Mormons?

[Jedi]

There are more options than the ones you have suggested.

Oh, I’d love to see them.

(3) realize that recording methods were faulty and many times approximated the comments or failed to get the complete context resulting in faulty quotes,

So you reject what your own leaders are recorded as saying? Boy, doesn’t that seem arbitrary. If you don’t like what a leader of yours says, just say “someone recorded it wrong.”

(4) realize that Mormons don’t believe in ex cathedra statements and have always stipulated that a prophet isn’t always acting as such,

Yes, yes, Mormons say this time and time again. However, there's a very fatal flaw to this. When do you believe him? When he states something to be true? When he’s giving a sermon? There’s no reason to listen to a prophet if he is WRONG about spiritual matters and the origin of humanity. I think it’s very interesting how none of the Christian prophets had to be protected from skeptics by people saying “Oh, he was dead wrong, but he was only giving his personal opinion.” If you pick and choose among your prophecies and say, “This one is of God, we will accept it,” and say of another, “This one is from man, we must reject it," you undermine the entire structure of your faith. Furthermore, Brigham Young blatantly stated that what he says is as good as scripture, and that he has never given counsel that is wrong:

"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.)

"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)

(5) the quotes don’t necessarily mean what you have assumed they mean.

Heh, “death on the spot” is pretty clear. You can either leave it at physical death (which is probably the most plausible), or interpret it as eternal condemnation (spiritual death). Which ever you choose is irrelevant: Both are condemning.

“Death on the spot” means immediate but since Young said this was the penalty and always would be, is he talking about spiritual death or physical death?

Irrelevant. Both are condemning.

Physical death is hardly a possibility, but spiritual death could be an immediate consequence – but does the “seed of Cain” refer specifically to Africans, or to the metaphorical “seed” of Cain as Jesus referred to the “children of the devil?”

Ah, now you’re being fallacious. Mormonism DIRECTLY ties the “African race” to Cain. Hence it is very obvious that the “seed of Cain” is the African race. Furthermore, there’s no such direct line drawn from the “children of the devil” as being the “seed of Cain.” The only sort of people who were very clearly said to be the offspring of Cain were Africans, and it would be nonsensical to try to twist it up any other way.

There are just too many variables to be able to conclude that you can accurately conclude that Brigham Young was claiming capital punishment was an immediate possibility.

You still haven’t gotten out of it. You’re being fallacious concerning the “seed of Cain” part when Mormonism clearly defines who the “seed of Cain” are: the African race. Furthermore, you’re making an appeal to irrelevancy. At best, you have only eternally condemned those who do this (spiritual death), which is hardly an improvement.

When you read the entire discourse, this comment seems to jump out of nowhere in a discussion about the U.S. army and actions of the Federal government. I’m aware of entire paragraphs that have been left out of reports of Brigham Young’s discourses. Who can say if this discourse isn’t similarly flawed?

I can’t imagine any sort of omission that would “fix” this little problem of yours. He is very clear on the topic of the father of the African race as well as the penalty for white & black couples having marital relations.

love these cut and paste quotations from other web sites.

Yep. You should look them up sometime, too. They often times hold an incredible amount of weight.

I make it a point not to respond to these types of posts simply because the poster took no thought to post it and generally is unwilling to take any thought or responsibility to stand behind the plagiarized work.

Oh, how convenient for you. If you want to talk about plagiarism, Joseph Smith was pretty bad at that too when he directly copied the KJV scriptures in the Book of Mormon. The only problem with this is that the Book of Mormon was supposedly written before the KJV. Whoops.

As for the two, let’s see here… Ah, these should be good.

6) Second Book of Nephi, p.37; (1830): "..and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not..."(cf. Is.2:6-9)

Today: 2 Nephi 12:9: "and the mean man boweth not down and the great man humbleth himself not..."

And the other…

1) Title page:
1830: "...by Joseph Smith, jr., author and proprietor"

Today: "translated by Joseph Smith, jr." (I’ve heard arguments Mormons have tried to use for this one, but thus far, all they’ve done is shoot themselves in the foot)

And if you have time, what about this one: Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2; Matt. 2:1). In the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9,10) it says Christ was born of Mary at Jerusalem.

Rather than take that risk, they usually just cut and paste some more stuff they haven’t thought about and didn’t compile.

Actually, I did compile this. I copied and pasted it from my own file in Microsoft Word.

I say “ignorant” because it’s likely you have no idea that the “History of the Church,” pages 54-55 as you cite it, definitely does not support the claim you provide above.

So you beg to differ then? God didn’t dictate the Book of Mormon word for word? The message isn’t entirely from God?

 

[Wills]

That simply is not true. “Central” means that it constitutes something from which other related things proceed or upon which they depend. There is no doctrine in Mormonism that depends upon Cain being the progenitor of Africans. The idea exists in entirely theoretical opinions. “Foundational” doctrine carries the same connotation and it’s ludicrous to claim that the “foundational” and “central” doctrines of a Church are “unspoken.”


LDS doctrine is found in four books of scripture: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. There is no way you can tie post diluvial black Africans to Cain using LDS scripture.

Alma

unspoken would apply not to leaders like J Smith. They spoke on it all right.
Would you go about broadcasting a sensitive belief like that to all and sundry? Obviously not. Ever heard of political correctness?

While it is true that some LDS leaders in the past have believed that Cain was the progenitor of black Africans
Alma

The last time we checked, LEADERS influence congregations extensively, especially in a group as the Mormons... no debate on that.
What is the value of the OPINION of leaders of a church like the LDS if they do not lead and their views are not believed strongly by their followers?
Mutually exclusive,friend. I know exactly the dynamics of a leaders's influence.
Their leadership confirms the fact that their beliefs are held in high regard. Your response is ludicrous.

You imply that the leaders have next to no influence on the scriptural understanding and resultant faith of church members? Then the leaders would not be leaders, would they?
They would just be members of a sect.
No. Strong beliefs of leaders of a group permeate the group. You seem desperate to whittle down this fact.

It is what is taught by the leaders, not necessarily what is written in the Pearl of great price etc, that forms the beliefs of the congregation.
Take the fall of man in Genesis 3

The Bible does not mention sex in Genesis 3
Well, many believe otherwise--- where did that come from?
Translations and interpretations by various faith opinion leaders.
Some may waffle that ancient texts had close reference to some act etc
That is beside the point... but what is found in texts, is not what is directly spread to the congregations by leaders and pastors.

The term AFRICA was non existent in Cain's day hence one may not find "africans are from Cain" explicitly mentioned in bold letters. So?
Yet it was taught extensively by LDS.

Ever heard of --scripture interpretations--context?
That is where it all lies... and it is not relevant whether Nephi connects Cain to Africans, explicitly in the direct text.

It is what J Smith interpreted and others taught and permeated the Church with that counts. Parents tell kids , tell their kids etc...
WHY DID THE MORMONS not tell Joseph Smith that their books DID NOT TIE CAIN TO AFRICANS--- you claim LDS scripture HAS NO ties between Cain and Africans hence NO MORMON should have believed the leaders when they taught it... figure?

There is no way you can tie post diluvial black Africans to Cain using LDS scripture.
Alma

Interesting.
WHY did the Church believe the leaders then if LDS scripture does not support it? Illogical.
Why were the leaders SO CONVINCED about the Cain-african belief, if it was not IN LDS SCRIPTURES??

 

[Wills]

Provide better excuses.

 

[Alma]

Tigersnare, Bygrace’s message to me is a pretty good example of what I was saying above. Note below that Bygrace mixes up all kinds of misinformation and allegations. He uses lots of CAPS and question marks.

MY GOODNESS ALMA ARE YOU BLIND OR JUST STUBBORN??? Can you not see the forest because the trees are in the way? Joe smith was a liar and a charlotten. He was even tried and convicted of using his little seer stones to find treasures on peoples land.

This is a typical tactic of less than reputable critics of Mormonism. They begin with a historical fact and then revise it significantly to make it look really bad. The allegation is that Joseph Smith was convicted of being a “glass-looker” in 1826. Mormons have long conceded that Smith was arrested and tried in 1826 in New York for being a “disorderly person.” They have disputed that he was ever convicted. In the 1970’s, a Methodist minister and critic of Mormonism, Wesley Walters claimed to have discovered a bill for the expenses incurred in Joseph Smith’s 1826 trial. He stole the bill from its County repository (only returning it after threat of prosecution) and published several articles where he concluded that the evidence of the trial (the expenses thereof) indicated that Joseph Smith had been found guilty. Other anti-Mormon writers jumped on the bandwagon and made the story even stronger. For example, Walter Martin wrote not only that Joseph Smith had been convicted, but he claimed that the expenses of the trial ($2.68) were the amount Smith was fined!

If you do a search on google, for “glass looker Joseph Smith” you’ll find several sites dealing with this. While most still claim the trial bill indicates he was convicted, some more careful and responsible sites have realized that the most that the trial bill shows is that there was a trial, costing the county two dollars and 68 cents. As I looked at the results of the search, I noticed that “cephasministries” correctly note that the trial bill was just that: a bill for expenses.

The stories also claim that rather than pay a fine or accept imprisonment, Joseph Smith fled the jurisdiction. They usually use the term “leg bail.” I think that there are two primary reasons why Joseph Smith was not convicted: 1) He returned to Chenango County a year later where he was married by the same judge who presided over the 1826 trial. 2) The LDS Church had an official newspaper in 1832 and published their claim that Joseph Smith had been honorably acquitted. The first account challenging that claim was published 40 years later – long after those present at the trial could be consulted.

Whether or not Joseph Smith was a “charlotten” or not, cannot be established by the spurious claims of Walter Martin and others. An examination of the evidence reveals only that Joseph Smith was arrested and tried on many occasions. I recall that Jesus and his apostles were arrested quite a few times as well; and that the Lord himself was convicted by the Sanhedrin.

With all of the evidence before you and the desire you obviously have to not accept it and just pass it off as garbage it makes me wonder if you are just trying to argue.

I really doubt that you are as familiar with the evidence as I am, Bygrace. And, I will argue with people who rely on tissues of lies as though they somehow demonstrated anything about the religion I believe.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Which evidence? Have you ever seen a copy of the trial bill? I have.

ell you what since you never addressed the topics I gave to you try this one.

Joe smith said that the book of mormon was the most correct book and that man could get closer to God by abiding by its precepts then any other book. What exactly are those precepts?

Kindness, faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice, love of God and your fellow man, repentance of sin and willingness to submit to God, covenant to obey him and always remember his atoning sacrifice. Consider the precepts suggested by King Benjamin:

“Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

“And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.

“And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come.”

Certainly not your important doctrines and ceremonies in the temple or the other things you practice since NONE of it is in the book of mormon. And since a vast portion of the book of mormon is copied from the Bible, and does not come up with some new and neato thing, I just think it was a cute thing to say for him. Anyway, what exactly are those precepts.

The fact that the Book of Mormon doesn’t contain everything that Mormons believe is really another subject. If you’d like to discuss that next, I’d be happy to do so.

Also in your last comment in your last post I want to thank you for at least verifying that mormonism is not Christianity. Glad we can clear that hurdle right up front. Unless you are born again you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of God. God created Christianity and you admit your "religion" is not Christian. Hmmmmm.

May I suggest that you enroll in a class for reading and comprehension? If you somehow concluded that my last statement suggested anything at all like an admission to not being Christian, I’m afraid that your powers of observation are too limited to follow a discussion of this nature.

Alma

 

[MadeByFire]

According to the LDS church, who exactly is God?

Do LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah?
Or is God the Father Jehovah?
Who is Elohim?

matt

 

[Jedi]

Do LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah?
Or is God the Father Jehovah?
Who is Elohim?

Mormons believe that Elohim is the head god above the other gods who also happens to be in charge of this Earth. Jesus is supposedly the son of Elohim and one of his wives, and so is Satan (Jesus & Satan are brothers in Mormonism). What’s even more interesting is that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God himself. Historically this doctrine of the Adam-God was hard for even faithful Mormons to believe. As a result, on June 8, 1873, Brigham Young stated: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I have revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God… ‘Well,’ says one, ‘Why was Adam called Adam?’ He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought into existence. Then he said, ‘I want my children who are in the spirit world too come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation’” (Desert News, June 18, 1873, 308).

Brigham Young further reinforces this teaching when he stated, “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organized this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do” (Journal of Discourses, 1:50).

Again, it is important to note that Brigham Young taught that he had “never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call it Scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95).

So the Mormon God was Adam and got frisky with one of his wives to produce humans. The Mormon God also is said to have gotten frisky with Mary to produce Jesus:

The LDS apostle, Orsan Pratt said, "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father. (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158, 1853.)

Brigham Young backs him up by saying, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Heber C. Kimball (who was a member of the first presidency) concurs saying, "In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211)

What an interesting God Mormons serve. Very creative.

 

[tigersnare]

So the Mormon God was Adam and got frisky with one of his wives to produce humans. The Mormon God also is said to have gotten frisky with Mary to produce Jesus:

The LDS apostle, Orsan Pratt said, "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father. (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158, 1853.)

Brigham Young backs him up by saying, "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Heber C. Kimball (who was a member of the first presidency) concurs saying, "In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211)

What an interesting God Mormons serve. Very creative.

Kinda dismisses the whole idea of a VIRGIN Mary...but then again, maybe we should wait for the mormon to answer about what they believe in.

 

[Jedi]

Kinda dismisses the whole idea of a VIRGIN Mary...but then again, maybe we should wait for the mormon to answer about what they believe in.

Yeah, I know. However, interestingly enough, the Mormons I've talked with insist that she was a virgin. They have yet to explain how that idea and the above teachings of Mormonism can be reconciled, though. Perhaps what they mean by "virgin" is someone who hasn't has sex with any other human.

 

[Alma]

According to the LDS church, who exactly is God?
Do LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah?
Or is God the Father Jehovah?
Who is Elohim?
matt

The terms “Elohim” and “Jehovah” are English equivalents for names of God from the Hebrew Old Testament. Since both the Father and the Son are God, either term can and does apply to either individual. However, in 1916 the leaders of the LDS Church a doctrinal statement where they standardized terms for LDS usage. It is called “The Father and The Son; A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve." From that time on, in LDS usage, if you want to specify that you are referring to the Father, you refer to “Elohim.” If you want to specify the Son, you say “Jehovah.” We do believe that it was Jesus Christ who spoke to Moses from the burning bush and who gave to Moses the law, and that when Isaiah said that he “saw the Lord” it was Jesus Christ. It’s important to recognize that even though these terms have acquired a specificity in LDS theology, it is a matter of linguistic convenience rather than hermeneutics.

Alma

 

[Alma]

Kinda dismisses the whole idea of a VIRGIN Mary...but then again, maybe we should wait for the mormon to answer about what they believe in.

Looks like we're rapidly approaching the "avalanche application" of apologetics here. Right now, if I were to respond to every allegation in the past four or five posts, I'd have to deal with

A. Virgin birth
B. the Adam-god theory
C. Book of Mormon
1, Did God dictate the Book of Mormon or did Joseph Smith translate it
2. Is the Bible plagiarized.
3. Why does it say Jesus would be born “at” Jerusalem.
4. Editorial changes.
D. Cain and Africans
E. The alleged reliability of every critical web site.

I pointed out that I don’t respond to cut and paste posts because no one stands behind them. I’m told that’s a “convenient” excuse. I’m willing to provide an answer for the hope that is within me, but I don’t have unlimited time. I either have to select what I want to reply to or people need to back off the avalanche.

As to the virgin birth: Let me quote from a recent book review where Norman Geisler brought up the same criticism:

Geisler notes that it is difficult to understand how Joseph Fielding Smith could deny the virgin birth in light of the Book of Mormon claim in Alma 7:10 that the Lord would be born of a virgin. “Unfortunately, his confusion is the result of an incorrect assumption. Joseph Fielding Smith did not reject the virgin birth; he rejected the idea that the Holy Ghost rather than the Father begot Jesus. Geisler has jumped to the conclusion that Mary could only be a virgin if Jesus were the son of the Holy Ghost rather than the son of the Father. In this he fails to perceive that in Mormon theology, the Father has as much power as does the Holy Ghost. If Geisler allows that the third member of the Godhead has the power to beget a son while preserving Mary's virginity, why does he assume that this is beyond the Father's power? Latter-day Saint authors have never denied that Mary was a virgin; they have simply concluded that even though the power of the Holy Spirit came upon her, the power of the Highest—the Father—caused Mary to conceive the Savior. President Ezra Taft Benson affirmed that Mary was a virgin after the birth of the Savior by citing the Book of Mormon: ‘He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth.’ (See 1 Ne. 11:20.)”
(From “Coin of the Realm: Beware of Specious Specie,” a review of Norman L. Geisler. "Scripture." In The Conterfeit Gospel of Momonism)
One note about sources: One of the most quoted resources by critics of Mormonism is a newspaper edited by Orson Pratt in Washington, D.C. titled “The Seer.” That publication was condemned by a combined proclamation of the First Presidency and 12 Apostles. I think it’s interesting that so many of our critics quote from it to demonstrate their perception of Mormon theology when it couldn’t be more clear that it doesn’t represent LDS thought.

Alma

 

[Jedi]

As to the virgin birth: Let me quote from a recent book review where Norman Geisler brought up the same criticism:

Oh, wonderful! He’s one of my favorite apologists.

Geisler has jumped to the conclusion that Mary could only be a virgin if Jesus were the son of the Holy Ghost rather than the son of the Father. In this he fails to perceive that in Mormon theology, the Father has as much power as does the Holy Ghost. If Geisler allows that the third member of the Godhead has the power to beget a son while preserving Mary's virginity, why does he assume that this is beyond the Father's power?

He doesn’t. His basis for concluding that the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus is based on scripture: “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20, NIV, underlines & italics mine).

Latter-day Saint authors have never denied that Mary was a virgin; they have simply concluded that even though the power of the Holy Spirit came upon her, the power of the Highest—the Father—caused Mary to conceive the Savior.

But how is the crux of the issue. Bruce McConkie teaches on this issue by saying, "There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple" (The Promised Messiah, pg.468). After such repetitive and clear teachings on how God frisked Mary to produce Christ, it’s astounding how Mormons hold fast to the claim that Mary was a virgin.

President Ezra Taft Benson affirmed that Mary was a virgin after the birth of the Savior by citing the Book of Mormon: ‘He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth.’ (See 1 Ne. 11:20.)”

And so it seems Mormons either have a different definition of “virgin,” or they are contradictory in their teachings. Or perhaps you can take this very strictly and say, "It only says that Mary was called a virgin, not that she actually was."

One note about sources: One of the most quoted resources by critics of Mormonism is a newspaper edited by Orson Pratt in Washington, D.C. titled “The Seer.” That publication was condemned by a combined proclamation of the First Presidency and 12 Apostles. I think it’s interesting that so many of our critics quote from it to demonstrate their perception of Mormon theology when it couldn’t be more clear that it doesn’t represent LDS thought.

Considering this is one of the LDS apostles preaching these things, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to appeal to it in matters of Mormon thought & instruction. If the entire world of Mormon authorities are contradicting one another, it doesn’t void someone quoting one Mormon leader over another.

 

[MadeByFire]

It’s important to recognize that even though these terms have acquired a specificity in LDS theology, it is a matter of linguistic convenience rather than hermeneutics.

that's convenient.

 

[Alma]

Alma> it is a matter of linguistic convenience rather than hermeneutics.

that's convenient.

Isn’t that what I said?

Alma

 

[MadeByFire]

Here is an excerpt from the LDS definition for "God":

When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God.

Exodus 3:
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt...

Let me make sure I've got it straight: The "God" spoken of in the above passage is Jesus, right?

with love,
matt

 

[Alma]

Here is an excerpt from the LDS definition for "God":Exodus 3:
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. … the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt...

Let me make sure I've got it straight: The "God" spoken of in the above passage is Jesus, right?

with love,
matt

Right - - as demonstrated by Jesus’ comments in John chapter 8. However, it isn’t a hard and fast rule. As I pointed out when I first answered your question, “Since both the Father and the Son are God, either term can and does apply to either individual.” Since many titles are interchangeable, the context will often dictate whether the referenced person is the Father or the Son as in Acts 3:13: “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus.” Clearly, in that passage the God of our fathers is God the Father.

Alma

 

[Wrigley]

Right - - as demonstrated by Jesus’ comments in John chapter 8. However, it isn’t a hard and fast rule. As I pointed out when I first answered your question, “Since both the Father and the Son are God, either term can and does apply to either individual.” Since many titles are interchangeable, the context will often dictate whether the referenced person is the Father or the Son as in Acts 3:13: “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus.” Clearly, in that passage the God of our fathers is God the Father.

Alma

That explanation would only work if you accepted the Trinity as correctly taught in the Christian creeds. Since the mormon church does not accept this teaching, your answer is misleading.

 

[MadeByFire]

So, Jesus is Jehovah ("I AM"), but He's not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

This is the reason I had to tell the missionaries that I'm not buying what they're selling.

with much love,
matt

 

[Alma]

So, Jesus is Jehovah ("I AM"), but He's not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

This is the reason I had to tell the missionaries that I'm not buying what they're selling.

with much love,
matt

Did you read what I wrote? The terms apply to both or either of them. Jesus is the "I AM" and he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as is the Father.

That explanation would only work if you accepted the Trinity as correctly taught in the Christian creeds. Since the mormon church does not accept this teaching, your answer is misleading.

Hardly. It works whether you consider the unity of the Trinity to be ontological or social. If Jesus is the agent of the Father (and he is) he acts as if he were the Father by divine investiture. My answer isn’t at all misleading and is taught throughout LDS doctrine. As the late Bruce McConkie wrote: “…The Father and the Son are one. They have the same character, perfections, and attributes. They think the same thoughts, speak the same words, perform the same acts, have the same desires, and do the same works. They possess the same power, have the same mind, know the same truths, live in the same light and glory. To know one is to know the other; to see one is to see the other; to hear the voice of one is to hear the voice of the other.” (The Promised Messiah, p.9)

If you decide not to "buy" what the LDS missionaries are "selling" at least make it an informed decision rather than one of ignorance.

Alma

 

[Jedi]

Hardly. It works whether you consider the unity of the Trinity to be ontological or social. If Jesus is the agent of the Father (and he is) he acts as if he were the Father by divine investiture. My answer isn’t at all misleading and is taught throughout LDS doctrine. As the late Bruce McConkie wrote: “…The Father and the Son are one. They have the same character, perfections, and attributes. They think the same thoughts, speak the same words, perform the same acts, have the same desires, and do the same works. They possess the same power, have the same mind, know the same truths, live in the same light and glory. To know one is to know the other; to see one is to see the other; to hear the voice of one is to hear the voice of the other.” (The Promised Messiah, p.9)

Okay, so is this an admission that Jesus and the Father are in fact one being? If not, then the above quote is rather misleading. If so, you've already recognized a plurality within the godhead, which is perhaps the greatest and most common objection to the Trinity. If you've come this far, why not go the rest of the way?

 

[MadeByFire]

The terms apply to both or either of them. Jesus is the "I AM" and he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as is the Father.

That's not what the LDS church teaches...

here is an excerpt from the LDS definition for "God":

When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All mankind are his brethren and sisters, he being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim.

This tells me that Jesus is YHWH, who is the Son of "another god" named elohim.

with love,
matt