LDS teachings on God

TheBarrd said:

I think the point Paul was making was that no angel from God was ever going to bring "another gospel"....if such an "angel" appeared, we were to understand that he was misrepresenting himself...

Click to expand...

No... that is just wishful thinking on your part, because that's not what the scripture was saying.
It said; "But even if we or an angel from heaven..." Meaning that Paul was conveying the idea that it was possible a real "ANGEL FROM HEAVEN" could mislead you on the same level as a mortal sinful man.
Yet you guys went even further than that, by using it in the context that all Angels should not be trusted.

The Barrd said:

I remember that post. You were quite vague, as I recall.

Click to expand...

What kind of specificity were you expecting?

The Barrd said:

Yes...here is your list:

I have a witness, borne of the Holy Ghost, that it is Christ's church once more on the earth
I have found that the promises made by God in the Gospel it teaches are fulfilled in my life, consistently
in a very direct and personal way, it has brought me to a knowledge that God is real and that He knows and loves me
it has been the instrument through which God made known to me important, personal information about my life on earth
the doctrines of the Gospel it teaches bring complete peace to my soul and reconcile with perfection the questions I would raise about my origin, the general purpose of my life and trials, and the meaning of my very existence
it is always listening—through a living prophet—for more of God's word, always expectant that He has yet more to say for my benefit, and that of my family
the Gospel it teaches gives me useful, practical guidance and anchoring in the stormy seas of mortality
I have seen the hand of God made manifest, firsthand, through the priesthood power it claims to wield for God's purposes, including, and primarily, in my own life and in the life of my immediate family
I have seen the works of God made manifest in its doings
the Gospel it teaches yokes me to Christ in real, meaningful ways, not sparing personal sacrifice


What makes your experiences of these types of things any more valid than mine, or, for that matter, hundreds of thousands of other mainstream Christians who make similar claims?

Click to expand...

I did not offer my experiences in order to invalidate those of others. Should someone feel threatened by them?

The Barrd said:

In fact, how is this so very different from "a burning in the bosom"

Click to expand...

I would say that the following, while perhaps not as specific as you'd like, go beyond any kind of "burning bosom":

• I have found that the promises made by God in the Gospel it teaches are fulfilled in my life, consistently
• it has been the instrument through which God made known to me important, personal information about my life on earth
• the doctrines of the Gospel it teaches bring complete peace to my soul and reconcile with perfection the questions I would raise about my origin, the general purpose of my life and trials, and the meaning of my very existence
• it is always listening—through a living prophet—for more of God's word, always expectant that He has yet more to say for my benefit, and that of my family
• the Gospel it teaches gives me useful, practical guidance and anchoring in the stormy seas of mortality
• I have seen the hand of God made manifest, firsthand, through the priesthood power it claims to wield for God's purposes, including, and primarily, in my own life and in the life of my immediate family
• I have seen the works of God made manifest in its doings
• the Gospel it teaches yokes me to Christ in real, meaningful ways, not sparing personal sacrifice

That's 80% of my list. I can't say that I understand where you're coming from.

TasteForTruth said:

What kind of specificity were you expecting?
I did not offer my experiences in order to invalidate those of others. Should someone feel threatened by them?
I would say that the following, while perhaps not as specific as you'd like, go beyond any kind of "burning bosom":

• I have found that the promises made by God in the Gospel it teaches are fulfilled in my life, consistently
• it has been the instrument through which God made known to me important, personal information about my life on earth
• the doctrines of the Gospel it teaches bring complete peace to my soul and reconcile with perfection the questions I would raise about my origin, the general purpose of my life and trials, and the meaning of my very existence
• it is always listening—through a living prophet—for more of God's word, always expectant that He has yet more to say for my benefit, and that of my family
• the Gospel it teaches gives me useful, practical guidance and anchoring in the stormy seas of mortality
• I have seen the hand of God made manifest, firsthand, through the priesthood power it claims to wield for God's purposes, including, and primarily, in my own life and in the life of my immediate family
• I have seen the works of God made manifest in its doings
• the Gospel it teaches yokes me to Christ in real, meaningful ways, not sparing personal sacrifice

That's 80% of my list. I can't say that I understand where you're coming from.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to offend you, dear man. However, my own list as to why I am so firmly set in my own belief in the Godhead, which is very different from yours, would sound very similar.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not being truthful.
I've spoken to a great many other people who have similar testimonies. For instance, I completely disagree with the Pentecostal church's version of "tongues" or "slain in the spirit". I strongly suspect that the spirit behind such manifestations is not holy at all. However, they also have lists of why they believe as they do, that are much like yours, or mine.
What conclusions may we draw from this phenomenon?
Well, there are several possibilities. Obviously, we can't all be correct. Perhaps we are all wrong? Maybe we are all deluding ourselves?
Or...or...
Or maybe there is more than one spirit at work here?
Then there is that scripture that talks about how God, Himself, will send a strong delusion...why? Because they did not receive the love of the truth...

May God have mercy on us all...

TheBarrd said:

I think the point Paul was making was that no angel from God was ever going to bring "another gospel"....if such an "angel" appeared, we were to understand that he was misrepresenting himself...

Click to expand...

No, I think not. First we have to understand what the first "gospel" was that Paul was saying cannot be replaced, and it was his usual message of Jesus dying for our sins, being resurrected and being our Savior. Reading the chapter makes that evident. So if someone preaches a different gospel than that, he is saying not to listen to it. He is not saying there would be no more heavenly messengers. It is evident that Revelation was delivered by an angel to John after Paul said this. Should we reject Revelation then?
How about the gospel this angel brings:
Revelation 14:6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Should we reject that message too?
How about the message of the two witnesses to Jerusalem in Revelation 11? Should we reject these prophesied witnesses because they bring more revelations? Does that mean they bring "another gospel?" It would be ironic if the Hebrews of that day quote Paul as is being done here...

RevelationTestament said:

No, I think not. First we have to understand what the first "gospel" was that Paul was saying cannot be replaced, and it was his usual message of Jesus dying for our sins, being resurrected and being our Savior. Reading the chapter makes that evident. So if someone preaches a different gospel than that, he is saying not to listen to it.

Click to expand...

There is quite a bit more to the gospel story told in the Bible than that, my friend. There is the fantastic story of the birth of Jesus, there are the miracles He did, there are the things He taught the people...so much more than just He died and was resurrected and is our Savior. Every bit of the gospel story in the Bible matters...yes, including the first bit of John's gospel, in which he tells us that
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

RevelationTestament said:

He is not saying there would be no more heavenly messengers. It is evident that Revelation was delivered by an angel to John after Paul said this. Should we reject Revelation then?

Click to expand...

I see you have given the matter some serious thought. That is good.
Of course, you sort of missed the fact that John was also an apostle...one who had walked with Jesus Christ in the flesh.
And there is another problem. Why would God let the world stumble around in the darkness for so long? If the gospel had been lost, what took Him so long to "restore" it? Did Jesus fail in His mission to keep His church safe from hell's efforts to destroy it? I do not think so...

RevelationTestament said:

How about the gospel this angel brings:
Revelation 14:6
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Should we reject that message too?

Click to expand...

There is nothing in there to suggest that this is a "restored gospel". This is the original, everlasting, unchanging gospel that was originally given to us...the old familiar gospel found in the pages of the Holy Bible. The apostles had been given their marching orders: "Go into all the world and make disciples"...and that is what they were doing.

RevelationTestament said:

How about the message of the two witnesses to Jerusalem in Revelation 11? Should we reject these prophesied witnesses because they bring more revelations? Does that mean they bring "another gospel?" It would be ironic if the Hebrews of that day quote Paul as is being done here...

Click to expand...

Have you read Revelation 11? I see nothing in there to indicate that these two witnesses have anything at all to do with Jerusalem. Nor is it even certain that they are actually men:

Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

I've heard loads of theories about these verses.
I suspect that the two witnesses are already here, and have been here for a very long time.
Already, the "beast" is making war with them...we see it happening, all around us, in Europe, in Asia...yes, even here in our beloved United States...but we do not recognize what is happening.
Still as blind and as deaf as ever...

Anyway, this has nothing to do with any "restored gospel", nor has God given us any clue in the Bible that we were to expect such a development. Quite the contrary:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

From what I've seen in these threads, the doctrine of the LDS is extensive, and one must pore through all sorts of documents to find it all...and then it is subject to change. Not only that, but it seems complicated and very difficult to understand.
Give me, instead, the simplicity that is in Christ...

TheBarrd said:

From what I've seen in these threads, the doctrine of the LDS is extensive, and one must pore through all sorts of documents to find it all...and then it is subject to change. Not only that, but it seems complicated and very difficult to understand.

Give me, instead, the simplicity that is in Christ...

Click to expand...

Check out the "Official Declarations"

OD 1 - Puts polygamy on hold for pragmatic reasons.
OD 2 - Open priesthood to blacks w/o acknowledging any racism in the past.

drstevej said:

Check out the "Official Declarations"

OD 1 - Puts polygamy on hold for pragmatic reasons.
OD 2 - Open priesthood to blacks w/o acknowledging any racism in the past.

Click to expand...

And yet Christ taught us that marriage was between one man and one woman:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And did you know that the very first man mentioned in the Bible who had more than one wife was a murderer?

Gen_4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

Nor do I recall Him ever preaching racism at all....

Wryetui said:

I think saying that God the Father was once human in another planet and then became God is more offensive. So who started it all? We cannot have an infinite regression of humans on another planets becoming gods so, someone must have started it, who did?

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe that is mostly revealed in the Bible with those who have the spiritual eyes to see. Well friend I can see this matter troubles you. I am not trying to force any belief on anyone, but you started the OP with a question which I was merely trying to answer with biblical scriptures. I will leave you with the determination of whether the Bible & Jesus teach the truth. I am sure it is something you have not seen before, and I pose this is because of the teachings of orthodoxy and the creeds. It was somewhat the matter of debate in the early church - at least as far as the begotten nature of Christ was concerned. The advent of the state church and the creeds just seemed to stamp out the debate or at least the daring to write various viewpoints on the matter since whoever said differently was pronounced "anathema."

RevelationTestament said:

Actually, I believe that is mostly revealed in the Bible with those who have the spiritual eyes to see. Well friend I can see this matter troubles you. I am not trying to force any belief on anyone, but you started the OP with a question which I was merely trying to answer with biblical scriptures. I will leave you with the determination of whether the Bible & Jesus teach the truth. I am sure it is something you have not seen before, and I pose this is because of the teachings of orthodoxy and the creeds. It was somewhat the matter of debate in the early church - at least as far as the begotten nature of Christ was concerned. The advent of the state church and the creeds just seemed to stamp out the debate or at least the daring to write various viewpoints on the matter since whoever said differently was pronounced "anathema."

Click to expand...

No one has ever answered the question that Wyretui posed...

Originally Posted by Wryetui View Post
I think saying that God the Father was once human in another planet and then became God is more offensive. So who started it all? We cannot have an infinite regression of humans on another planets becoming gods so, someone must have started it, who did?

Click to expand...

And that I have been trying for weeks to get one of you guys to answer:

someone must have started it, who did?

You say that god was once a man, born on another world, and that when he died, he was "exalted" to be god by the god of that world...

On close examination, the best answer I've gotten so far is that "this is not revealed to us"...which, I have to admit, made me smile.

When pressed to explain believing in all these infinite gods, the best answer I've gotten is that "we do not know them, we do not even know of them". Evidently, you merely "allow for their existence" as it is a necessity to uphold the doctrine.

Now, if I could be convinced that a man might be "exalted" to the status of god (don't hold your breath), I would not be interested in worshiping a god who was exalted by another god, who was exalted by another god, who was exalted--well, you get the idea. None of these "little g" fellas for me, thank you. Like Wyretui, I want to know who got the god-ball rolling. Who...or What...was so powerful, that He...or It...was able to take a mere mortal man, and "exalt" him to be a god? And not only that, but also give to him the power to "exalt" more gods? THAT is the Entity I want to know.
Unfortunately, LDS "does not know" Him...in fact they "don't even know of" Him. And, I am told, even if they did, it would not matter "a hill of beans".

Ahh, well. Wyretui, I guess you and I will have to look elsewhere for the original God...He doesn't seem to have revealed Himself to the LDS...

TheBarrd said:

There is quite a bit more to the gospel story told in the Bible than that, my friend. There is the fantastic story of the birth of Jesus, there are the miracles He did, there are the things He taught the people...so much more than just He died and was resurrected and is our Savior. Every bit of the gospel story in the Bible matters...yes, including the first bit of John's gospel, in which he tells us that
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Click to expand...

Paul is not talking about the "gospel story." He says what he is talking about. It seems some were coming into the church and denying the resurrection of Christ. Paul also addresses it in 1 Corinthians and pulls all the stops including bringing up baptism for the dead to try to convince the new members of the resurrection. This "supernatural event" seems to have been a matter of doubt among some new members. So here in Galatians we find Paul addressing it again:
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

So Paul gave the basic tenets of the gospel and says some were coming in and teaching a different message. This is what he was addressing - not that there would be no more scripture...

I see you have given the matter some serious thought. That is good.
Of course, you sort of missed the fact that John was also an apostle...one who had walked with Jesus Christ in the flesh.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I included Revelation on purpose to show that Paul was not saying there would be no more scripture or "gospel" or revelations from God. Indeed Paul was inclusive in his statement saying "though we, or an angel from heaven..." The "we" would include John. And John did write what an angel from heaven told him as more scripture. So "another gospel" does not mean more scripture. It means a conflicting message from Jesus dying for our sins, being resurrected, and being our Savior - that is all. So I have given this some thought as you see, because this scripture is so often misconstrued and completely taken out of context.

And there is another problem. Why would God let the world stumble around in the darkness for so long? If the gospel had been lost, what took Him so long to "restore" it? Did Jesus fail in His mission to keep His church safe from hell's efforts to destroy it? I do not think so...

Click to expand...

The world did have the scriptures and did have light, but with the advent of the state church and the threat of "anathema" from their own church, this light seemed to go out. Why would God allow darkness to fall? It was part of His plan that His words may be fulfilled.
John 9:4
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen:
2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Revelation 17:17
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

The birth of the church in Christ was not the end of God's revelation:
Isaiah 66:9
9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God

There is nothing in there to suggest that this is a "restored gospel". This is the original, everlasting, unchanging gospel that was originally given to us...the old familiar gospel found in the pages of the Holy Bible. The apostles had been given their marching orders: "Go into all the world and make disciples"...and that is what they were doing.

Click to expand...

The fault was not in the apostles. They did what they were supposed to including laying down their lives for the flock.

Have you read Revelation 11? I see nothing in there to indicate that these two witnesses have anything at all to do with Jerusalem. Nor is it even certain that they are actually men:

Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

Click to expand...

They are the two olive branches prophesied in Zechariah. And of course they are men. Angels on a messenger mission don't die and get resurrected. One has to receive a mortal body for that. How do you think we are going to get resurrected? By angel magic?

And yes, I have read it many times and it does refer to Jerusalem. Where else was our Lord crucified:
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

I've heard loads of theories about these verses.
I suspect that the two witnesses are already here, and have been here for a very long time.
Already, the "beast" is making war with them...we see it happening, all around us, in Europe, in Asia...yes, even here in our beloved United States...but we do not recognize what is happening.
Still as blind and as deaf as ever...

Click to expand...

Yes, the United States has become quite blind and deaf. The people have become lifted up in the pride of their scientific understanding, and have been turning away from God, and Christ their Savior.
I cannot accept your interpretation because the two prophesy for 1260 days...
While some might possibly interpret that as 1260 yrs, I have yet to see someone live that long and then die and get resurrected in the sight of all those around them.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with any "restored gospel", nor has God given us any clue in the Bible that we were to expect such a development. Quite the contrary:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Click to expand...

I've addressed the meaning of that verse.
And on the contrary God has given lots of not just clues but outright word that the beast would fool all the nations. There are other words that this was to happen until the restitution of all things or "restoration." Look up restitution - this is exactly what it means - restoration. That is not just a clue, but an outright plain prophecy.

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Click to expand...

Yes, this has already happened to. And men rejected the simplicity in Christ...denying that He in Spirit went to the dead to teach them the gospel that they too could be resurrected. It is a simple concept of justice, yet the world denies it and the words of Christ Himself:
John 5:25
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

It is sad to me that men can believe that God would impose punishment on men without giving them a chance to accept the gospel.

From what I've seen in these threads, the doctrine of the LDS is extensive, and one must pore through all sorts of documents to find it all...and then it is subject to change. Not only that, but it seems complicated and very difficult to understand.
Give me, instead, the simplicity that is in Christ...

Click to expand...

It is really not complicated. It is the same basic gospel.... accept and follow Christ in order to be saved. Those who endure it well shall be rewarded according to their works. The fact that there are various opinions on peripheral issues is really not pertinent to our salvation. This has always been so in the body of Christ. I do pray for the day tho when every man will call his neighbor brother under the vine tree.
Zechariah 3:10
10 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

TheBarrd said:

No one has ever answered the question that Wyretui posed...

And that I have been trying for weeks to get one of you guys to answer:

someone must have started it, who did?

You say that god was once a man, born on another world, and that when he died, he was "exalted" to be god by the god of that world...

On close examination, the best answer I've gotten so far is that "this is not revealed to us"...which, I have to admit, made me smile.

When pressed to explain believing in all these infinite gods, the best answer I've gotten is that "we do not know them, we do not even know of them". Evidently, you merely "allow for their existence" as it is a necessity to uphold the doctrine.

Now, if I could be convinced that a man might be "exalted" to the status of god (don't hold your breath), I would not be interested in worshiping a god who was exalted by another god, who was exalted by another god, who was exalted--well, you get the idea. None of these "little g" fellas for me, thank you. Like Wyretui, I want to know who got the god-ball rolling. Who...or What...was so powerful, that He...or It...was able to take a mere mortal man, and "exalt" him to be a god? And not only that, but also give to him the power to "exalt" more gods? THAT is the Entity I want to know.
Unfortunately, LDS "does not know" Him...in fact they "don't even know of" Him. And, I am told, even if they did, it would not matter "a hill of beans".

Ahh, well. Wyretui, I guess you and I will have to look elsewhere for the original God...He doesn't seem to have revealed Himself to the LDS...

Click to expand...

I will answer it, but it will not be accepted. The answer lies in the first, and the first in priesthood in the world - Adam - our first father. There is not an infinite regression "of gods" nor even multiple "gods" but there is one elohim. Nor is there an infinite regression of priesthood. But those who receive the priesthood receive the power to become without mother or without father, and without beginning or ending of days.

RevelationTestament said:

But those who receive the priesthood receive the power to become without mother or without father, and without beginning or ending of days.

Click to expand...

How do you become retroactively eternal? Eternity future I get, but eternal past for doing something in the present is a nifty move. Illogical but nifty.

RevelationTestament said:

Paul is not talking about the "gospel story." He says what he is talking about. It seems some were coming into the church and denying the resurrection of Christ. Paul also addresses it in 1 Corinthians and pulls all the stops including bringing up baptism for the dead to try to convince the new members of the resurrection. This "supernatural event" seems to have been a matter of doubt among some new members. So here in Galatians we find Paul addressing it again:
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Click to expand...

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

I bolded in ALL the pertinent details...

RevelationTestament said:

So Paul gave the basic tenets of the gospel and says some were coming in and teaching a different message. This is what he was addressing - not that there would be no more scripture...

Click to expand...

Not "no more scripture"...no more gospels. There will never be "restored gospel"

RevelationTestament said:

No, I didn't. I included Revelation on purpose to show that Paul was not saying there would be no more scripture or "gospel" or revelations from God. Indeed Paul was inclusive in his statement saying "though we, or an angel from heaven..." The "we" would include John. And John did write what an angel from heaven told him as more scripture. So "another gospel" does not mean more scripture. It means a conflicting message from Jesus dying for our sins, being resurrected, and being our Savior - that is all. So I have given this some thought as you see, because this scripture is so often misconstrued and completely taken out of context.

Click to expand...

John did not write "another gospel".

RevelationTestament said:

The world did have the scriptures and did have light, but with the advent of the state church and the threat of "anathema" from their own church, this light seemed to go out. Why would God allow darkness to fall? It was part of His plan that His words may be fulfilled.
John 9:4
4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Jesus knew exactly what was going to happen:
2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Revelation 17:17
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

The birth of the church in Christ was not the end of God's revelation:
Isaiah 66:9
9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God

Click to expand...

I totally do not agree with your interpretation of these scriptures. However, it would take me hours to go through every one, and we'd end up with a 32 page thesis...
Suffice it to say that Jesus' promise that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against His church has been faithfully kept, through all the ages. The church has been severely persecuted, there have been many martyrs, there have even been times when she has been driven underground...however, she has kept the Light shining in the darkness throughout. There has never been a time when the gospel allowed to be snuffed out, and there has never been a need for a "restored gospel".

RevelationTestament said:

The fault was not in the apostles. They did what they were supposed to including laying down their lives for the flock.

Click to expand...

How did you get, from what I said, that I was finding fault with the apostles? Quite the contrary...what I am finding fault with is your interpretation of John's Apocalypse...

RevelationTestament said:

They are the two olive branches prophesied in Zechariah. And of course they are men. Angels on a messenger mission don't die and get resurrected. One has to receive a mortal body for that. How do you think we are going to get resurrected? By angel magic?

Click to expand...

Zec 4:12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
Zec 4:13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
Zec 4:14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

Where do you see there that they must necessarily be men? Or angels, for that matter? Can't an organization....say like St. Jude's Children's Hospital...be anointed for the service they provide? (no, I am NOT suggesting that the hospital is one of the two witnesses). Can't a church, or a ministry be anointed? What about the Scriptures themselves? Would you not say that the Scriptures are anointed?

RevelationTestament said:

And yes, I have read it many times and it does refer to Jerusalem. Where else was our Lord crucified:
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Click to expand...

Yeah...that is where their "dead bodies" eventually end up. Could these terms be figurative?

RevelationTestament said:

Yes, the United States has become quite blind and deaf. The people have become lifted up in the pride of their scientific understanding, and have been turning away from God, and Christ their Savior.
I cannot accept your interpretation because the two prophesy for 1260 days...
While some might possibly interpret that as 1260 yrs, I have yet to see someone live that long and then die and get resurrected in the sight of all those around them.

Click to expand...

If we assume that they are men, that would be a good point. OTOH, folks did live a very long time, back in Genesis. And, with God, they might manage to live that long.
And so far, I don't recall ever seeing...or even hearing of...anyone being resurrected in the sight of all those around them...except, of course, the accounts of miracles in the Bible.

RevelationTestament said:

I've addressed the meaning of that verse.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have. Your interpretation has been noted...and rejected.

RevelationTestament said:

And on the contrary God has given lots of not just clues but outright word that the beast would fool all the nations. There are other words that this was to happen until the restitution of all things or "restoration." Look up restitution - this is exactly what it means - restoration. That is not just a clue, but an outright plain prophecy.

Click to expand...

See above.

RevelationTestament said:

Yes, this has already happened to. And men rejected the simplicity in Christ...denying that He in Spirit went to the dead to teach them the gospel that they too could be resurrected. It is a simple concept of justice, yet the world denies it and the words of Christ Himself:
John 5:25
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

It is sad to me that men can believe that God would impose punishment on men without giving them a chance to accept the gospel.

Click to expand...

Well, here, at least, is something we can agree on.
Sort of, anyway.
You, who have so many objections to "creeds of men", which in reality are nothing more than statements of faith, ought to at least know what is in them.
For instance, from the Apostle's Creed (the only one I'm at all familiar with) we have this:

He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;

Now, when, as a very little girl, I asked "why did Jesus go to hell?" my answer was "to preach unto those that slept."
I have never found a reason to doubt that explanation...

RevelationTestament said:

It is really not complicated. It is the same basic gospel.... accept and follow Christ in order to be saved. Those who endure it well shall be rewarded according to their works. The fact that there are various opinions on peripheral issues is really not pertinent to our salvation. This has always been so in the body of Christ. I do pray for the day tho when every man will call his neighbor brother under the vine tree.
Zechariah 3:10
10 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

Click to expand...

LDS Doctrine is very complicated, hard to nail down, and subject to change...or so I have come to understand after weeks of talking with you guys here in this forum, and from what I have read in various sites, both pro- and anti- Mormon all over the internet.
Oh, and from what little I managed to dig up in my town's local library, or our Junior College.
And I would say that the hope that you might, one day, be a god in your own right is not a "peripheral issue". The idea that the God we now worship as the One True God was once a mortal man who lived and died on another world is not a "peripheral issue".
Even the notion that Jesus Christ somehow "dropped the ball" and needed Joseph Smith to "restore" the gospel that somehow, He let get lost...well, that is not a "peripheral issue".

drstevej said:

How do you become retroactively eternal? Eternity future I get, but eternal past for doing something in the present is a nifty move. Illogical but nifty.

Click to expand...

The same way Melchizedek did:
Heb 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
**
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Wryetui said:

So Adam was the first in becoming god and he started it all? But who started Adam?

Click to expand...

Well, I will say it this way. Adam stands in the gospel as the first. I am not saying Adam himself is our Eternal Father. In the books of Moses, Moses stands in the stead of Christ, figuratively. Of course Moses was not Christ, but he is a prefigure or semblance of Christ in his role for the people. I hope that is clear. So God said He would send another like unto Moses to lead the people out from their captivity. Others such as Adam reveal parts of Jesus' story as well. Hence, Paul calls Jesus the first Adam.

RevelationTestament said:

Well, I will say it this way. Adam stands in the gospel as the first. I am not saying Adam himself is our Eternal Father. In the books of Moses, Moses stands in the stead of Christ, figuratively. Of course Moses was not Christ, but he is a prefigure or semblance of Christ in his role for the people. I hope that is clear. So God said He would send another like unto Moses to lead the people out from their captivity. Others such as Adam reveal parts of Jesus' story as well. Hence, Paul calls Jesus the first Adam.

Click to expand...

Could you maybe explain that a little more clearly, please? I'm afraid you lost me early on.

And while you are at it, maybe you could expound a bit on Dr. Steve's question...how did Adam become retroactively eternal????

TheBarrd said:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

I bolded in ALL the pertinent details...

Click to expand...

Which does nothing to address what gospel He is speaking about - the gospel of Christ crucified, and resurrected as our Savior. How difficult is that to understand? He was speaking to those who were doing that. It was already come to pass. He was not speaking of additional scripture. You are just trying to force it to say something he didn't mean. He doesn't say specifically, but it seems usually the case that new converts didn't have trouble with having a Savior so that our sins could be forgiven but that they doubted the resurrection story. It is apparent in several of his epistles. So now you are trying to reconvert this wholesale to mean there would be no more scripture, which was plainly not the case. LDS believe in the same gospel presented by Paul. It is not "another gospel." It is the same gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected as our Savior.

Not "no more scripture"...no more gospels. There will never be "restored gospel"

Click to expand...

I will let the reader distinguish between your interpretation and mine. The scriptures are clear there would be and still will be more revelation so you are plain wrong.

John did not write "another gospel".

Click to expand...

He wrote more revelation. How do you distinguish between more revelation and more gospel?

I totally do not agree with your interpretation of these scriptures. However, it would take me hours to go through every one, and we'd end up with a 32 page thesis...
Suffice it to say that Jesus' promise that "the gates of hell" would not prevail against His church has been faithfully kept, through all the ages. The church has been severely persecuted, there have been many martyrs, there have even been times when she has been driven underground...however, she has kept the Light shining in the darkness throughout. There has never been a time when the gospel allowed to be snuffed out, and there has never been a need for a "restored gospel".

Click to expand...

You have a temporal view of the church. Christ said His kingdom was not of this world. Men have a way of going astray.
Daniel 2:44
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

This kingdom is not in the days of the steel legs of the Roman empire, but in the days of its toes. And it is not left to men...

How did you get, from what I said, that I was finding fault with the apostles? Quite the contrary...what I am finding fault with is your interpretation of John's Apocalypse...

Click to expand...

I find no fault at all with it. Your position just seems very inconsistent. I am sorry you don't see that.

Zec 4:12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
Zec 4:13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
Zec 4:14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

Where do you see there that they must necessarily be men? Or angels, for that matter? Can't an organization....say like St. Jude's Children's Hospital...be anointed for the service they provide? (no, I am NOT suggesting that the hospital is one of the two witnesses). Can't a church, or a ministry be anointed? What about the Scriptures themselves? Would you not say that the Scriptures are anointed?

Click to expand...

Scriptures aren't killed by the beast rising out of the pit, to lie in streets for three days. The two are then resurrected before the eyes of all the people. But plainly you have trouble believing that we are resurrected through those who follow Christ. You are still in the Gentile milk.

Yeah...that is where their "dead bodies" eventually end up. Could these terms be figurative?

Click to expand...

You are in deep denial.

Yes, you have. Your interpretation has been noted...and rejected.

Click to expand...

Then you reject the scripture which says the heavens would receive Jesus until the restoration of all things. I cannot force you to believe what they say. Some people just have a hard time believing that scripture prophecies do come to pass.

Well, here, at least, is something we can agree on.
Sort of, anyway.
You, who have so many objections to "creeds of men", which in reality are nothing more than statements of faith, ought to at least know what is in them.
For instance, from the Apostle's Creed (the only one I'm at all familiar with) we have this:

He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;

Now, when, as a very little girl, I asked "why did Jesus go to hell?" my answer was "to preach unto those that slept."
I have never found a reason to doubt that explanation...

Click to expand...

yes I am aware of that creed since I attended a Presbyterian church as a child. And it is wrong. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise "this day." Thus, Jesus did not descend straightway into hell. I do not doubt that He did spend time in spirit prison as Peter says, but we do not know quite how much. It seems He went to paradise first. But yes by His spirit, He also went to teach spirits in prison that they too could be saved. I am glad you are open to that possibility.

LDS Doctrine is very complicated, hard to nail down, and subject to change...or so I have come to understand after weeks of talking with you guys here in this forum, and from what I have read in various sites, both pro- and anti- Mormon all over the internet.
Oh, and from what little I managed to dig up in my town's local library, or our Junior College.
And I would say that the hope that you might, one day, be a god in your own right is not a "peripheral issue". The idea that the God we now worship as the One True God was once a mortal man who lived and died on another world is not a "peripheral issue".
Even the notion that Jesus Christ somehow "dropped the ball" and needed Joseph Smith to "restore" the gospel that somehow, He let get lost...well, that is not a "peripheral issue".

Click to expand...

Christ didn't drop the ball. He did what He was allowed to do by the Father, and appeared to whom He was allowed to appear. Men dropped the ball by introducing pagan concepts into the church, changing the ordinance, the times and laws, etc. I can't point to one man and say it is all his fault, but there are definitely those in history who held offices or who were in power and who are to blame.