge" Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"King/king". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Strength/strength". Is this a name, or an identification of attribute?

What if I pluralize those words?

"dogs"
"cats"
"birds"
"fish"
"men"
"judges"
"kings"
"strengths"

What if I used the same words in adjective form:

"doggish"
"catty"
"birdish"
"fishy"
"manly"
"judge-like"
"kingly"
"strongly"

What if I put them in possession form:

"my dogs"
"my cats"
"my birds"
"my fish"
"my man"
"my judge"
"my king"
"my strength"

What if I repeated the phrases and used them in a sentence of anguish, heartache?

"my dog, my dog ..."
"my cat, my cat ..."
"my bird, my bird ..."
"my fish, my fish ..."
"my men, my men ..."
"my judges, my judges ..."
"my king, my king ..."
"my strength, my strength ..."

The Hebrew word that is translated (normally) into English for "God", is "El". The true plural (3 or greater) form of that word is "elohiym" (H430), from the KJB:

god, 2366
gods, 216
god’s, 7
judges, 4 (Exo. 21:6 (x1), 22:8-9 (x3))
goddess, 2
great, 2 (Gen. 30:8; 1 Sam. 14:15)
mighty, 2 (Gen. 23:6; Exo. 9:28)
angels, 1 (Psa. 8:5)

Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

exceeding, 1 (Jon. 3:3)
god-ward, 1
godly, 1 (Mal. 2:15)
judge, 1 (1 Sam. 2:25)
very, 1 (1 Sam. 14:15)

Do you see what I am asking in response to your questions?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Read any book on the subject and you will find that nobody can know all that Jesus taught during his ministry, and certainly not all that he taught his apostles in the 40 days. It is not difficult to know that. Why are we debating it?
John 21:25 King James Version (KJV)
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

You introduced it as part of the debate because you and your church think that some kind of super secret teachings were going on that were "lost" and eventually "found" by Joseph Smith.

Paul's writings are 3/4 of the NT. His mission was to 100% of the cities and people that have titles to books in the NT.
Paul says that the Corinthians would not accept the 'meat'. (1 Corinthians 3:2)
Paul says that all Asia have abandoned him. (2 Timothy 1:15) did they accept the 'meat'?

So in just 2 simple scriptues, I can prove that 1/3 of all first century Christians did not hear or accept the 'meat'.

That proves nothing except in the imagination of your mind. Christianity thrived for centuries in that part of the world. Just because some may have turned away from this "meat" that was preached doesn't mean that it wasn't preached at all. And that has been your (false) position, that since certain people couldn't accept the "milk", the "meat" wasn't preached.

This "fairy tale" is turning out to be your biblical nightmare, since the 'spirit existence' is clearly taught in the bible. Ignore it if you wish, but every time you read the word 'spirit' and it is not talking about the 'Holy Spirit' (capitalized) you have to wonder is JS right?

No, I don't have to wonder if JS was right. I know absolutely that he was wrong and that he was a false prophet. None of the lds spiritual pre-existance nonsense is Biblically supported. To continue to think so only demonstrates your lack of Biblical understanding.

We do know what the 'meat' is. I have shown you that 1/3 of the church in the first century did not mature. Who was Diotrephes? He rejected the apostle John to come to his church. (3 John 1:9) How many more Diotrephes were there in the church at this time? How much more of the church did not mature?

Our position is very biblically strong.

You keep saying you know what this "meat" is, but have not demonstrated any knowledge of it, including this desperate attempt at using Diotrephes as an indication of widespread rejection and immaturity of the church. It doesn't. Maybe you should stop flinging those noodles at the wall, hoping something will eventually stick.

 

[Peter1000]

Yes. At the Baptism of Jesus (AD 27) at the river Jordan, the Person of the Father was in Heaven speaking to the Person of the Son who stood in the water, the river Jordan on earth, while the Person of the Holy Ghost was sent down from Heaven from the Person of the Father anointing the Person of the Son, Jesus, as per Luk. 3:21-22, 4:1,14-19. JEHOVAH Elohiym. All three Persons united in a single purpose, not in Persons.

Good for you Heartened Heart, I agree.

 

[Peter1000]

It would depend on what is being used for the definition of the word "name". Are the following names?

For instance (and please do not think me sacreligious):

"Dog/dog". Is this a name, or an identification of type? (for instance we call the beast/animal that has four legs, a tail, barks, with a nose and ears, paws, ect, "a dog". We called this creature "a dog". We 'named' it "a dog", but then if a personal pet we give this 'dog' "a name", "Wolfy", etc)
"Cat/cat". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Bird/bird". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Fish/fish". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Man/man". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Judge/judge" Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"King/king". Is this a name, or an identification of type?
"Strength/strength". Is this a name, or an identification of attribute?

What if I pluralize those words?

"dogs"
"cats"
"birds"
"fish"
"men"
"judges"
"kings"
"strengths"

What if I used the same words in adjective form:

"doggish"
"catty"
"birdish"
"fishy"
"manly"
"judge-like"
"kingly"
"strongly"

What if I put them in possession form:

"my dogs"
"my cats"
"my birds"
"my fish"
"my man"
"my judge"
"my king"
"my strength"

What if I repeated the phrases and used them in a sentence of anguish, heartache?

"my dog, my dog ..."
"my cat, my cat ..."
"my bird, my bird ..."
"my fish, my fish ..."
"my men, my men ..."
"my judges, my judges ..."
"my king, my king ..."
"my strength, my strength ..."

The Hebrew word that is translated (normally) into English for "God", is "El". The true plural (3 or greater) form of that word is "elohiym" (H430), from the KJB:

god, 2366
gods, 216
god’s, 7
judges, 4 (Exo. 21:6 (x1), 22:8-9 (x3))
goddess, 2
great, 2 (Gen. 30:8; 1 Sam. 14:15)
mighty, 2 (Gen. 23:6; Exo. 9:28)
angels, 1 (Psa. 8:5)

Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

exceeding, 1 (Jon. 3:3)
god-ward, 1
godly, 1 (Mal. 2:15)
judge, 1 (1 Sam. 2:25)
very, 1 (1 Sam. 14:15)

Do you see what I am asking in response to your questions?

The Hebrew word that is translated (normally) into English for "God", is "El". The true plural (3 or greater) form of that word is "elohiym" (H430), from the KJB:

Why do you think Moses used the plural El, or Elohim in the first chapter of Genesis 1?

 

[Rescued One]

Only through the priesthood may these blessings accrue to the member of the Church. The worthy male member must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, which holds “the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God” (D&C 84:19; see also D&C 107:18–19), in order to receive these “mysteries.” Therein lies the key to the principal purpose of the higher priesthood—to reveal the principles of exaltation in the house of the Lord through ordinances, consisting of washings, anointings, the priesthood endowment, and marriage for eternity. (See D&C 124:37–42.) Marriage for eternity is an order of the priesthood “in which the participating parties are promised kingdoms and thrones if they are true and faithful to their obligations.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Ensign, December 1971, p. 98.) These blessings include the power to beget spirit children after the resurrection. In this regard, Joseph Smith said:
“The question is frequently asked, ‘Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances?’ I would answer, No, not the fulness of salvation."
Roy W. Doxey, Accepted of the Lord: The Doctrine of Making Your Calling and Election Sure, Ensign, July 1976