LDS Why mormons believe angels are less than gods?

[He is the way]

Not as many as yours.

I back up what I say with Bible verses.

 

[mmksparbud]

What parts of the Bible do you believe contradict Joseph Smith?

It is not the bible that contradicts JS, actually, It is JS that contradicts the bible. And you guys claim him as your ultimate guide to truth, not the bible. Need I list them all? We existed before being born, Jesus is one of God's sons, not the only son, Jesus is a product of the Father and one of His wives, Adam and Eve had to fall in order to have children, The Father was a man before becoming God, (and so can we) and He gave his life for the people of his planet and that is why Jesus became human so He could become a God by dying for the people of this planet. There is much more. But that is more than enough. We have gone through all this stuff time after time and no matter how much they at times deny these things, there are plenty of the quotes from JS and BY to back them up. If you are going to go through the tedious business of denying these things also either you are not aware of them, or are trying also to sound as "Christian" as possible by sidetracking these things. We've taken years to sort out the real truths of your teachings are, not the sugared version.

 

[mmksparbud]

I back up what I say with Bible verses.

Yes, but they do not seem to say what you think they do!! You've posted verses for the statements in post #42---but they have not ever supported your meaning of them.

 

[He is the way]

Yes, but they do not seem to say what you think they do!! You've posted verses for the statements in post #42---but they have not ever supported your meaning of them.

I don't believe the Bible supports your views.

 

[mmksparbud]

I don't believe the Bible supports your views.

Of course you don't! But then your bible is the writings of JS! And I do not believer that the bible supports those writings! That's why I often have to take a lengthy break from these discussions. As a rule, I do not read fiction.

 

[natitude]

It is JS that contradicts the bible.

Let's see how well your claims stack up.

And you guys claim him as your ultimate guide to truth, not the bible.

Actually we claim Christ as our ultimate guide to truth.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Need I list them all?

Please list any and all concerns.

We existed before being born,

No where does the Bible state that we did not exist before being born and in a couple of places a pre-mortal existence is strongly inferred.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations (Jer 1:5)

On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:6–7) (This one's a two-fer!)

Jesus is one of God's sons, not the only son,

On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:6–7)

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, (Acts 17:29)

Jesus is a product of the Father and one of His wives,

There is no formal Latter-day Saint teaching that the Father has multiple wives.

Many Bible scholars, including David Noel Freedman believe that Lady Wisdom in Psalms 8 is an actual person and is the consort of God

Adam and Eve had to fall in order to have children,

This does not contradict the Bible. Can you point me to a Bible verse that states they were able to procreate before the Fall?

The Father was a man before becoming God, (and so can we)

Jesus referred to His Father as a man on more than one occasion.

It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. (John 8:17, 18)

and He gave his life for the people of his planet and that is why Jesus became human so He could become a God by dying for the people of this planet.

Please provide a quote for the "his planet" part. But Christ plainly stated that He only did those things He saw His Father do.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19)

There is much more. But that is more than enough. We have gone through all this stuff time after time and no matter how much they at times deny these things, there are plenty of the quotes from JS and BY to back them up.

I'm sure that when you quote Joseph Smith and Brigham Young you're careful to not use those quotes when they were not formally speaking as a prophet.

If you are going to go through the tedious business of denying these things also either you are not aware of them, or are trying also to sound as "Christian" as possible by sidetracking these things. We've taken years to sort out the real truths of your teachings are, not the sugared version.

I made a pretty strong case here using the Bible against the objections you raised.

 

[He is the way]

Of course you don't! But then your bible is the writings of JS! And I do not believer that the bible supports those writings! That's why I often have to take a lengthy break from these discussions. As a rule, I do not read fiction.

Television and radio are not mentioned in the Bible, so by what logic are they are contrary to the Bible? Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is contrary to the Bible. It does not mean that television and radio are fiction. It does not mean that computers do not exist. Our beliefs are not contrary to the Bible just because they do not match your beliefs.

 

[dzheremi]

Television and radio are not mentioned in the Bible, so by what logic are they are contrary to the Bible? Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is contrary to the Bible.

When was this the argument? Saying "I don't believe the Bible verses you post that you claim support your views actually do so" is not at all the same as claiming that anything that is not mentioned in the Bible is therefore contrary to it.

It does not mean that television and radio are fiction.

This is a terrible analogy, because of course many television and radio programs are fictional.

Wait a minute no...this is a great analogy, because of course many LDS beliefs are fictional, too.

Our beliefs are not contrary to the Bible just because they do not match your beliefs.

What about those LDS beliefs that are contrary to all forms of Christianity? Do those not at least merit some reconsideration on the part of LDS themselves, at least if you guys are still going to try to present your religion as some kind of Christianity, or your organization as some kind of Church?

Think about it this way: If I was to start a religion which I claimed to be a 'restored' form of Mormonism that kept some of your distinctive beliefs but jettisoned or completely redefined others specifically to teach against what the LDS teach under those same labels (i.e., the angel Moroni existed and did reveal special writings, but they weren't revealed to JS, they weren't written on golden plates, they didn't contain the text of the BOM but instead that of my own "Mormonism", say, The Book of Moreman, and 'inspired' retranslation of the standard BOM to fit my own doctrine that the LDS disagree with), you wouldn't just say "Well, I guess I have to accept all of this happening and all of these claims, since this is sort of related in a very general way to my own religion, even though it can only claim that because this random guy took what was already ours and stole characters and themes from it", right?

If you'd react negatively to this hypothetical situation, then you can perhaps understand why Christians react negatively to the actual situation that Mormonism attempts to foist on us, and why your constant appeals to Bible verses in and of themselves do nothing to help your case when Christians do not agree with you. It's most definitely not because we disagree with the Bible or anything like that. It's entirely because you're coming at it from an anti-Christ, anti-Christian religion, and hence your handling of it is entirely suspect.

 

[He is the way]

When was this the argument? Saying "I don't believe the Bible verses you post that you claim support your views actually do so" is not at all the same as claiming that anything that is not mentioned in the Bible is therefore contrary to it.

See post #42. Apparently mmksparbud believes that if it is not stated in the Bible it is contrary to the Bible

This is a terrible analogy, because of course many television and radio programs are fictional.

Wait a minute no...this is a great analogy, because of course many LDS beliefs are fictional, too.

Are the words television and radio contrary to the Bible? Are the words television and radio fictional?

What about those LDS beliefs that are contrary to all forms of Christianity? Do those not at least merit some reconsideration on the part of LDS themselves, at least if you guys are still going to try to present your religion as some kind of Christianity, or your organization as some kind of Church?

Some of the beliefs mentioned here are contrary to the Bible, but not because they are not mentioned in the Bible. For instance that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance. When Jesus said they are one in unity, glory, and perfection.

Think about it this way: If I was to start a religion which I claimed to be a 'restored' form of Mormonism that kept some of your distinctive beliefs but jettisoned or completely redefined others specifically to teach against what the LDS teach under those same labels (i.e., the angel Moroni existed and did reveal special writings, but they weren't revealed to JS, they weren't written on golden plates, they didn't contain the text of the BOM but instead that of my own "Mormonism", say, The Book of Moreman, and 'inspired' retranslation of the standard BOM to fit my own doctrine that the LDS disagree with), you wouldn't just say "Well, I guess I have to accept all of this happening and all of these claims, since this is sort of related in a very general way to my own religion, even though it can only claim that because this random guy took what was already ours and stole characters and themes from it", right?

There would have to be some reason or indications that that religion was true. Perhaps Biblical prophesy, miracles, fruits, and collaboration by several witnesses. Besides that it would need to be based on the same gospel that Jesus taught i.e. "if you LOVE me keep my commandments."

If you'd react negatively to this hypothetical situation, then you can perhaps understand why Christians react negatively to the actual situation that Mormonism attempts to foist on us, and why your constant appeals to Bible verses in and of themselves do nothing to help your case when Christians do not agree with you. It's most definitely not because we disagree with the Bible or anything like that. It's entirely because you're coming at it from an anti-Christ, anti-Christian religion, and hence your handling of it is entirely suspect.

The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not anti-Christian, nor is it anti-Bible. Since this is a debate forum it is only logical that people defend their beliefs. I like to listen to logical reasoning.

 

[natitude]

This is a terrible analogy, because of course many television and radio programs are fictional.
Wait a minute no...this is a great analogy, because of course many LDS beliefs are fictional, too.

This is snark, not debate.

What about those LDS beliefs that are contrary to all forms of Christianity?

Which specific LDS beliefs are you referring to? The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was not held by Justin Martyr who specifically wrote that there were two Gods. Is Justin Martyr not a Christian?

 

[dzheremi]

This is snark, not debate.

And your religion is a cult, not Christianity. What's your point?

Which specific LDS beliefs are you referring to? The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was not held by Justin Martyr who specifically wrote that there were two Gods. Is Justin Martyr not a Christian?

Oh, goodness gracious...and on Christmas eve...

Look, you're obviously new here, so I'm not going to pretend as though you should know this already, but just so you know going forward, the claims that other Mormons have tried to make here on this subforum concerning St. Justin Martyr have been thoroughly eviscerated many, many times over in just the time since I've been here (the past five years or so). We don't need to do this again, and I personally don't have the energy nor inclination to do so.

 

[He is the way]

And your religion is a cult, not Christianity. What's your point?



Oh, goodness gracious...and on Christmas eve...

Look, you're obviously new here, so I'm not going to pretend as though you should know this already, but just so you know going forward, the claims that other Mormons have tried to make here on this subforum concerning St. Justin Martyr have been thoroughly eviscerated many, many times over in just the time since I've been here (the past five years or so). We don't need to do this again, and I personally don't have the energy nor inclination to do so.

Every religion is a cult by definition because Jesus Christ is that figure:

cult
/kəlt/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

 

[natitude]

Look, you're obviously new here, so I'm not going to pretend as though you should know this already, but just so you know going forward, the claims that other Mormons have tried to make here on this subforum concerning St. Justin Martyr have been thoroughly eviscerated many, many times over in just the time since I've been here (the past five years or so).

Please point me to those threads in this subforum. Thanks in advance!

 

[dzheremi]

See post #42. Apparently mmksparbud believes that if it is not stated in the Bible it is contrary to the Bible

Where does post #42 say that? The only sentence in that post that even has the word Bible in it is the opening one: "It is not the bible that contradicts JS, actually, It is JS that contradicts the bible. And you guys claim him as your ultimate guide to truth, not the bible." Saying that JS contradicts the Bible, and that Mormons take the word of JS as the ultimate guide to truth rather than the Bible is not saying that anything that is not stated in the Bible is contrary to it. Maybe mmksparbud believes that or maybe not (I don't see how that matters if that's not what the discussion is about), but either way I don't see how you can come to a conclusion from that post.

Are the words television and radio contrary to the Bible? Are the words television and radio fictional?

I'm sorry, I misread your original post here as "worlds of radio and television." My mistake. I didn't realize you were talking about the words 'radio' and 'television'.

That's kind of a weird way to make this point, isn't it? All words are 'fictional'/not real in the sense that they don't grow 'organically' (e.g., there's no reason to call a leafy plant with a long trunk and bunches of leaves at the ends of branches on it a 'tree' except that this is what we've come around to calling it in English from previous Old English and earlier proto-Germanic forms), yet simultaneously none of them are 'fictional' insofar as they refer the things that they refer to.

Some of the beliefs mentioned here are contrary to the Bible, but not because they are not mentioned in the Bible. For instance that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance. When Jesus said they are one in unity, glory, and perfection.

So then how do you get the idea that Trinitarian monotheism is contrary to the Bible? How does Jesus saying that they are "one in unity, glory, and perfection" contradict the Nicene Creed's elucidation that they are homoousios?

Let me guess: because the Biblical text doesn't use that word?

If so, then maybe this isn't the best example to use to argue against the idea that it is wrong to treat everything that isn't explicitly found in the Bible as though it is contrary to the Bible.

But nice (failed) try at getting yet another pathetic shot in at Christian theology.

There would have to be some reason or indications that that religion was true. Perhaps Biblical prophesy, miracles, fruits, and collaboration by several witnesses. Besides that it would need to be based on the same gospel that Jesus taught i.e. "if you LOVE me keep my commandments."

Where are the miracles or Biblical prophecy (prophesy is the verb) of Mormonism? The most I've ever seen from any of you guys is that the BOM is supposedly the fulfillment of this or that bit of the OT (like Isaiah 29's bit about "a book that is sealed"; nevermind that that's an analogy...), or that the production of it is in itself a miracle, both of which are highly debatable, to put it extremely mildly.

The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints is not anti-Christian

Yes it is. According to you guys, Jesus is incompetent and can't even fulfill His own promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church He built during the days of the apostles. In the last few weeks alone, we've had discussions in which the Mormon 'Great Apostasy' was asserted to be going on (by your coreligionists, not me) during the lifetime of the Apostles themselves, so that this was indisputably the same Church that is spoken of in scripture, and yet it happened anyway.

Yeah, great 'Christian' religion you've got there! So LOVING towards Christ!

nor is it anti-Bible.

"...as long as it is translated correctly", right? Gotta leave that door open for your guy (JS) to come in and attempt to overturn the apple cart with all of his great knowledge of the Biblical text.

Hey, fellow Christians: you remember the venerable and ancient Joseph Smith Translation, right? The one that we put up alongside the Textus Receptus, Jerome's Vulgate, the King James, the OT Hexpla of Origen, the Peshitta, Luther's German edition, etc.? You know, these ones that actually exist in history and are actual translations of the Bible, and not rewordings of the Bible in the same language specifically done to 'correct' what was supposedly wrong with the Bible we already have?

Since this is a debate forum it is only logical that people defend their beliefs. I like to listen to logical reasoning.

When you do either of these things, I'll go buy a hat specifically so I can eat it, just for you. Until then, I'm going to feel free to point out how little logic actually makes it into any of your posts. Usually it's drive-by scripture shootings at us combined with RANDOM CAPITALIZATION of words you really LOVE.

 

[dzheremi]

Please point me to those threads in this subforum. Thanks in advance!

They're all at least several years old by this point, so I don't know where to find them. I started interacting with Mormons here sometime mid-2016, so they're later than that, but I don't remember the titles of the specific threads in which St. Justin came up (I don't think there was ever a thread on this subforum specifically dedicated to St. Justin in all that time). If I recall correctly, Mormon poster Peter1000 was really obsessed with the idea that St. Justin's writings represented the presence of Mormonism or proto-Mormonism in early Christianity, so he was flogging them pretty hard, albeit without an understanding of them that any of the Christian posters had/have. You can probably do a search for him + Justin and it'll come up with some results.

 

[mmksparbud]

Let's see how well your claims stack up.



Actually we claim Christ as our ultimate guide to truth.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.



Please list any and all concerns.



No where does the Bible state that we did not exist before being born and in a couple of places a pre-mortal existence is strongly inferred.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations (Jer 1:5)

On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:6–7) (This one's a two-fer!)



On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:6–7)

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, (Acts 17:29)




There is no formal Latter-day Saint teaching that the Father has multiple wives.

Many Bible scholars, including David Noel Freedman believe that Lady Wisdom in Psalms 8 is an actual person and is the consort of God



This does not contradict the Bible. Can you point me to a Bible verse that states they were able to procreate before the Fall?



Jesus referred to His Father as a man on more than one occasion.

It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. (John 8:17, 18)





Please provide a quote for the "his planet" part. But Christ plainly stated that He only did those things He saw His Father do.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19)



I'm sure that when you quote Joseph Smith and Brigham Young you're careful to not use those quotes when they were not formally speaking as a prophet.



I made a pretty strong case here using the Bible against the objections you raised.

In short---you have nothing in the bible for any of your fairy tale believes, but you are free to believe that Donald Duck is God if you so wish. I've been through all these fantasies of a false prophet for several years now and have no wish to continue going on about the same junk that has been debunked time after time after time during these years. It is gross and an insult to anyone who reads the bible. There are plenty of threads you can browse through that have gone through all these false statements and twisting of scriptures. You are new here, these are all very old arguments that just do not stand up to our scriptures and it is a stated fact by your prophets that the writings of JS are more accurate than the bible and that without JS--no one in this dispensation can enter into heaven without his say so---arrogant, blasphemous poppycock----I've had so much of this stuff that I've literally had to take a break from here for weeks it has been so abhorrent to me with each new revelation of your "truths."

 

[mmksparbud]

Television and radio are not mentioned in the Bible, so by what logic are they are contrary to the Bible? Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is contrary to the Bible. It does not mean that television and radio are fiction. It does not mean that computers do not exist. Our beliefs are not contrary to the Bible just because they do not match your beliefs.

Right. And it does not mean that TV and Radio are the incarnation of God either. You, as usual, are making no sense. Your believes are your believes. You just can't point to the bible and say they are biblical believes---you've never been able to do that. And that is why this site does not consider your group as Christians. But you are free to believe anything you want---I'm just not buying it.

 

[dzheremi]

Every religion is a cult by definition because Jesus Christ is that figure:

cult
/kəlt/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

Try definition #2 directly under the one you got from Google:

"a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."

That's Mormonism. Relative to Christianity as a whole, you're a small group whose beliefs and practices are strange (not sure about sinister; you'd probably find a wide variety of views on that question across Christianity).

There's also another definition of cult that you might have missed:

"a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing."

Some people (e.g., me) would probably see LDS veneration of Joseph Smith as an example of this.

 

[He is the way]

Where does post #42 say that? The only sentence in that post that even has the word Bible in it is the opening one: "It is not the bible that contradicts JS, actually, It is JS that contradicts the bible. And you guys claim him as your ultimate guide to truth, not the bible." Saying that JS contradicts the Bible, and that Mormons take the word of JS as the ultimate guide to truth rather than the Bible is not saying that anything that is not stated in the Bible is contrary to it. Maybe mmksparbud believes that or maybe not (I don't see how that matters if that's not what the discussion is about), but either way I don't see how you can come to a conclusion from that post.

The things mentioned as contrary to the Bible are NOT contrary to the Bible, but they are contrary to her beliefs.

I'm sorry, I misread your original post here as "worlds of radio and television." My mistake. I didn't realize you were talking about the words 'radio' and 'television'.

That's kind of a weird way to make this point, isn't it? All words are 'fictional'/not real in the sense that they don't grow 'organically' (e.g., there's no reason to call a leafy plant with a long trunk and bunches of leaves at the ends of branches on it a 'tree' except that this is what we've come around to calling it in English from previous Old English and earlier proto-Germanic forms), yet simultaneously none of them are 'fictional' insofar as they refer the things that they refer to.

The point is that something that is not mentioned in the Bible can still be real and true and NOT contrary to the Bible.

So then how do you get the idea that Trinitarian monotheism is contrary to the Bible? How does Jesus saying that they are "one in unity, glory, and perfection" contradict the Nicene Creed's elucidation that they are homoousios?

Let me guess: because the Biblical text doesn't use that word?

If so, then maybe this isn't the best example to use to argue against the idea that it is wrong to treat everything that isn't explicitly found in the Bible as though it is contrary to the Bible.

But nice (failed) try at getting yet another pathetic shot in at Christian theology.

No it is not because the word Homoousios is not in the Bible, it is because Jesus told us how He and the Father are one and it had nothing to do with being one in substance. Homoousios is a direct conflict with what Jesus said.

Where are the miracles or Biblical prophecy (prophesy is the verb) of Mormonism? The most I've ever seen from any of you guys is that the BOM is supposedly the fulfillment of this or that bit of the OT (like Isaiah 29's bit about "a book that is sealed"; nevermind that that's an analogy...), or that the production of it is in itself a miracle, both of which are highly debatable, to put it extremely mildly.

Everything is debatable. People are still debating whether the earth is round of flat. That being said Faith brings about miracles and good works are the fruits of true Christians.

Yes it is. According to you guys, Jesus is incompetent and can't even fulfill His own promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church He built during the days of the apostles. In the last few weeks alone, we've had discussions in which the Mormon 'Great Apostasy' was asserted to be going on (by your coreligionists, not me) during the lifetime of the Apostles themselves, so that this was indisputably the same Church that is spoken of in scripture, and yet it happened anyway.

Yeah, great 'Christian' religion you've got there! So LOVING towards Christ!

Jesus Christ has fulfilled His promise, the gates of hell have NOT prevailed against His church even though the priesthood was lost and restored.

"...as long as it is translated correctly", right? Gotta leave that door open for your guy (JS) to come in and attempt to overturn the apple cart with all of his great knowledge of the Biblical text.

There are indeed mistakes in the Bible.

Hey, fellow Christians: you remember the venerable and ancient Joseph Smith Translation, right? The one that we put up alongside the Textus Receptus, Jerome's Vulgate, the King James, the OT Hexpla of Origen, the Peshitta, Luther's German edition, etc.? You know, these ones that actually exist in history and are actual translations of the Bible, and not rewordings of the Bible in the same language specifically done to 'correct' what was supposedly wrong with the Bible we already have?

And the Bible you have states that God is not a man that He should repent. Then it goes on to say God repented. Do you see a problem there?

When you do either of these things, I'll go buy a hat specifically so I can eat it, just for you. Until then, I'm going to feel free to point out how little logic actually makes it into any of your posts. Usually it's drive-by scripture shootings at us combined with RANDOM CAPITALIZATION of words you really LOVE.[/QUOTE]

I do defend my beliefs and I do like logical thinking.

 

[He is the way]

Right. And it does not mean that TV and Radio are the incarnation of God either. You, as usual, are making no sense. Your believes are your believes. You just can't point to the bible and say they are biblical believes---you've never been able to do that. And that is why this site does not consider your group as Christians. But you are free to believe anything you want---I'm just not buying it.

I have indeed pointed out many scriptures from the Bible that agree with what I believe