LDS LDS folk, a question for you

[Peter1000]

Created is the same as made is the same as formed, here is the parallelism:

Isa. 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Thank you for this scripture, it says exactly what I have been saying about the word "bara" in Hebrew.
The first level of the definition of this word says it means to create, shape, or form. The idea that "create" means making something out of nothing, is not evidenced in this definition. I believe philosophers and scholars and church men between 150ad to 325ad added the idea of "out of nothing" to the creation process to give their God a more powerful presence among the gods in existence in their day.

The Bible says that God hung the earth upon nothing:

Job. 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Even though the bible makes this statement, we know that God did not hang the earth upon nothing.
God used the forces of gravity to hang the earth in space, exactly where it needed to be to keep it in its orbit around the sun. It is in a "goldielocks" location, because it is perfectly positioned for environmental purposes, such as no extreme weather conditions, and the gravity of the sun and the other planets in the solar system were created for the express purpose of holding this earth in its place and keep it on the right path, and protect it from space debris. Interesting discussion.

The Bible says that the earth did not always exist, neither the matter to which it is now made of:

Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

I can agree that the bible says that the earth did not always exist, but it says nothing of the atoms and molecules that eventually made up the mountains of the earth. So from my prospective, you cannot say, "neither the matter to which it is now made of". I believe God took existing matter, and formed the perfect globe with it.

This seems to be the case if you read Genesis 1:1-8.
The bible starts by saying that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (vs 1) This is a starting statement and then it starts the details of how this creation took place.
In day 1 God said, let there be light. (vs 3)
In day 2 day God said let there be the heavens. (vs 6 & 8)

Now what is interesting about this start is that before day 1 in vs 3, it says that the earth existed as a void and dark blob, covered by water. (vs 2, before day 1) The bible in vs 2 does not say "God created" or "God said" or anything, just the earth was without form and void and dark and covered with water. Then on day 1, God said let there be light.

So the question is: did the material for the earth exist before the creation of the earth and everything under and over the earth? Another way to ask the question is: On what day of creation did God create the earth or for that fact, the water? We know that he created the heavens in day 2, but what day did God created the earth and what day did God say Let there be the dust of the earth or Let there be water? Only in vs 2 before the creation days started. Interesting reading in Genesis 1:1-8.
Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Jesus existed before anything that was made:

Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Wonderful scripture, thank you for showing me this, I have not seen anyone use this scripture to describe Jesus for years. Here is what is interesting about this scripture:
The KJV says, I (Jesus) was set up.....before the earth was.
The NIV and HOLMAN says, I (Jesus) was formed....before the earth was.
The GNT says, I (Jesus) was made....before the earth was.
The NCV says, I (Jesus) was created....before the earth was.

It is interesting because the Church of Jesus Christ has always taught that Jesus has existed for ever before the earth was created. There has never been a time that Jesus was not. But in what form did he exist from everlasting? We believe his intelligence and spirit have existed forever, but that in some way, God formed or made or set up, or created, the intelligence to be an inseparable part of the spirit, IOW God took the independent intelligence and spirit and housed (made, formed, set up, created) the intelligence in the spirit and they became an inseparable entity.

Here is the real interesting part of this event. You and I also have existed forever from everlasting as an independent intelligence and spirit, and God in some way that is unknown, housed (made, formed, set up, created) your intelligence as in part of your spirit and you became an inseparable entity. Me too, and all men and women too. And Jesus and satan too. We are all spirit children of God. (See Numbers 16:22, Numbers 27:16, Romans 8:16, Psalms 82:6, Hebrews 12:9, Acts 17:28-29) That is why the Church of Jesus Christ can say that we are brothers of Jesus, and Jesus and satan are brothers.

I have probably overloaded you with information, so read it a couple of times and see what your think?


.

 

[BigDaddy4]

When you resort to "you misunderstand and misinterpret the scritpures" kind of verbiage, and then make an opinion statement like "there are not other gods" stuff, then you have lost the discussion because you have not added to or given any reason for your statement. IOW you are either tired of the discussion and do not want to go on, or you do not have an answer to my information. Let me show you what I mean.
If I were to counter your words, and said, No, "You misunderstand and misinterpret the scriptures". There are other gods, and I will become one, not matter what you think. And you counter back with the same verbiage, how far do you think we go with that kind of a discussion before we both stop talking?

I have information to give, you have a glossy opinion statement. I win, unless you want to reengage with some information of your own.

Before you start your victory lap perhaps you should review the thread. You have given no factual information or Scripture references, only opinion. Isaiah 43:10 has already been referenced and discussed as Bible proof that you will not become a god or equal with god. So, yes you do misunderstand and misinterpret the scriptures. There are other threads where you have demonstrated this as well ("all' doesn't mean "all", for example).

 

[Peter1000]

You can take your pick, as they are a trinity. God is not triplex as mormons suppose, he is triune. Mormons are polytheists believing Father, Son and HS are separate gods. The true Church of Jesus Christ as always known God is one, according to the Scriptures, expressed in 3 separate persons. God is one what and three whos. It is the one Yahweh who uttered through Isaiah.

Thank you for letting me know it was Yahweh speaking. Yahweh was the name that Jesus used when he was the God of the Israelite's in the OT. Then Yahweh was incarnated into a flesh body procreated by Mary, who called his name Jesus. So, Yahweh, or God the Son became Jesus in a flesh and bone and blood and spirit body and lived among us mortal men and became our Savior.

Were God the Father and God the Holy Spirit also incarnated with God the Son into his flesh and bone and spirit body?

On the day of Jesus's baptism, were God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit in the same body as God the Son coming up out of the river Jordan? (this would be the 3 Persons in 1 God manifestation)

OR

Is it how the bible tells us: God the Father is speaking from the heavens, and God the Son is coming up out of the river Jordan, and God the Holy Spirit is between God the Son and God the Father, and eventually falling upon God the Son?

Which one is it: All 3 in 1 OR all 3 in separate locations in space, at exactly the same time, as the bible depicts it?

Now, to answer your question: Yahweh was indeed making this statement about no other gods being formed before or after him. There are 2 ways, I can answer this question:

1) God the Father and God the Son and God the HS can always speak in the first person. They are so in unison and perfect harmony, it is as if they are 1 God. So even though there are 3 Gods, any one of them can speak as if he is God, the only God. It is not a lie.

If you say that is a lie, then your point of view, becomes a lie too. If Yahweh, God the Son is speaking and saying there are not other Gods formed before or after, he is not telling them the whole truth about the separate and distinct Persons that also exist. Because for sure these separate and distinct Persons have also existed for ever. Should God the Son disclose that there are 2 other Persons involved too?

The second way I can answer this question is to say that from the scriptures we know there are other gods, but as Paul says, "there are gods many and lords many, but for us, there is only one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ".

This is the position of The Church of Jesus Christ. We believe there are other gods, but for us and this world there is only 1 God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, and they are one God. And they will be our God for everlasting to everlasting.

 

[Peter1000]

Before you start your victory lap perhaps you should review the thread. You have given no factual information or Scripture references, only opinion. Isaiah 43:10 has already been referenced and discussed as Bible proof that you will not become a god or equal with god. So, yes you do misunderstand and misinterpret the scriptures. There are other threads where you have demonstrated this as well ("all' doesn't mean "all", for example).

I demonstrated from the scriptures that "all" doesn't always mean "all". Your response was something like, you do not understand the scriptures...... which adds nothing to the discussion. Would you like me to demonstrate using the scriptures again for you, or will you just do like you did before and say that is hogwash?

In fact here is one of many scriptures I used to demonstrate my position:
Luke 2:1 King James Version (KJV)
2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that "all" the world should be taxed.
Did all the world get taxed by Ceasar. No. There are probably 5 other scriptures where "all" does not mean "all".
John 3:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Jesus did not baptize, and "all" men did not come to him. All men will eventually kneel and bow their heads and testify that Jesus is the Christ, but during his mortal ministry only thousands of men come to him. Certainly not "all" men.

So if these examples of "all" is the same "all" that is used to say that Jesus (Yahweh)created "all" things, you have a problem, not me. The Church of Jesus Christ says that Jesus created "all" of the natural creation of the heavens and the earth. Which BTW so does the bible.

 

[Calminian]

Look at the last half of my paper, on post 116. I answered your question. It starts: Now, to answer your question.

The first half was to show you why we believe they are 3 Gods, then my answer is relevant.

Also tell my how I was defensive and I will try to not do that again. But if I defend my position and that is offensive to you, I cannot help that, for as nicely as I can defend, you may take offense. But if there is something that I can do to be nicer, I will try to do it.

No it's just a long answer like that is like a filibuster. We're having a simple dialog. If I went off and posted 3 pages (a bit of an exaggeration), it's kind of defensive, yeah.

It's really very simple. Isaiah 43:10 says no gods have or every will be formed and there is one God. It seems this one verse is really all I need to answer any number of your pages. But if you could tell me in simple terms what you think this means that would help.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

You said: How many verses do you have from the Bible (KJB) on 'baptism for the dead'?
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29) 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Ok, so you have (in your estimation, as it is demonstrable that the LDS position is in error just from the context and what the bible teaches on the matter of those who die) a single and only verse to support your practice/theology?

That is not what scripture tells us that we need. It must always be in the mouth of two or three witnesses, even 'line upon line', and comparing 'scripture with scripture' as like unto 1 Cor. 2:13, and all that must be tested against what was previously given, as per 1 Cor. 14;32, and the doctrine is to be found not only from Gen. (the seed) to Rev. (the fulness of the tree), but in the sanctuary itself (Psa. 77:13). This you do not seem to have, otherwise, I would have expected it to be given.

That is very dangerous.

Did you want to look at the context of the single verse you cited?

Temple baptismal font:
(Old Testament | 1 Kings 7:23 - 26)

I am not sure why this was quoted in regards the question asked (the matter of the LDS practice of proxy baptism), since the brasen Sea was for Solomon's temple, which ceased to be, and was never used for 'proxy baptism'. That the LDS have baptismal fonts built in the shape of Solomon's brasen Sea does not validate the first practice. In otherwords, it is not evidence for 'proxy baptism', though I have no real concern about what any baptismal font looks like per se, and if the LDS want one that is as elaborate and looks like the brasen Sea, well, that's their business and use of funds, to which they will all be responsible for before God. That is not the concern for the question. The concern was for evidence from scripture for 'proxy baptism'. Only one text was provided and this goes against the LDS standard:

"... A dictionary defines the noun witness as an “attestation of a fact or event: [a] testimony.”4 The term witness bears special significance when applied to the word of God. In the Bible we read this important declaration: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”5 This assures God’s children that divine doctrines are confirmed by more than one scriptural witness. ..." - (section: Scriptural Witnesses; Elder Russell M. Nelson;Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) - Scriptural Witnesses

Where are the 2-3 witnesses in both the OT and NT for the LDS practice/belief of proxy baptism?

Then I would like to get into the matter of what the Bible actually says about those who die.

There are many commandments.

Yes, but I was asking for specifics. For instance, in the Ten Commandments, why does the LDS cite Exo. 20:1-17, and then alter Exo. 20:8-11, in regards the day of God's choosing? the 7th Day to the first? Even the LDS official position acknowledges the 7th day is the sabbath, and they acknowledge that the first day was the day of the resurrection, and that the two are not the same day.

Washing the feet is not one of them.

Please read John 13 carefully. It was a direct command by Jesus. Why then does the LDS not do as Jesus asked?

Don't mix commandments and ordinances.

I am not mixing.

We should not drink blood, however eating meat is not the same, Jesus ate meat.

Jesus (past tense) ate flesh of the passover, that is true, and so also fish, while He was in the courtyard of the earth, not after He ascended into the Holy Place.

Yet, even that which Jesus did eat, was following the scriptural standards of 'no fat, no blood in the flesh', etc. The flesh had to be drained of all blood, then 'sod' (sodden, soaked in brine to leech out anything else) and then finally had to be burnt (cooked) and dried, until is was like a jerky. It was not what men eat today, which is all contrary to God's Law, and thus men are filled with disease even today, and will perish (Psa. 78) because of it. If you do not believe me, I will show you line upon line.

The law of Moses was fulfilled and animal sacrifice is ended.

In a certain sense true, but the laws therein are not gone, but transferred into Christ's ministry. Thus the punishment for a daughter of a priest caught playing the harlot is to be burnt with fire (Rev. 17), and so on.

The new law was given in the sermon on the mount.

That Law you speak of on the Sermon on the Mount was quoting directly from the OT, even much of it from Psalms, etc. It was the explanation of the Ten Commandments, not their negation.

You said: "If Peter had those keys, how did Joseph Smith get those keys?" Peter James and John gave the keys to Joseph Smith after Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were given the Aaronic priesthood by John the baptist/

How did Peter, james and John (Apostle), do this as they are all dead, asleep in the grave/earth, awaiting to be called forth to life at the resurrection of the just (1 Pet. 1:3; Phil. 3:11)? and same also with John the Baptist do this, since he is dead according to scripture, asleep in the grave, awaiting the resurrection to come?

Do you mean to tell me, that LDS believe in the pagan ideology of immortal soul/spirit theology (even of the 'catholic platonic dualism', that Grecian philosophy), which was given by the serpent in the Garden, Gen. 3:4?

For more on this see: Keys of the Priesthood We do not disavow any group of any keys. However the Bible states:
(New Testament | 2 Timothy 3:5)

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

The "power" is the grace of God that helps persons to keep God's Ten Commandments, Jhn. 14:15, citing Exo. 20:6. For sin is the transgression of the Law, 1 Jhn. 3:4. I will ask as Jesus asked, why then does the LDS transgress God's Law (Exo. 20:1-17; 20:8-11) to keep their tradition of the first day, instead of honouring the Heavenly Father in His 7th Day (Isa. 58:13)?

I will recommend this to you:

Check out the playlist titles, especially the historical sections.

The list of sins I gave you should suffice, nor do I have any more on the mark of the beast.

You seem to think that transgression of the 4th commandment in the 7th day, is not sin.

However, I will ask, who does the LDS teach that 'the beast' is of said verse?

 

[HeartenedHeart]

Thank you for this scripture, it says exactly what I have been saying about the word "bara" in Hebrew.
The first level of the definition of this word says it means to create, shape, or form. The idea that "create" means making something out of nothing, is not evidenced in this definition. I believe philosophers and scholars and church men between 150ad to 325ad added the idea of "out of nothing" to the creation process to give their God a more powerful presence among the gods in existence in their day.

Not so (bara), also I never cited philosophers. I cited scripture, which speaks plainly in Hebrew or English.

Also, God spake that which came from His mind, (which is not nothing). What I advocated was, that there was no pre-existing matter that earth was made from, but God spake that (the earth and its matter/earthly elements) into existence from His mind (which pre-existed).

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

You may of course say 'thank you', but it does not help you in regards what I have shared and asked.

Even though the bible makes this statement, we know that God did not hang the earth upon nothing.

Again, why do you have to doubt what scripture plainly states and re-work it to suit your ideology? You do not see that you do this, neither the danger of it?

God used the forces of gravity

Gravity, is a word used to describe a phenomena, not that that is an actual thing (matter).

God holds all things together by His word. He has placed laws of nature into existence.

to hang the earth in space

You just said 'space'.

Matter takes up time/space, but space is not 'matter', but the area in which matter exists.

This is seen in Gen. 1, in the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

Time, space and matter in relationship to this world.

, exactly where it needed to be to keep it in its orbit around the sun. It is in a "goldielocks" location, because it is perfectly positioned for environmental purposes, such as no extreme weather conditions, and the gravity of the sun and the other planets in the solar system were created for the express purpose of holding this earth in its place and keep it on the right path, and protect it from space debris. Interesting discussion.

The 'habital zone', or 'goldielocks' expressions, is the ID movements terms and is really non-sequitur to the matter of 'creation'. God's word says:

Isa. 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

I can agree that the bible says that the earth did not always exist, but it says nothing of the atoms and molecules that eventually made up the mountains of the earth.

What is "Earth' made of? It is made of 'earth' ...

Again, LDS have an infinite regress here, as elsewhere, for where did the 'atoms', 'molecules' come from?

So from my prospective, you cannot say, "neither the matter to which it is now made of". I believe God took existing matter, and formed the perfect globe with it.

What you 'believe' and what scripture says are two differing things. You may of course 'believe' what you will, at least for the present, but that does not make what is believed to be valid. Belief must be validated by scripture, for belief to be true, in harmony with what God stated. Let God be true and every man a ...

This seems to be the case if you read Genesis 1:1-8.
The bible starts by saying that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (vs 1) This is a starting statement and then it starts the details of how this creation took place.
In day 1 God said, let there be light. (vs 3)
In day 2 day God said let there be the heavens. (vs 6 & 8)

Now what is interesting about this start is that before day 1 in vs 3, it says that the earth existed as a void and dark blob, covered by water. (vs 2, before day 1) The bible in vs 2 does not say "God created" or "God said" or anything, just the earth was without form and void and dark and covered with water. Then on day 1, God said let there be light.

I already showed that God created the heaven and the earth (of this world) in Vs 1. Vs 2 shows that is was a lifeless, mass of clay, ready to be worked from that point.

So the question is: did the material for the earth exist before the creation of the earth and everything under and over the earth?

That's why I quoted the many passages of scripture which show that it came from the mind of God, through His words.

Another way to ask the question is: On what day of creation did God create the earth

An earthly day cannot exist without the earth, logically, and thus there was not an earth day the moment God created the Earth, Gen. 1:1. There was however, time with God.

or for that fact, the water? We know that he created the heavens in day 2, but what day did God created the earth and what day did God say Let there be the dust of the earth or Let there be water? Only in vs 2 before the creation days started. Interesting reading in Genesis 1:1-8.
Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Re-citing Gen. 1:1-8 is not furthering this line of discussion, for the important verses are vs 1 and 2.

Wonderful scripture, thank you for showing me this, I have not seen anyone use this scripture to describe Jesus for years. Here is what is interesting about this scripture:
The KJV says, I (Jesus) was set up.....before the earth was.
The NIV and HOLMAN says, I (Jesus) was formed....before the earth was.
The GNT says, I (Jesus) was made....before the earth was.
The NCV says, I (Jesus) was created....before the earth was.

Other (corrupt) English translations are a distortion to what the Hebrew says, as the word used means to be 'set up', in that context, not created, made into existence, etc:

"set up" - Proverbs 8:23 KJB, H5258

נסך ; nâsak

Total KJB Occurrences: 26

poured, 10

Genesis 35:14; Numbers 28:7; 2 Samuel 23:16; 2 Kings 16:13; 1 Chronicles 11:18; Isaiah 29:10; Jeremiah 19:13, 32:29, 44:19; Ezekiel 20:28

pour, 6

Exodus 30:9; Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19 (3),25

cover, 4

Exodus 25:29, 37:16; Numbers 4:7; Isaiah 30:1

offer, 2

Hosea 9:4 (2)

set, 2

Psalms 2:6, Pro 8:23

melteth, 1

Isaiah 40:19

molten, 1

Isaiah 44:10

The context of Proverbs 8 KJB eliminates the meanings/uses of “molten” [to form], “melteth”, “offer” [as a sacrifice, or to pour out as in offering], “cover” [to place over], “pour” [out as in offering], “poured” [a drink offering, in anointing an object, etc.], except it be in the meaning of 'poured out upon', as in “anointed” [of the Holy Ghost/Spirit] from everlasting, as the Son of God is indeed, the “Christ” even before He is born [Matthew 2:4; Luke 2:11,26 KJB] and/or in the meaning of being the one chosen [and chose] to be “offer[ed]” in sacrifice from before all things were made; a life to be “poured out” as a gift for the redemption, for sin should it arise.

The context of Proverbs 8 KJB thus helps us to know that the phrase “set up” carries with it the meanings of “set”, but also dealing with the “anointed” heir and King:

Psalms 2:2 KJB - The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Psalms 2:6 KJB - Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

Psalms 2:7 KJB - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Psalms 2:8 KJB - Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Psalms 2:12 KJB - Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Therefore, please rely upon the contextual study instead of arian, and unitarian views that creep into modern English corruptions. Satan has indeed counterfeited the multiplication of 'bread', and it is worm eaten.

Much more could be stated in regards the terms in Prov. 8.

It is interesting because the Church of Jesus Christ has always taught that Jesus has existed for ever before the earth was created. There has never been a time that Jesus was not.

Yes, the Son of the Father always existed. That was not in question by myself, but you seemed to hint that was what I teach by citing non-related English bible versions.

But in what form did he exist from everlasting?

His glorious form, His glorious body, as we see throughout the scripture (Jhn. 17:5; Phil. 2:6, 3:21, etc).

We believe his intelligence and spirit have existed forever, but that in some way, God formed or made or set up, or created, the intelligence to be an inseparable part of the spirit, IOW God took the independent intelligence and spirit and housed (made, formed, set up, created) the intelligence in the spirit and they became an inseparable entity.

How very grecian.

Here is the real interesting part of this event. You and I also have existed forever from everlasting as an independent intelligence and spirit

I deny this with all my heart. I have not always existed. I am finite, having beginning. I am not "I AM" (always existing). I came to be. I do not inherently have eternal/everlasting life. I am not Life, I was given life by JEHOVAH Elohiym who is Life.

You speak the same words as the serpent, yet in another form, and are unaware of what you do or say, nor of what it means to the Everlasting Gospel itself.

, and God in some way that is unknown, housed (made, formed, set up, created) your intelligence as in part of your spirit and you became an inseparable entity.

Again, this is false, and is nothing but grecian philosophy. Do not think me harsh, look it up.

Me too, and all men and women too. And Jesus and satan too. We are all spirit children of God. (See Numbers 16:22, Numbers 27:16, Romans 8:16, Psalms 82:6, Hebrews 12:9, Acts 17:28-29)

Spirit deals with 'heart/mind' and the 'breath' also, as many examples could be cited. It doesn't mean that we always existed.

God always existed. God is I AM. Not we, for we 'came to be' by the will of I AM.

That is why the Church of Jesus Christ can say that we are brothers of Jesus, and Jesus and satan are brothers.

Christians are brothers of Jesus through adoption.

Lucifer was once the fellow minister(ing angel) of 'Jesus' (who was His superior (infinitely so), being Michael). The Son of God eternally existed (Jhn 1:1, etc), but not so with Lucifer (though he would like to posit the idea otherwise, Eze. 28:13,15).

I understand what LDS mean by Jesus and Satan were 'brothers', but it is a misuse of the term.

The Son of God is the original express image of the Father, eternal, ever-existing, having life within Himself, of the Divine nature of His Father, while lucifer is a created being, a son by creation, not having the same nature, but is of angelic/created being nature.

The Nature of Divinity is uncreated and uncreatable.

Lucifers nature is created, and therefore, destructible.

Are angels called the 'sons of God' in certain places in scripture, 'Yes', but this is not equating them with the same standing as the original eternal Son of God.

So if you want to say 'brothers' in that sense, there would not be so much issue, but to go beyond this as LDS doctrine does, is derogatory towards Deity.

I have probably overloaded you with information, so read it a couple of times and see what your think?

Not at all.

 

[He is the way]

Ok, so you have (in your estimation, as it is demonstrable that the LDS position is in error just from the context and what the bible teaches on the matter of those who die) a single and only verse to support your practice/theology?

That is not what scripture tells us that we need. It must always be in the mouth of two or three witnesses, even 'line upon line', and comparing 'scripture with scripture' as like unto 1 Cor. 2:13, and all that must be tested against what was previously given, as per 1 Cor. 14;32, and the doctrine is to be found not only from Gen. (the seed) to Rev. (the fulness of the tree), but in the sanctuary itself (Psa. 77:13). This you do not seem to have, otherwise, I would have expected it to be given.

That is very dangerous.

Did you want to look at the context of the single verse you cited?

I am not sure why this was quoted in regards the question asked (the matter of the LDS practice of proxy baptism), since the brasen Sea was for Solomon's temple, which ceased to be, and was never used for 'proxy baptism'. That the LDS have baptismal fonts built in the shape of Solomon's brasen Sea does not validate the first practice. In otherwords, it is not evidence for 'proxy baptism', though I have no real concern about what any baptismal font looks like per se, and if the LDS want one that is as elaborate and looks like the brasen Sea, well, that's their business and use of funds, to which they will all be responsible for before God. That is not the concern for the question. The concern was for evidence from scripture for 'proxy baptism'. Only one text was provided and this goes against the LDS standard:

There are others:
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 124:29)

29 For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 127:5 - 6)

5 And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your dead.
6 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let him be eye–witness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord;

 

[He is the way]

[QUOTE="HeartenedHeart, post:

Yes, but I was asking for specifics. For instance, in the Ten Commandments, why does the LDS cite Exo. 20:1-17, and then alter Exo. 20:8-11, in regards the day of God's choosing? the 7th Day to the first? Even the LDS official position acknowledges the 7th day is the sabbath, and they acknowledge that the first day was the day of the resurrection, and that the two are not the same day.

[/QUOTE]
The day was changed after the resurrection which took place on the first day of the week:
(New Testament | John 20:19)

19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
(New Testament | Acts 20:7)

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

 

[He is the way]

[QUOTE="HeartenedHeart, postlease read John 13 carefully. It was a direct command by Jesus. Why then does the LDS not do as Jesus asked? [/QUOTE]
The washing of the feet is not a commandment, it is an ordinance. Do not tell us what we don't do and what we do because you don't know.

 

[mmksparbud]

[QUOTE="HeartenedHeart, post:

Yes, but I was asking for specifics. For instance, in the Ten Commandments, why does the LDS cite Exo. 20:1-17, and then alter Exo. 20:8-11, in regards the day of God's choosing? the 7th Day to the first? Even the LDS official position acknowledges the 7th day is the sabbath, and they acknowledge that the first day was the day of the resurrection, and that the two are not the same day.

The day was changed after the resurrection which took place on the first day of the week:
(New Testament | John 20:19)

19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
(New Testament | Acts 20:7)

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.[/QUOTE]

This thread is not about Sabbath---however--even the Catholic church admits it is they that changed the day to Sunday and that there is no biblical authority for that change. All the scriptures that people use as biblical authority are easily shown to not be what they think it is saying. You will never find one word that says---my sabbath day is now Sunday. Nothing wrong with celebrating His resurrection--but it is not the Sabbath. You honor Sunday as that and all your literature calls it the Sabbath. And I've said before---not a single one you have ever kept the Sabbath--including JS. Since it's off topic, I will say no more on that.

 

[He is the way]

The day was changed after the resurrection which took place on the first day of the week:
(New Testament | John 20:19)

19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
(New Testament | Acts 20:7)

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

This thread is not about Sabbath---however--even the Catholic church admits it is they that changed the day to Sunday and that there is no biblical authority for that change. All the scriptures that people use as biblical authority are easily shown to not be what they think it is saying. You will never find one word that says---my sabbath day is now Sunday. Nothing wrong with celebrating His resurrection--but it is not the Sabbath. You honor Sunday as that and all your literature calls it the Sabbath. And I've said before---not a single one you have ever kept the Sabbath--including JS. Since it's off topic, I will say no more on that.[/QUOTE]
You say it is off topic however the topic of the thread is
LDS folk, a question for you. HeartenedHeart asked a question and I answered it, therefore it is NOT off topic.

 

[Calminian]

...

Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

Pro 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world....

Just a word of caution, Proverbs 8 verses are not christological nor messianic. These verses are merely wisdom personified, and the personification is a female. JW's use these verses to try to say Jesus came into existence, but it's not the case. In their NWT they actually take the feminine pronouns out, which is deceptive, but regardless, these are not verses about Christ.

Prov. 8:1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 At the highest point along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3 beside the gate leading into the city,
at the entrance, she cries aloud:​

 

[HeartenedHeart]

There are others:
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 124:29)

29 For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 127:5 - 6)

5 And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your dead.
6 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let him be eye–witness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord;

That is proving your doctrine, by your doctrine, not evidence from scripture (KJB).

I too could write a book and by it prove what I want to believe from what I wrote.

Do you see the issue?

When at first attempting to prove the doctrine (proxy baptism), only a single verse of KJB was given, and when pointed out that by the KJB teaching it must always be two or three witnesses from said Bible, then a source outside of the Bible was given, namely explicit LDS material, no longer Bible (KJB).

Anything may be proven that way by anyone with ink and paper.

The WTS do the same thing on several of their doctrines (blood transfusions, organ transplants, etc). When asked for evidence from scripture they might cite a single verse depending on the topic, and when asked for more, they point to WTS material. Should I accept their evidence as such, or ask for more texts from scripture (KJB)?

Again, not to be harsh, as I am only digging to get to the bottom, and so I want to know how you would answer this objection.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

The day was changed after the resurrection which took place on the first day of the week:
(New Testament | John 20:19)

19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
(New Testament | Acts 20:7)

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

This is addressed even specifically on Video 206:

However, if you do not desire to consider it, allow me to share with you something, and ask another question about the LDS theology on this subject (as this is the ask LDS a question thread).

Is John 20:19, referring to the same events as at Luke 24:36?

If you say 'yes' (and rightly so, see the TSK cross references), it means that it was actually the second day of the week, since the day begins as "evening". John 20:19 refers to this very "evening", at the end of the first day of the week, which means it was actually the second day of the week in the evening portion as per Luke 24:13-35. Notice, Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week before sunrise (Luk. 24:1, as per His pattern of getting up early to pray unto His father; Mar. 1:35, see also type in Joshua), and yet spent some time with various disciples at various places, but had not yet met with all the Apostles yet. Jesus meets with the two on the road to Emmaus, and walks with them from Jerusalem down to this city (approx./ 7 miles), and as it grew toward evening (sundown) the two invite Jesus into their home for a supper. Jesus breaks bread and vanishes from their sight (He was still there, and walked back with them unnoticed, and enters with them as the door opened). The two run/walk all the way back to Jerusalem as it was "evening" (nighttime), and then Jesus appears to them all, which means it was actually the second day of the week, according to Biblical time (Gen.), not the "first day" any longer which ended with sundown long before they got to Jerusalem.

Most people do not read their Gospels carefully to catch this nuance.

Also, from that day, (first) evening of the second day, they were to meet again 8 days later, which no matter how you calculate that, inclusive or exclusive time, is also not a first day of the week either.

Jesus met with the disciples on numerous occasions, such as ten days before Pentecost, which if we take Pentecost as the first day of the week, ten days before when Jesus was with them and ascended, was also not a first day of the week.

The Jews and Christians met daily before Jesus and after Jesus ascension. None of that 'changes' God's Law, and there is no such commandment in NT either for so doing. it's a myth, and even the LDS sources say that it was not Jesus that changed it, but it was in the "meridian" time by the "church", by unknown persons long after Jesus ascended. (Do you want that LDS quote?)

Acts 20:7 is another instance, of a night meeting, not during the day. It also says nothing about a weekly re-currance, but is recorded for the farewell to Paul (who was going to Rome to die eventually), preaching unto Midnight and beyond, and for the miracle of Eutychus. Also before one says, "LORD's supper' here, notice that no such terms are used, and the 'cup' is not present, neither footwashing, but only the simple words of 'break bread' (Acts 2:42,46) and 'eating', at least twice, at night, even well into midnight and beyond, while Paul at sunrise walked many miles to catch the boat.

The disciples met "daily" (Acts 2:46-47, 5:42, 6:1, 16:5, etc), but wherein any of that is a commandment to alter the Ten Commandments, which LDS doctrine also says is unchangeable (Do you want that quote too)?

Jews who kept sabbath before Jesus was even born also met daily in the Temple and synagogue, even as Jesus did when He came (Mat. 26:55; Mar. 14:49; Luk. 19:47, 22:53, etc), and yet wherein was the alteration from the 7th day sabbath to another? There is none, not from Gen. to Rev.

Peter and Paul both cite Exo. 20:11, in Acts 4:24 & Acts 14:15-16 in asking person to repent unto the Creator (Redeemer/Re-Creator) God, and is found in Rev. 10:6, 14:7, etc and all throughout Acts (Acts 13, 15,16,17,18) and a whole 2 chapters in Hebrews 4.

Daniel warned us of the power that would think to change times and laws of the Most High God, Dan. 7:25, and is found mentioned again in Rev. 14:6-12, and a few other places.

If you carefully read Acts, they continually met upon the sabbath (the 7th day), in the Temple, synagogue, nature, etc, and Paul in one city for a whole year and half, but you will never find any such scripture that says they did so for the first day of the week.

In fact, every single 'first [day] of the week' text in the NT proves the continuance of the 7th day sabbath as the culmination of the week of God's created order, and His rest, while the 'first' [day] was just a common work day, a number towards that day, see for yourself:

Matthew 28:1(a) - (Koine Greek) οψε δε σαββατων (Transliterated) oye de sabbatwn

Matthew 28:1(b) - (Koine Greek) εις μιαν σαββατων (Transliterated) eiV mian sabbatwn

Mark 16:2 - (Koine Greek) και λιαν πρωι της μιας σαββατων (Transliterated) kai lian prwi ths mias sabbatwn

Mark 16:9 - (Koine Greek) αναστας δε πρωι πρωτη σαββατου (Transliterated) anastas de prwi prwth sabbatou

Luke 24:1 - (Koine Greek) τη δε μια των σαββατων (Transliterated) th de mia twn sabbatwn

John 20:1 - (Koine Greek) τη δε μια των σαββατων (Transliterated) th de mia twn sabbatwn

John 20:19 - (Koine Greek) τη μια των σαββατων (Transliterated) th mia twn sabbatwn

Acts 20:7 - (Koine Greek) εν δε τη μια των σαββατων (Transliterated) en de th mia twn sabbatwn

1 Corinthians 16:2 - (Koine Greek) κατα μιαν σαββατων (Transliterated) kata mian sabbatwn

Notice the distinction between the 'first' (mian) and "sabbath/s" (sabbatwn/sabbatou)

An overall view:

The many times that the "Sabbath" of the LORD is given in the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi)

Genesis 2:1-3; (see also, Genesis 18:19, 26:5, &c.)

The sabbath commandment in the beginning with God (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11; Psalms 119:142).

The sabbath commandment with Adam (Mark 2:27).

The sabbath commandment with Enoch (Genesis 5:22,24; Hebrews 11:5; Isaiah 58:13)

The sabbath commandment with Noah (Genesis 6:9; 2 Peter 2:5; Psalms 119:172, in fact consider Noah's very name (H5117, from H5146, same as H5118, in the Exo. 20:8-11 verse, for His name means 'rest').

The sabbath commandment with Eber (Genesis 10:21,24-25; Exodus 3:18, 5:3, 7:16).

The sabbath commandment with Abaham (Genesis 17:9, 18:19, 26:5; 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23; John 15:14).

The sabbath commandment with Isaac (Genesis 17:9, 18:19, 26:5).

The sabbath commandment with Jacob/Israel (Genesis 17:9, 18:19, 26:5, 32:28).

The sabbath commandment with Moses (Exodus 5:4-5;, 16:1-36, 20:8-11; Deuteornomy 5:12-15, 31:12-18). ...

The sabbath commandment with Jesus (Luke 4:16-19).

The sabbath commandment with the Apostles/Disciples (Acts 1:2, (4:24), 13:14,27,42,44, (14:15), 15:21, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4; Hebrews 3:11,18, 4:1,3,4,5,8,9,10,11; Revelation 1:10, 10:6, 12:17, 14:6-7)

The sabbath commandment with us today (Hebrews 4:9; Revelation 12:17, 14:6-7; John 14:15; Exodus 20:6,8-11).

The sabbath commandment on into eternity (Isaiah 66:23).

Exodus 5:4-5,8-9, 16:23-30, 20:8-11, 23:12, 31:12-18, 34:21, 35:1-3

Leviticus 19:3,30, 23:3,11,15-16,38, 24:8, 26:2

Numbers 15:32, 28:9

Deuteronomy 5:12-15

2 Kings 4:23, 11:5,7,9, 16:18

1 Chronicles 9:32, 23:31

2 Chronicles 2:4, 8:13, 23:4,8, 31:3

Nehemiah 9:6,14, 10:31,33, 13:15-22

Psalms 92:1, 146:6

Isaiah 56:2,4,6, 58:13, 66:23

Jeremiah 17:21-27

Ezekiel 20:12-24, 22:8,26, 23:38, 44:24, 46:1,3-4,12

Amos 8:5

The many times that the "Sabbath" of the LORD is given in the New Testament:

Matthew 12:1,2,5,8,10,11,12, 24:20, 28:1;

Mark 1:21, 2:23,24,27,28, 3:2,4, 6:2, 7:6-9, 15:42, 16:1;

Luke 4:16,31, 6:1,2,5,6,7,9, 13:10,14,15,16, 14:1,3,5, 23:54,56;

John 5:9,10,16,18, 7:22,23, 9:14,16, 12:1 (calculated), 19:31;

Acts 1:2, 13:14,27,42,44, 15:21, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4;

Additional references are:

John 12:1 (six days before the Passover, Jesus was at Lazarus' house, on Sabbath)

Hebrews 3:11, 4:1,3,4,5,8,9,10,11; [Hebrews 4:9 "rest" Greek: sabbatismos, literal sabbath-keeping]

Revelation 1:10 [kuriake hemera, "the Lord's Day" [the 7th Day Sabbath, not "the Day of the Lord", this is totally different in the Greek], see Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:8-11, Deuteronomy 5:12:15, Isaiah 58:13, 66:23, Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:27,28; Luke 6:5 ],

Revelation 10:6 [see also Exodus 20:11, 31:17; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 146:6; Acts 4:24, 14:15, Revelation 14:7];

Revelation 14:7 [see previous], etc

So, my question for the LDS doctrine (whose doctrine says that the 7th day is the sabbath, and the first day is the day of the resurrection):

First question:

God the Father having created the world by Jesus Christ, in 6 days and so rested the 7th day, blessing and sanctifying it, was that 7th day in Genesis 2:1-3 made for Adam, and all mankind in him?

Second question:

Is Jesus the second 'man', the last 'Adam' according to the scripture?

My third question:

Was the sabbath made for Jesus?

My fourth question:

How long will Jesus remain as He is, when resurrected, with Glorified flesh of mankind?

 

[HeartenedHeart]

Just a word of caution, Proverbs 8 verses are not christological nor messianic.

Yes, they are. Jesus is "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24, etc), and John 1:1-3, Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3, etc refer to this very same thing.

These verses are merely wisdom personified, and the personification is a female.

Yes, this points to Jesus. You think, How so, its 'female'. Yes. For mankind was made in the image of God, and the man Adam represented the Father, and Eve the Son, in their eternal relationship, with the Holy Spirit between both. God is in several places described by a woman's characteristics (not that God is a woman), see God described as gathering hens as a chicken (female), Mat. 23:37; Luk. 11:34, and as a mother (Isa. 49:15), and His word is described as breasts from which comes milk (Isa. 28) and other places and images. Again, it doesn't make God a woman, but a woman, comes from the man, who was made in the image of God, to reveal what the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are like in character.

The Son is obedient to His Father, as the Father is the Head of Christ; 1 Cor. 11:3. Notice the parallels there.

There are also passages about "travailing" to give birth, and to bring forth a people. Paul even made statements similar, but does not make him a woman, but uses the femininity to describe what was being gone through.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

JW's use these verses to try to say Jesus came into existence, but it's not the case.

WTS error does not make the passage of Proverbs 8 not about Jesus Christ. Proverbs 8 says nothing about wisdom coming into existence. Wisdom is eternally with God.

Do not confuse their (WTS) error (arian) and mistaken notion (created Jesus) with what the Bible actually says (Jesus was eternally with the Father, Proverbs 8:23, "from everlasting"; Proverbs 8:27, "I (Jesus/Wisdom) was there", Proverbs 8:30, "I was by Him (Father)", "as one brought up with Him (Father)").

What you are doing, would be the same thing as throwing out what 1 Cor. 15:29 rightfully says, just because the LDS have erroneous doctrine on it.

Separate the two, and rightly understand Proverbs 8 and 1 Cor. 15:29.

In their NWT they actually take the feminine pronouns out, which is deceptive

But I do not, and leave Proverbs 8 in the KJB as it is, for I am not to add nor subtract from God's word.

Again, proving the WTS error, does not negate what Proverbs 8 really teaches, inspite of the arian error that the WTS make of it.

Separate the two things.

, but regardless, these are not verses about Christ.

Read them carefully, they most certainly are, and several commentaries (non-WTS) could be given on it, that state that it is, if you do not take my word for it.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

You say it is off topic however the topic of the thread isLDS folk, a question for you. HeartenedHeart asked a question and I answered it, therefore it is NOT off topic.

I agree with you. The question is 'fair game'. I thank you for replying. Again, I am not looking for an 'I gotcha' moment, but desire true, rational, prayerful dialogue and so thank you for providing it as you have thus far.

 

[HeartenedHeart]

The washing of the feet is not a commandment, it is an ordinance. Do not tell us what we don't do and what we do because you don't know.

Ok. Let me ask then. Have you (personally) ever at a Lord's supper (communion service, etc) followed the example that Jesus gave (whether you call it ordinance or commandment, or other) and washed a brother's feet, even at an LDS gathering (not another religious gathering)?

I have (washed a brother's feet, and not boasting here) on numerous occasions, even this very previous day because Jesus asked those who follow Him to.

 

[He is the way]

That is proving your doctrine, by your doctrine, not evidence from scripture (KJB).

I too could write a book and by it prove what I want to believe from what I wrote.

Do you see the issue?

When at first attempting to prove the doctrine (proxy baptism), only a single verse of KJB was given, and when pointed out that by the KJB teaching it must always be two or three witnesses from said Bible, then a source outside of the Bible was given, namely explicit LDS material, no longer Bible (KJB).

Anything may be proven that way by anyone with ink and paper.

The WTS do the same thing on several of their doctrines (blood transfusions, organ transplants, etc). When asked for evidence from scripture they might cite a single verse depending on the topic, and when asked for more, they point to WTS material. Should I accept their evidence as such, or ask for more texts from scripture (KJB)?

Again, not to be harsh, as I am only digging to get to the bottom, and so I want to know how you would answer this objection.

No, you could not write a book like the Book of Mormon in 85 days. Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon in 85 days to scribes. He had no written materials with him to help him with the work either. When the Old Testament was written long before Christ's birth there was only one verse that said love thy neighbor as thyself:
(Old Testament | Leviticus 19:18)

18 ¶ Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

However, even though it was only in the Old Testament one time it was still a valid commandment. I do see your point. That is why prayer is so important as is repentance. We can repent and pray for guidance in our lives. God helps those who turn to Him.

 

[He is the way]

Ok. Let me ask then. Have you (personally) ever at a Lord's supper (communion service, etc) followed the example that Jesus gave (whether you call it ordinance or commandment, or other) and washed a brother's feet, even at an LDS gathering (not another religious gathering)?

I have (washed a brother's feet, and not boasting here) on numerous occasions, even this very previous day because Jesus asked those who follow Him to.

The washing of the feet is a sacred ordinance so I will not say much about it, but you can read this: Washing of Feet