Christianity vs Mormonism : Bible, BOM & Nature of God

[Jedi]

Yes, then I agree, the quote by Elder McConkie was referring to the Eternal Father, and so was the quote from 2 Nephi. However, this is not always the case, and that's something we all need to consider.

That's why I was just focusing on those quotes (which are rather clear in what they mean by "God").

 

[jodrey]

Today at 03:43 PM ksen said this in Post #38



Ok, but I reserve the right to explore that topic when it is appropriate.

How about this seeming contradiction in Mormon belief and the Bible?



Here is the relevant passage from D&C 130:22



This contradicts Jesus' clear teaching that the Father is Spirit in Jn 4:23-24.



The passage from John has Jesus saying that the Father is Spirit. The D&C says that the Father has flesh and bones, but the Holy Ghost does not because spirits do not have flesh and bones.

Sorry, but I fail to see the contradiction... But maybe that's just me.

 

[jodrey]

That's why I was just focusing on those quotes (which are rather clear in what they mean by "God").

Just as I was pointing out that many quotes are not clear in what they mean by God... We obviously agree on this, so why are we still discussing it?

 

[jodrey]

Today at 03:33 PM Wrigley said this in Post #37



This is true. Because had he used traditional means he would have realized what he was translating. As you know, the papyrus wasn't the book of abraham, but it was a copy of the book of the dead. Why the Mormons insist on claiming this to be anything else is a good question.

And to Joe's lack of education. He could read and write. He had a great imagination, he had a gift at telling a story, and he had a habit of using those gifts to get money from people.

I give him credit for coming up with a story. That's all it is. Its not the Word.

Since there's nothing specific in here I'll just ignore it; although, it may be useful for you to study up on the Papari, since you seem to not know much about it. There are not only points made by critics about it, but numerous counter-points as well to support its authenticity, and the problem of many critics is that they repeat information while ignoring the counter-points already made against their claims. I hope you are not falling into this category, Wrigley, for I'd hate to see one of your intelligence appear a fool. For this reason, please read up. I'll give you a good starting place (from there you can search for more information yourself):

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham.htm

 

[jodrey]

But is this not the Word of God...why would God reveal in this way when he NEVER has before? There is no need....the first Christians were called Christians in Atitoch...the Bible...the Word of God says so. It is God's words...not mine. Why would any new revelation, from God I may add, imply differently?

Did my answer not make sense? How do you know God does not reveal in such a 'way'? Keep in mind that those who record the scriptures are men, and moreover in this case it is not a revelation but a fact as they see it. Paul took note that, "Oh, look. Here people are being called Christians." At a later time a Book of Mormon prophet also took note that, "Oh, here people are being called Christians." You see, it's not even revelation. It's an observation. I hope I was able to clarify this.

That seems pulled up out of the air. Where in the Bible does God call Abraham the head of the church, or Paul, or Moses? He Doesn't - (if He does, please show me) However, Joseph Smith is called the head.....That is Jesus' role. Nobody in the Christian Church is the head besides Christ himself....I think this lines more up with scripture than the LDS statement.

This is certainly not pulled out of thin air -- it's common sense. Do you believe that Christ's Church existed from the time of Adam or that it was not established until He came? You should answer 'yes' to the former. That being so, let's take a look at the position of Peter in the Church. Matthew 16: 18 says, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Note that 'Peter' in Greek is 'petros,' small rock, so Christ was referring to Peter with "this rock" -- it's a word play (See John 1: 42). But wait! isn't Christ the cornerstone? 1 Corinthians 3: 11 says, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ," and 1 Corinthians 10: 4 says, "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (Note parallels in D&C 50:44; 128: 10.) So, was the Church built on Christ or Peter? It is quite a similar situation with Joseph Smith, although instead of 'rock' the term 'head' is used, but they are the same, for both are symbolic of the same thing.

Man's logic, yes.....our logic is created...God's is not. I will not place my God insode a box. As for beginning the topic of the Nature of God....it appears we started this a few threads back.

I'd like to refer you to another thread here: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/40837.html

Part of it deals with whether rules apply to God and if He is actually "boxed in." I also express my views that if God created our logic then He could easily make Himself understandable to us; He'd have to have a reason not to. Can you think of a reason He wouldn't want to do that?

(D&C 130:3). 3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance•; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

(appears to me Joseph Smith tried to re-write that verse - or re-clarify - However, being that 3John 14:23 is inspired from God - as even the LDS believe - why would God ask Joseph to 'clarify or re-write it'?)

Obviously because the common interpretation of it (a man-made interpretation) was wrong. A very important job of the prophets is to clarify things not understood by men. If you say that the scriptures interpret themselves then you are crazy. Now, that is not an insult since I am sure you don't believe that. This being the case, what reasonable argument do you have against this section of scripture?

James Talmage wrote a book called "Articles of Faith"

On the jacket cover of James Talmage's book it says, "For clarity, brevity, and forthrightness, there is no finer summary statement of the basic beliefs of Latter-day Saints than the Articles of Faith, which were written by the Prophet Joseph Smith....For more than eighty years this book has been a standard text for gospel students and teachers alike. The publication of the work preceded Elder Talmage's call to the apostleship" (Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah.1984.

The Publisher's Preface in the book says, "Articles of Faith is considered one of the classics in Latter-day Saint literature. It is the outgrowth of a series of lectures in theology give by Dr. James E. Talmage, commencing in October of 1893. At that time Dr. Talmage was serving as the president of the LDS College in Salt Lake City. The First Presidency of the Church invited Dr. Talmage to prepare a text for use in Church schools and religion classes...."On December 7, 1911, he was called as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, where he served faithfully until his death on July 27, 1933."

As page numbers are listed, I trust this information is true. What do you think?

for more information on this book http://www.carm.org/lds/quotes_talmage.htm, where I gathered this information.

Just to clarify - you said you agreed with the majority of the quotes I listed...including that God was once a man?

I know what the book is. What was the point of quoting the jacket? I asked for the part you quoted in context and you didn't do that. There was no page 39 listed on that page you linked. Do you have a copy of the book that you can copy the selection from?

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

youre going in circles jodrey.........basing everything on your own understanding.

I have to go as baby needs me and house is a mess...However, I will leave you with one thought, correcting a serious error you made is a previous
quote:

I also express my views that if God created our logic then He could easily make Himself understandable to us;

Rom 11:34  For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?

Psa 139:6  Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

You are seriously mistaken if you think you can comprehend God.


I'LL comment on your other thoughts tomorrow - I will not be on tonight. NHL Playoffs begin tonight and ...well...I am Canadian. GO CANUCKS GO

 

[Wrigley]

Today at 05:30 PM jodrey said this in Post #44




Since there's nothing specific in here I'll just ignore it; although, it may be useful for you to study up on the Papari, since you seem to not know much about it. There are not only points made by critics about it, but numerous counter-points as well to support its authenticity, and the problem of many critics is that they repeat information while ignoring the counter-points already made against their claims. I hope you are not falling into this category, Wrigley, for I'd hate to see one of your intelligence appear a fool. For this reason, please read up. I'll give you a good starting place (from there you can search for more information yourself):

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/abraham.htm

Read it. And I remain unconvinced.

 

[ksen]

Today at 05:21 PM jodrey said this in Post #42

Sorry, but I fail to see the contradiction... But maybe that's just me.

You do? Ok let me lay it out plain:

The Bible says in Jn 4 that God the Father is spirit.

The D&C says spirit does not have flesh and bones.

The D&C says that God the Father has flesh and bones.

Therefore the D&C says God the Father is not spirit.

So we have the Bible saying God the Father is Spirit and the D&C saying that God the Father is not spirit.

Do you still fail to see the contradiction?

 

[rnmomof7]

Today at 10:18 PM ksen said this in Post #48



You do? Ok let me lay it out plain:

The Bible says in Jn 4 that God the Father is spirit.

The D&C says spirit does not have flesh and bones.

The D&C says that God the Father has flesh and bones.

Therefore the D&C says God the Father is not spirit.

So we have the Bible saying God the Father is Spirit and the D&C saying that God the Father is not spirit.

Do you still fail to see the contradiction?

Wow , excellent Ksen !!!

 

[jodrey]

Today at 06:16 PM HopeTheyDance said this in Post #46

youre going in circles jodrey.........basing everything on your own understanding.

I have to go as baby needs me and house is a mess...However, I will leave you with one thought, correcting a serious error you made is a previous
quote:

Rom 11:34  For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?

Psa 139:6  Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

You are seriously mistaken if you think you can comprehend God.


I'LL comment on your other thoughts tomorrow - I will not be on tonight. NHL Playoffs begin tonight and ...well...I am Canadian. GO CANUCKS GO

Now hold it. Someone's going around in circles here and it isn't me. You have yet to refute anything I mentioned in my first post (or if you did it has been corrected and you haven't responded to that correction). If we are following the thread rules as we have decided then we should be taking questions one at a time. You have not been doing this. Instead, I answered the first question and you then ignored my answer; you then proceeded to an "Answer me these questions three so we may see that wrong are thee." If people don't start doing this as we decided then I will seriously ignore this thread. I am arguing a side by myself here, yet I have decided to do so at your suggestion, Hope. I have done so in a professional and respectful manner, but few others, if any, here have. I could equally make the claim that you are basing the sciptures on your own understanding, but that gets us no where. You fail to show adequate evidence for your statements. You have yet to properly refute anything about my faith. If you can't do this then mention it no more and be happy with your own.

If you visited the thread you would see that my quote was purely my opinion. Perhaps you should read through my elaborations on the subject. In short, I believe that it is not impossible to know God; He is on such a level that His own thoughts and ways are far beyond mine; however, His physical (should you choose to refer to it as such) nature is not. There is a big difference here. No where do the scriptures say that God cannot be known; only that He is all-wise, -knowledgable, and -powerful. The scriptures referenced in your post do not make mention of His nature, but of His intelligence. This being the case, my theory makes sense, I think. However, this is not the topic of this thread. We can discuss that elsewhere, perhaps in PM, if you wish. I would appreciate it if you would try to uphold the rules you have set in place.

 

[Jedi]

Do you still fail to see the contradiction?

Hmmm... sounds like good stuff to me. Good thinking.

As far as things getting out of hand, Jodrey, I think it's understandable how one thing leads to another. Discussions are often times like trees and branch off the legitimate trunk. A trunk without branches is quite a pathetic tree, and I feel that if we don't "branch off" enough to adequately discuss a particular aspect of the core discussion, we aren't going to get very far.

However, I think everyone should keep in mind that Jodrey here appears to be the only one taking on multiple opponents, and so we should try not to branch off too much.

 

[jodrey]

Read it. And I remain unconvinced.

Lack of elaboration noted. Perhaps I could give you some more links to study:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20109c.html
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway....ion.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/BYUSAntn.html

Hmmm... There is more too, but since I doubt that you even read through the link I first posted (and its subsequent reference links, and their subsequent reference links) I will leave this to suffice. Come now. No mortal human can read that much documentation in a few hours, much less cross-reference, verify, and compare explanations. I don't know if anyone could do so and come to a conclusion in even days or weeks. I am not even considering the fact that you would then have to look for responses by critics to the responses by the apologists I referenced. Are you Superman or are you just not telling the absolute truth?

Besides the Internet there are numerous books written on the subject, by both LDS critics and LDS apologists. The subject of the validity of the Book of Abraham is extensive and quite complex. To say that you understand it beyond doubt is a great statement to make, and from the average person, LDS or other, most often a great exaggeration. Because of the coverage of the subject I would opt not to discuss it here, for I understand little of it myself; it's like the creation ex nihilo debate in this way: over my head.

 

[jodrey]

As far as things getting out of hand, Jodrey, I think it's understandable how one thing leads to another. Discussions are often times like trees and branch off the legitimate trunk. A trunk without branches is quite a pathetic tree, and I feel that if we don't "branch off" enough to adequately discuss a particular aspect of the core discussion, we aren't going to get very far.

Yes, but we aren't going to get far either if people ignore my answers. People use branches as responses to my answers, and that's not appropriate in a debate. It's quite unprofessional. For this sole reason I feel we should slow things down and choose one question to address until it is settled. Have you noticed that no one has addressed my question, "Have I answered the first question adequately"? Instead of a response to that question I got a, "Answer these three questions." Now, you tell me if that is an appropriate, professional response.

 

[jodrey]

Yesterday at 10:18 PM ksen said this in Post #48



You do? Ok let me lay it out plain:

The Bible says in Jn 4 that God the Father is spirit.

The D&C says spirit does not have flesh and bones.

The D&C says that God the Father has flesh and bones.

Therefore the D&C says God the Father is not spirit.

So we have the Bible saying God the Father is Spirit and the D&C saying that God the Father is not spirit.

Do you still fail to see the contradiction?

You're missing a key element, though. Dictionary.com says that "is" and "has" have different meanings.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=is)
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=has)

Now, the mentioned Bible verse is interesting. It is quoted in the D&C.

Luke 24: 39 says, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." But wouldn't this contradict other biblical themes and passages? Take for example that God is spirit. Now, according to the accepted Trinity, God came down and took a body. But, if God is spirit then according to this verse that was impossible. You then must believe that the Trinity is made up of these individuals, unless you again turn to the notion that we don't understand how God does what He does.

There is something else as well. Genesis 2: 7 gives us the definition of a soul: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." So, what is the "breath of life"? Abraham 5: 7 expounds the action, saying, "And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Is there a biblical reference for this? Peter 3: 19 speaks of Jesus' preaching to the "spirits in prison." No matter whether one believes in an intermediary state, this is generally understood that the spirits people. 1 Corinthians 2: 11 says, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." Numbers 16: 22 says, "And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?" Job 32: 8 says, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." Romans 8: 16 says, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" Zechariah 12: 1 is even more explicit: "THE burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." So, man at least has spirit, but how is our existance defined? By a body? Am I my body? No, that's stupid (and impossible since I will one day be separated from it -- in that way I would cease to exist). Perhaps there might be another part unspoken of by the Bible? I doubt it. Are we then spirits? For if we are not bodies we must be spirits, otherwise we could not exist. If this is so, and we obviously have bodies, does that make the verse wrong? I'd like to hear an opinion or two on this.

 

[jodrey]

Yesterday at 11:48 PM rnmomof7 said this in Post #49



Wow , excellent Ksen !!!

Yes, good job, ksen.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Im sorry if I have offended you, frankily I dont see why you are so defensive. I do not see how I have gone beyond the rules I have set.

All my questions have revolved around my first question regarding the authenticy of the BOM and the other Morman scriptures - this includes the Nature of God. Infact, IF you read back...the Trinity was mentioned by me, but you ellaborated on it with mathematics, thus changing the topic. I was only assuming you wished to discuss that as mentioned in your previous post.

Perhaps you are upset with me over somehting I said on another thread?

In all honesty I am only trying to reveal truth. I do so in a Christ like manner. Remember - you can not read tone in a post and obviously you have taken my posts in the wrong way. When I say going around in circles, I meant I can not understand what you are getting at as your answers seem to reflect your own understanding and not the understanding of the Mormon Church. What I am looking for I guess is concrete Mormon Doctrine. Obviously as I am not LDs myself, the best I can do is read your scripture and quotes of phropets and question you on it. I have never 'attacked' your phophets either. Infact I have asked you to correct me if I am wrong.

Remember - I am not looking for it all to 'make sense' or be 'logical', but I am seeking knowledge on why you believe the way you do and why I feel you are on the wrong track. Certainly you can not expect me to agree with everything you say - Im not a Mormon.

I will give you credit - for 19 years old, you know more about your faith than somone twice your age in many cases I am sure. Your answers are well thought out and you make a good argument. Not once have I 'attacked' you personally. In that regard I fail to see why you are so offended by my last comment.

We just started this thread. I have refuted much of what you have said, and re-refuted it. Those points I have not refuted I either decided to let be, or understood what you were saying, meaning you clarified my concerns. I am not looking to pick apart every single nook and cranny of the Mormon Faith - I am simply trying to understand it, and point out what I consider to be errors and inconsistancies. Obviously I disagree with many responses - but what would I be gaining by reiterating my point over and over? You obviously have your mind made up on certain areas and we will never see eye to eye on grammerical or history viewpoints. When I see that is the case, I go on to another point - this is how a debate works. If we focused on one point only - I am afraid we would nevr get to another.

Regardless. if you feel I have attacked you - rid that feeling and move on. This is not my intention. Try not to read post assuming there is a tone that follows. If this were the case I would also be offended (as I have been on a rpevious post in another forum).

 

Having said this - let us continue our discussion and move on. If you would like me to comment on any point you have made - please let me know and I will give you my feedback. One question opens many doors. We can Argue Abraham till Jesus returns - it wont make a differance...I see major inconsistancies - you dont. I see the word God meaning 'GOD' in Genisis you see it meaning many different things, including gods....what am I going to say to change your mind...or you mine? But if there are futher comments that I have not addressed, that you feel I should further address - show me, ask me - I will meet you there.

 

I am leaving it at that. I know you are trying your best to defend your faith - and you're alone at that - that takes courage and I feel you have your fulll heart in this - therefore, do not get discouraged, unless the Spirit is prompting you that way. Take a breath...relax...and lets discuss what we set to discuss.

 

In Christ,

Victoria

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I would like to ask my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to look at my posts and see if I have treated jodrey unfairly or are am not following board rules. I ask you this as I do tend to wander and do not want to overwhelm jodrey. Please pray for me as I continue in this discussion, and for God to guide me and my responses - I hate to offend with intent.

Jodrey - I am aware that Captain Moroni is a LDS member. Perhaps you could locate him to help you out here. I do not want you to feel overwhelmed. After thinking about it for a minute, it appears alot of questions have been asked. I/we ask them as it all pertains to the same topic - but it is a lot for you to handle, I understand that.

Please understand - everyone - I do not wish to BASH the LDS faith. I have studied it a fair bit, but do not pretend to know it all, infact the internet is my guide and I have learned so much of what they believe just in these past few days)Yes, I do wish to uncover their errors etc...but not to make anyone feel like a lesser person, or belittle ones intelligence - just trying to save souls .... in the long run. I pray God will fufill this, as sometimes I get ahold of myself and I take over. KWIM?

Anyway...pray for me and about me my sisters and brothers...I am in no way a professional debater. Just have many questions.

Thanks and God Bless.

 

[Jedi]

You're missing a key element, though. Dictionary.com says that "is" and "has" have different meanings.

I think that’s really just splitting hairs. If D&C really says that spirit does not have flesh and bones (I know the Bible does: Luke 24:37-40), yet God has flesh and bones, then “God” does not equal “spirit,” and this is in direct contradiction to John 4:22-24.

 

[jodrey]

Hope, there are several things going on here that I don't think you fully grasp. Let me try to explain some of these:

1) You do not represent the Christians on this thread. Most of the statements I have made about attacks and question bombardment actually have been addressed to other people. Since this is a debate, you are all on one side, but there is no single spokesman. Therefore, when three or four people are attempting to start different arguments with me at the same time that interferes with even more of my time and energy -- I cannot do it. You may not see this quite so strongly because you only have one argument to handle, not three. Hopefully people here will be able to notice this and set aside their questions until I can get to them. Also because of this we need focus and efficiency. If a decent, undisputable point is declared, it needs to be addressed so that I know we can move on to the next. This is how I prefer to debate because it is simplest. However, what usually happens is that people will say to themselves, "Oh, I don't know the answer to that, so I'll just ignore it for now." They not only do not acknowledge it in a post, but not even to themselves that they don't have an answer. This is unproductive because people don't learn like that. Therefore, I feel the guidline of one question at a time is very reasonable, even moreso than one topic at a time. But if people don't respect this guideline then I won't post here anymore. You change questions as well, and you should not, but argue one out until we're ready for the next.

2) This is an apologetics thread. I am defending my faith through mutual foundations -- the Bible and science. In this way, questions are attacks, and rightly so, for they invite me to defend, and this is not wrong. Even so, these arguments can be expressed respectfully. You don't need to explain 'why' I believe things because you know what the answer will be. You know enough of LDS doctrine that you can form a case. This is not an innocent inquiry into the Church, but an evaluation and re-evaluation of doctrine, attempting to uncover holes and exploit them to prove the invalidity of it.

3) I am not a professional debater either. I am only doing this because you seemed respectful and requested that you be given this opportunity; I believed others might then be more respectful so I accepted. This is not a great favor to me.

4) This is a debate, and citations are required. All addresses should be responded to. You cannot simply "set something aside" when you feel like it. That confuses things. I am trying to do this in a way where questions receive closure, where nothing is simply open-ended or ignored entirely. In a debate, when one side loses an argument, that puts favor in the other. Points are not set aside because they cannot be answered, but are acknowledged so that conclusions can be made as to validity. So far, it appears that no one has learned anything here. It makes me wonder why I am doing this if no one even listens objectively. I guess that saying is true: "People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe."

5) You have not offended me through any implied message, only through the content of your posts, which have involved ignoring legitimate points I put forward and redirecting the topic at hand when it hadn't yet been thoroughly considered. Even this is not offensive, but it is annoying.

Since you want to talk about the Trinity, let's do that -- and nothing else. Do you have any proof, biblical or otherwise, to support the Trinity? Maybe more importantly, do you have any more proof, biblical or otherwise, to refute the LDS conception of the Godhead? I refuse to discuss anything else until this is settled.

 

[Wrigley]

Today at 12:41 AM jodrey said this in Post #52



Lack of elaboration noted. Perhaps I could give you some more links to study:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20109c.html
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway....ion.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/BYUSAntn.html

Hmmm... There is more too, but since I doubt that you even read through the link I first posted (and its subsequent reference links, and their subsequent reference links) I will leave this to suffice. Come now. No mortal human can read that much documentation in a few hours, much less cross-reference, verify, and compare explanations. I don't know if anyone could do so and come to a conclusion in even days or weeks. I am not even considering the fact that you would then have to look for responses by critics to the responses by the apologists I referenced. Are you Superman or are you just not telling the absolute truth?

Besides the Internet there are numerous books written on the subject, by both LDS critics and LDS apologists. The subject of the validity of the Book of Abraham is extensive and quite complex. To say that you understand it beyond doubt is a great statement to make, and from the average person, LDS or other, most often a great exaggeration. Because of the coverage of the subject I would opt not to discuss it here, for I understand little of it myself; it's like the creation ex nihilo debate in this way: over my head.

You assume I haven't read those sites before.