LDS LDS Jesus Could Have Lost His Godhood

[Peter1000]

We are "stuck" with the truth. You are stuck with lies. That is the plain and simple fact of it. You follow JS---we follow God's word. You can not see beyond what JS has said, he is your God---not the real God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of the bible.

People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. You say we are stuck in lies, and then you unleash a whopper lie about JS. I know you don't like the guy, but don't pave your path to hell just to get people away from JS.

Wouldn't that be ironic. I'm in hell for telling lies about JS.

 

[Peter1000]

Back when women were property? We used to buy and sell people too. It's also in the bible. Trying to sell polygamy huh. Yeah when I was LDS I kinda was in denial of things like that and ignored them. Now my eyes are open and I can see clearly. Thank God our government finds Polygamy immoral and therefore illegal. Now back to the OP

Not trying to sell anything, and you brought it up, but your right, back to OP.

 

[mmksparbud]

People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. You say we are stuck in lies, and then you unleash a whopper lie about JS. I know you don't like the guy, but don't pave your path to hell just to get people away from JS.

Wouldn't that be ironic. I'm in hell for telling lies about JS.

And just what "whopper lie" was that?

 

[devin553344]

It is true that God told the apostles that a bishop had to be the husband of one wife. Is that because some good men had more than 1 wife at that time?

You knew it was culturally OK for a Jew at that time to have more than 1 wife? Right? It was written in their law.

However, Jesus was creating a whole new testament and he re-instigated , the law of men being married to 1 wife. So from the time of Moses to the time of Jesus it was institutionally and culturally OK to have more than 1 wife. But from the time of Jesus to JS it was institutionally and a cultural norm for men to be married to 1 wife.

Does this mean that now God had boxed himself into a corner, and did not dare to institute plural marriage again? Heavens no, God does not get to be boxed in by you or a bible, or anything. If God wishes to institute plural marriage again for a specific reason and that is wisdom unto him, he gets to without a whimper from anyone that he is going against some norm.

Remember when Peter was shown pieces of unclean meat in a dream and the Lord said to eat? Well, you know the norm in Peters day had been in affect for 1400 years, God had said not to eat certain meats, and so when God said eat, Peter objected. What did God say to him? Do you remember? God said whatever I command you to eat, you eat, even unclean meat is clean to you if I command you to eat it.
This dream was a precursor for baptizing a gentile, which for 1400 years God had said it was taboo to Jews. Now God said they were clean and were to have communion with the Jews and be a part of his new church for Jews and gentiles and anyone that objected or rejected this command would be out of his kingdom. Wow, what a massive change to the norm.

So if God says that it is OK again to practice plural marriage, are you going to object and reject God's work because at one time 2000 years ago he said he wanted men to be married to only 1 wife. You might, but JS after struggling like Peter, did what the Lord commanded and in all of it, God counted his plural marriages as righteousness, and not adulterous, because he had commanded it to be done.

Yes, red flag, but after studying it out, take the red flag down. Since God commanded it, it is good.

I believe the apostles and Jesus were teaching us a higher law to follow. Monogamy.

 

[Peter1000]

And just what "whopper lie" was that?

Did you not say the JS was our God?

"You can not see beyond what JS has said, he is your God--" see your post #81.

You have to know that is a whopper lie. Right?

 

[Peter1000]

I believe the apostles and Jesus were teaching us a higher law to follow. Monogamy.

I believe they were teaching us to be married to no more than 1 wife. Paul thought it a burden to be married at all, but he said if you cannot control yourself, then take a wife. But I do not see teachings by the apostles that have to do with plural marriage.

The church today does not teach plural marriage either.

 

[devin553344]

I believe they were teaching us to be married to no more than 1 wife. Paul thought it a burden to be married at all, but he said if you cannot control yourself, then take a wife. But I do not see teachings by the apostles that have to do with plural marriage.

The church today does not teach plural marriage either.

That's good to hear. It is illegal for a reason. Human rights and such

 

[mmksparbud]

Did you not say the JS was our God?

"You can not see beyond what JS has said, he is your God--" see your post #81.

You have to know that is a whopper lie. Right?

Well, that is not a big whopper about JS---you could say it is a big whopper about you---unfortunately--it's not that either, for anything that we place above the scriptures and the God that it reveals is idolatry.
You do not have to have a graven image to bow down to for it to be idolatry. You can spend so much time watching TV that it essentially is your God for you give it all your time that should be spending on God. You serve the God out of the mind of JS -- and the mind of Moroni, who was clearly not of God. It is most certainly not the God of the bible. You hold his writings above the bible. Sorry---but I told no whopper lie.

 

[mmksparbud]

I believe they were teaching us to be married to no more than 1 wife. Paul thought it a burden to be married at all, but he said if you cannot control yourself, then take a wife. But I do not see teachings by the apostles that have to do with plural marriage.

The church today does not teach plural marriage either.

They clearly taught one wife.

 

[Peter1000]

Well, that is not a big whopper about JS---you could say it is a big whopper about you---unfortunately--it's not that either, for anything that we place above the scriptures and the God that it reveals is idolatry.
You do not have to have a graven image to bow down to for it to be idolatry. You can spend so much time watching TV that it essentially is your God for you give it all your time that should be spending on God. You serve the God out of the mind of JS -- and the mind of Moroni, who was clearly not of God. It is most certainly not the God of the bible. You hold his writings above the bible. Sorry---but I told no whopper lie.

You are trying to twist away from it, but the idea that we hold his writing above the bible is not exactly true, they are more equal with the bible. Where the bible is silent and JS has received something from Jesus about that matter, then we take the words of Jesus through his prophet JS. This certainly is not idolatry. You have to worship something other than God himself to be idolatrous. Don't be silly. I hope you don't worship the bible above God? Do you?
Well we do not worship JS or any of his writing above God, even the bible. So again, come back to earth and quit saying JS is our God. That is a whopper of a lie.

 

[Peter1000]

They clearly taught one wife.

Wait a minute that is what I said.

 

[mmksparbud]

You are trying to twist away from it, but the idea that we hold his writing above the bible is not exactly true, they are more equal with the bible. Where the bible is silent and JS has received something from Jesus about that matter, then we take the words of Jesus through his prophet JS. This certainly is not idolatry. You have to worship something other than God himself to be idolatrous. Don't be silly. I hope you don't worship the bible above God? Do you?
Well we do not worship JS or any of his writing above God, even the bible. So again, come back to earth and quit saying JS is our God. That is a whopper of a lie.

I have no need to twist away from it. Just look at what you said I said. "Not exactly"--LOL! What do you call it when you say they are more accurate than the bible? It clearly means what it says---they are held in greater esteem for the are more accurate---which means they are more truthful. It is you who are "twisting"--not I. YOU DO NOT SAY THAT THE BIBLE TAKES PREDCEENCE OVER JS---YOU SAY WHERE THEY ARE CONTRADICTING---THE WORD OF JS IS THE REAL TRUTH. So you get real and quite with trying to say what you clearly do not teach.

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. Volume 6 link
"No man can accept Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, no man can accept this as His church, the Church of Jesus Christ, unless he can accept Joseph Smith as God's mouthpiece and the restorer of His work in these latter days."[6]

God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it.[9]

On July 13, 1862, Brigham Young preached:

I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is antichrist. All who confess that Joseph Smith is sent of God in the latter days, to lay the foundation of his everlasting kingdom no more to be thrown down, and will continue to keep his commandments, are born of God. All those who believe in their hearts and confess with their months that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet, at the same time trying with their might to live the holy principles Joseph the Prophet has revealed, are in possession of the Holy Spirit of God and are entitled to a fullness.[15]


“It’s easy to fool a man, but nearly impossible to convince him he's been fooled. --Mark Twain."

 

[mmksparbud]

Wait a minute that is what I said.

I believe they were teaching us to be married to no more than 1 wife. Paul thought it a burden to be married at all, but he said if you cannot control yourself, then take a wife. But I do not see teachings by the apostles that have to do with plural marriage.

The church today does not teach plural marriage either.

Again, if what JS teaches contradicts the bile---it is JS that is the truth. Pleural marriage that he taught was contradictory to the bible but that is what you all went by at that time. Clearly, what JS said was more important than what the word of God said. Mormonism followed him, not the bible.

 

[He is the way]

No you don't! You recognize the words of JS.

Joseph Smith didn't talk like that.

 

[mmksparbud]

Joseph Smith didn't talk like that.

Like what? Like this?

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. Volume 6 link

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The initial point in regards to this was rhetorical in nature.

Do you admit this?

Huh, if you want to go down a rabbit hole again, he lusted, get over it. We all do that.

In God's eyes, I am no more sinful, then Hitler. Hitler and myself sinned just as bad in God's eyes. In human eyes Hitler is the ultimate sinner and we think of ourselves as not so bad.

Now, lets get back on topic please.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

MORMONISM:
Humans and gods are the same species. Each has to earn godhood.

"Even Christ himself was not perfect at first; he received not a fulness at first, but he received grace for grace, and he continued to receive more and more until he received a fulness [see D&C 93:11–13]. Is not this to be so with the children of men? Is any man perfect? Has any man received a fulness at once? Have we reached a point wherein we may receive the fulness of God, of his glory, and his intelligence? No; and yet, if Jesus, the Son of God, and the Father of the heavens and the earth in which we dwell, received not a fulness at the first, but increased in faith, knowledge, understanding and grace until he received a fulness, is it not possible for all men who are born of women to receive little by little, line upon line, precept upon precept, until they shall receive a fulness, as he has received a fulness, and be exalted with him in the presence of the Father?"
Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.68

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org...pdf/language-materials/35744_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Luke 1:35 Good News Translation (GNT)
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and God's power will rest upon you. For this reason the holy child will be called the Son of God.

Hebrews 4:15 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
15 Jesus, our high priest, is able to understand our weaknesses. When Jesus lived on earth, he was tempted in every way. He was tempted in the same ways we are tempted, but he never sinned.

2 Corinthians 5:21 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
21 Christ had no sin, but God made him become sin[a] so that in Christ we could be right with God.

1 Peter 2:22 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
22 “He never sinned,
and he never told a lie.”

1 John 3:5 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
5 You know that Christ came to take away people’s sins. There is no sin in Christ.

 

[He is the way]

Like what? Like this?

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. Volume 6 link

Joseph Smith did not talk or speak like the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. It is proof that The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is the true church. No man, not even Joseph Smith, could have written such a manuscript in such a short period of time without the help of God. I know that the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are also from God.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Rather God the Father is our God and the God of Jesus our brother. However, Jesus Christ is one with God the Father as we can also be one with Him:

(New Testament | John 17:21 - 23)

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

John 10:30-33 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
30 The Father and I are one.”

31 Again the Jews there picked up stones to kill Jesus. 32 But he said to them, “The many wonderful things you have seen me do are from the Father. Which of these good things are you killing me for?”

33 They answered, “We are not killing you for any good thing you did. But you say things that insult God. You are only a man, but you say you are the same as God! That is why we are trying to kill you!”

If Jesus and Father were one in the sense of John 17, then the Jewish People would have said, so are we rather then trying to stone him to death.

John 20:27-29 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here. Look at my hands. Put your hand here in my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “You believe because you see me. Great blessings belong to the people who believe without seeing me!”

 

[Daniel Marsh]

IV. The Son, Jesus Christ, Is God


A. Explicit statements identifying Jesus as “God”

1. Is. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render the Hebrew el gibbôr here as “mighty hero” are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek. 32:21, which some try to cross-reference, is (a) not in the same context, as is Is. 10:21, and (b) speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. Some object that “mighty God” is simply theophoric (i.e., in which a person’s name says something about God, not about himself). However, this is not true of the rest of the compound name, which is descriptive of the Messiah himself (note especially “Prince of Peace”). It certainly makes no sense to argue both that the expression el gibbôr means merely “mighty hero” and that it is a theophoric description of God. In light of the NT, we should understand it as a description of the Messiah as God.

2. John 1:1. Even if Jesus is here called “a god” (as some have argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However, the “a god” rendering is incorrect. Other NT passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered “God”: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil. 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos (“the God”) to theos (“God”) never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11. In context, the preincarnate Christ (called “the Word”) is eternal (existing before creation, 1:1-2), is credited with creation (1:3, 10), is the object of faith (1:12), and has the divine glory (1:14)—all of which shows that he really is God.

3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have “God” here, not “Son.” The word monogenês, frequently rendered “only-begotten,” actually means “one of a kind,” “unique,” though in the NT always in the context of a son or daughter. Even if one translates “only-begotten,” the idea is not of a “begotten god” as opposed to an “unbegotten god.” The best translation is probably “God the only Son” (NRSV).

4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, in which the same author (John) uses the same construction in the plural (“our”) instead of the singular (“my”). See also Ps. 35:23. Note that Christ’s response indicates that Thomas’s acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show that the Father was Jesus’ “God” (due to Jesus becoming a man), but the words “my God” as spoken by Thomas later in the same chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to Jesus in his humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as well).

5. Acts 20:28: “the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” The variant readings (e.g. “the church of the Lord”) show that the original wording was understood to mean “his own blood,” not “the blood of his own [Son]” (since otherwise no one would have thought to change it). (No one seems to have thought to understand the text to mean “the blood of his own” until about a hundred years ago.) Thus all other renderings are attempts to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.

6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the identification of Christ as “God” in this verse.

7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp’s first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated “our great God and Savior” (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the word “manifestation” (“appearing”) of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8. The view that Paul means that Jesus Christ is “the glory of our great God and Savior” has several difficulties. For example, construing “Savior” as someone other than “Jesus Christ” in this context is awkward and implausible. Such alternate explanations would never have been entertained had Paul written “the appearing of the glory of our great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Thus, the root problem is the assumption that Paul could not have called Jesus God.