LDS teachings on God

[bbbbbbb]

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.


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.

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

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...

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

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.

You are in deep denial.

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.

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.


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.

So, it appears that the Jesus you believe in was nothing more than a man whose "free agency" was severely limited by the Father. This Jesus strikes me as being really sad and pathetic in that He could not do anything more than His Father permitted - like a small child on a leash - and what little He did do came completely to naught because after His departure men dropped the ball. Should we think that Joseph Smith was any better than Jesus Christ?

 

[RevelationTestament]

So, it appears that the Jesus you believe in was nothing more than a man whose "free agency" was severely limited by the Father. This Jesus strikes me as being really sad and pathetic in that He could not do anything more than His Father permitted - like a small child on a leash - and what little He did do came completely to naught because after His departure men dropped the ball. Should we think that Joseph Smith was any better than Jesus Christ?

you two are on the verge of belittling the Father, so I won't take part in it. Did the Father allow His people to go astray? You conclude that the church cannot go astray, yet neither of you are Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. If they could not go astray, how come you do not attend a Catholic church and pray to Mary? Or maybe buy indulgences to have your sins remitted for a few years?

 

[bbbbbbb]

you two are on the verge of belittling the Father, so I won't take part in it. Did the Father allow His people to go astray? You conclude that the church cannot go astray, yet neither of you are Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. If they could not go astray, how come you do not attend a Catholic church and pray to Mary? Or maybe buy indulgences to have your sins remitted for a few years?

Yet, it was posted that the Father did not permit Jesus to do much while He was on earth and that the Father, as well as Jesus, let the gates of hell prevail against His church. If that is the Father you believe in, should it come as any surprise that non-LDS such as ourselves find him to be weak and harmless?

 

[Wryetui]

you two are on the verge of belittling the Father, so I won't take part in it. Did the Father allow His people to go astray? You conclude that the church cannot go astray, yet neither of you are Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. If they could not go astray, how come you do not attend a Catholic church and pray to Mary? Or maybe buy indulgences to have your sins remitted for a few years?

The orthodox church does not have indulgences, that's a RCC thing. And we do not pray to Mary as to a goddess, but for her to mediate between us and her Son

 

[TheBarrd]

you two are on the verge of belittling the Father, so I won't take part in it. Did the Father allow His people to go astray? You conclude that the church cannot go astray, yet neither of you are Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. If they could not go astray, how come you do not attend a Catholic church and pray to Mary? Or maybe buy indulgences to have your sins remitted for a few years?

RevelationTestament, think about this post.

Neither of us is "belittling the Father"...indeed, we are saying that He is MUCH bigger than the LDS can even imagine.

And again...think about the history of the RCC.
Remember the Inquisitions? What do you suppose they were about?

And most importantly, who do you think they were targeting? Who were the people who were being tortured and killed? And why?

 

[RevelationTestament]

Yet, it was posted that the Father did not permit Jesus to do much while He was on earth

No it wasn't. I said that the Son was allowed to do what the Father told Him. He wasn't sent to the Gentiles. He had a set time for His ministry. I am saying He was subject to the will of the Father - don't put words in my mouth bbbbbbb.

and that the Father, as well as Jesus, let the gates of hell prevail against His church.

I didn't say that either. I have been saying that a world wide apostasy was prophesied, and was allowed to occur. I am also saying Jesus' kingdom is not an earthly kingdom but was set up on Peter's example and his stone of revelation to the church. His example has not failed but lives in the scriptures.
John 21:18
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. This is the kingdom Christ was setting up, and the gates of hell did not prevail against it. His word went forth and accomplished what it was meant to do.
It did not mean an earthly church would be available to men continuously. If so how come the woman of Rev 11 fled into the wilderness for 1260 days(years)? Hell has not prevailed against His revelation of stone to Peter, but revelation lives on.

If that is the Father you believe in, should it come as any surprise that non-LDS such as ourselves find him to be weak and harmless?

Nothing about orthodoxy surprises me. Revelation went forth and accomplished God's words. And that was that was to the effect that apostasy would enter the church. If you want to call God weak, because His words were fulfilled, that is up to you. I am sure the Jews thought similarly.
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
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.

 

[TheBarrd]

RevelationTestament, think about this post.

Neither of us is "belittling the Father"...indeed, we are saying that He is MUCH bigger than the LDS can even imagine.

And again...think about the history of the RCC.
Remember the Inquisitions? What do you suppose they were about?

And most importantly, who do you think they were targeting? Who were the people who were being tortured and killed? And why?

I notice that RevelationTestament has not responded to my post, although he responded to bbbbbb's.
Is he ignoring me?

Ahh, well...it's an open forum.
Is there anyone else who might have an idea what the inquisitions were about, or who they were targeting?
I think this is important information that RevelationTestament and his friends need to know.

 

[RevelationTestament]

RevelationTestament, think about this post.

Neither of us is "belittling the Father"...indeed, we are saying that He is MUCH bigger than the LDS can even imagine.

You are saying He is weak, because He allowed prophesied apostasy to occur and allowed the whole world to be fooled by the false prophet. You are saying that can't occur because God is bigger. It can and it did occur because God's words had to be fulfilled.

And again...think about the history of the RCC.
Remember the Inquisitions? What do you suppose they were about?

They were about the prophesied 1260 yr period of power of the little horn coming to a close. So he was using his weapon of last resort to try to force the people to remain in his church through fear of death if they spoke against his church or tried to leave it. Now does that really represent the God you believe in?
If not, is that because he was the false prophet spoken of?

And most importantly, who do you think they were targeting? Who were the people who were being tortured and killed? And why?

People like Martin Luther were being targeted because they were rebelling against the church. But lest you believe Martin Luther was some saint of God, perhaps you should read what he said about Jews in his last books. I am well aware of who was rebelling against the church. It was the people of the same 10 tribes which had conquered the western Roman empire and who ended up giving their power unto the Roman beast by converting from their free Christianity to Catholicism, which ruled them for 1260 years until general Berthier gave a deadly wound to the eighth head of the beast by capturing the Vatican in 1798. see Rev 13:13. Yet, as prophesied this wound was healed, and eventually the Vatican restored. It was the people of the Teutons who had spread throughout western Europe - the Visigoths to Spain, the Franks to France, the Bergundians to Bergundy, etc. These are the peoples who began to leave the RCC in vast numbers and which the Inquisitions targeted. Yet although they started new churches, they had lost the true priesthood. They weren't about to perform ordinations to continue the offices of the Roman priests. Some even recognized that they would have to await an intervention from God. But when that finally came in the United States, most did not accept it because they had come to reject the idea of continuing revelation espoused by the RCC. They left the church of the false prophet exactly because it was false and apostate and persecuted their neighbors. But they didn't give up all the creeds. Most went back in time to a point before they saw the bishop of Rome gaining his power, and accepted those ancient creeds - seems like a sound policy from this viewpoint. Yet, those creeds too were set up under the auspices of the state-sponsored Roman church which eventually adopted the office of the pontifex maximus from the emperors who had taken it from the head of the ancient pagan college of pontiffs. Rome regained power while Constantinople lost it, and the eastern orthodox church was forced into exile when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople which had become an empty shell of its former "greatness." The eastern Christians were forced into servitude of the Muslims and their young men taken from their families and forced into military service. Do I have that part right Wryetui?

 

[TheBarrd]

There are history books that were not written by the LDS. Maybe you should look into that, my friend.

Meantime, since you are on the internet, google "Medieval Inquisition".
Or google "Waldensians" or "Cathars" just as a "for example."


While you are at it, try to find any reference...any reference at all, outside of LDS literature...to any first century church with a doctrine of god having been a man from another world who was lifted to his godhood by the god of that world...
I would be very interested in seeing such a reference.

 

[srphoenix]

hehe, some of these answers sound like politicians doing some double speak.

God refers to Himself as I AM and also as the Alpha and Omega. Christ says He and the Father are ONE and through HIM all things were made.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

These are point blank non argumentative statements, there is no room for grey, nor room for interpretation. You can't pull up or add another testimony to change these verses and to say otherwise is to denounce and serve another god (notice the little g) other than the God of the Bible and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Evolutionists and Atheists would like us to believe that from nothing can come something. If you say that God was once a man and then became God, instead of God taking on flesh in Jesus Christ, then as others have posted you agree with the atheists and evolutionists and have no beginning.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

If God was first a man and then later became God then we are talking about another God who in the beginning created the Heavens and the Earth (i.e. e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g)

 

[RevelationTestament]

There are history books that were not written by the LDS. Maybe you should look into that, my friend.

Meantime, since you are on the internet, google "Medieval Inquisition".
Or google "Waldensians" or "Cathars" just as a "for example."

I don't rely on any LDS history books LOL. No, don't need to do that. Catholics can't escape from their history. Their own subjects wrote it and some of it has even received the imprimatur of the RCC.... I assure you I am well versed on the period. What is it you would like to correct me on? The fact that the RCC started its persecutions on the Waldensians? You asked about the Inquisitions. The persecutions of the Waldensians was in the form of crusades on them. They didn't take much time to torture them, but just came in and killed them using the knights of the crusades, although one king did decree death by burning.

While you are at it, try to find any reference...any reference at all, outside of LDS literature...to any first century church with a doctrine of god having been a man from another world who was lifted to his godhood by the god of that world...
I would be very interested in seeing such a reference.

In the early church most of the debate was centered on Christ and the nature of His begottenness. There were those like Arius and many bishops of the east who felt that Christ was calling us to be like Him, and that indeed we could, and that perhaps Christ was once a man just like us - and those like Athanasius who felt that Christ simply lifted us up to be God through His own grace. I'm afraid the debate did not get further, because it got essentially stamped out by the creeds and their pronouncement of anathema on other beliefs.

 

[srphoenix]

Interesting as well that satan's first attack on man was the promise that we could be like God.

This of course was preceded by satan's initial attempt to become god and place himself above God.

Notice how some very very very bad things follow the line of thought that you can become God.

 

[srphoenix]

just one more great verse that shows not only the eternal nature (everlasting), but also the infinite nature of God (with no beginning)

Revelations 1:8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

 

[RevelationTestament]

Interesting as well that satan's first attack on man was the promise that we could be like God.

This of course was preceded by satan's initial attempt to become god and place himself above God.

Notice how some very very very bad things follow the line of thought that you can become God.

Read Genesis 3:22 ¶And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Satan's lie was that man would not die.
So how exactly did man become like God by knowing good and evil, and how did God know it?

 

[RevelationTestament]

just one more great verse that shows not only the eternal nature (everlasting), but also the infinite nature of God (with no beginning)

Revelations 1:8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. It means I am the beginning and the ending. Jesus is the beginning of the word, and is the word. That is what it means.
"In the beginning was the word..."

 

[TheBarrd]

I don't rely on any LDS history books LOL. No, don't need to do that. Catholics can't escape from their history. Their own subjects wrote it and some of it has even received the imprimatur of the RCC.... I assure you I am well versed on the period. What is it you would like to correct me on? The fact that the RCC started its persecutions on the Waldensians? You asked about the Inquisitions. The persecutions of the Waldensians was in the form of crusades on them. They didn't take much time to torture them, but just came in and killed them using the knights of the crusades, although one king did decree death by burning.

If you are as "well versed" as all that, then you realize that there were still Christians around during the reign of the RCC. The gospel had not gone, there was still a light shining in the darkness.

In the early church most of the debate was centered on Christ and the nature of His begottenness. There were those like Arius and many bishops of the east who felt that Christ was calling us to be like Him, and that indeed we could, and that perhaps Christ was once a man just like us - and those like Athanasius who felt that Christ simply lifted us up to be God through His own grace. I'm afraid the debate did not get further, because it got essentially stamped out by the creeds and their pronouncement of anathema on other beliefs.

I don't see why you have such a problem, then. There was no hint of any idea that God had ever been a man like us, let alone that he was born on another world. And they certainly had no idea that he had been raised up to godhood by another god who had also once been a man, who was raised up to his godhood by yet another god who had once been a man, who was raised up to his...oh, the heck with it. The point is that this idea was never part of Christian doctrine before Joseph Smith came up with it. The creeds didn't "stamp it out" because it had never existed.
Yes, the Divinity of Christ came under debate, and one can understand how that might be...but that isn't really the issue, is it?

 

[Rescued One]

Read Genesis 3:22 ¶And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Satan's lie was that man would not die.
So how exactly did man become like God by knowing good and evil, and how did God know it?

Man gained the opportunity to know good and evil but he is still a created being. He isn't identical to God.

 

[Der Alte]

Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. It means I am the beginning and the ending. Jesus is the beginning of the word, and is the word. That is what it means.
"In the beginning was the word..."

You are interjecting a qualification that John did not add to Alpha and Omega, in Revelation.

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.​

 

[RevelationTestament]

You are interjecting a qualification that John did not add to Alpha and Omega, in Revelation.

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.​

You didn't seem to care about srphoenix's interjection:

the eternal nature (everlasting)

I was merely pointing out that being the beginning and the end doesn't mean eternal.

 

[RevelationTestament]

If you are as "well versed" as all that, then you realize that there were still Christians around during the reign of the RCC. The gospel had not gone, there was still a light shining in the darkness.

And where were the apostles? and the seventy? Where was your earthly church you are so certain will never go away? I never said all truth left the earth, but just that there was a great apostasy in the church that eventually covered basically the whole world. Only a few peoples escaped.

I don't see why you have such a problem, then.

I don't have any problem. I know what I believe, and I know what scriptures in Daniel apply to the time period, and I know that the time period also fulfills the prophecies of the beast and the harlot of Revelation. So I have no problem at all. It is orthodoxy that has the problem.

There was no hint of any idea that God had ever been a man like us, let alone that he was born on another world.

Being that you and I consider Jesus to be "God" that is not the case. It was foremost in the debates of the time.

And they certainly had no idea that he had been raised up to godhood by another god who had also once been a man,

Again foremost in the debates concerning Christ.
The fact that the Father didn't seem to enter the debate doesn't concern me. I know what the scriptures say and mean. Jesus followed everything He had seen the Father do, and was doing likewise. That tells me He had seen the Father lay down His life, and was merely following the Father just as He tells us to follow Him. It is not complicated. It is a simple matter. The Father will bare His holy arm to all nations...