The Truth about Mormons

[trueblue]

Eightball: What is your take on Genesis 1:26-27 which says that we were created in the image of God? How could this be so if He didn't have a physical body with a distinct image?

Or what about 1 John 4:16 that says God is love? Written by the same John to whom you refer, doesn't the fact that this verse is obviously figurative suggest that "God is spirit" could also be figurative in nature?

I see a lot of these kinds of scriptures that seem to suggest that God is a physical being and that there are three separate personages (like the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3 where all three are present). I understand where you're coming from with the scriptures about him being one, but you can't deny there are other scriptures that seem to suggest that they are three separate beings.

I believe that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons and that God and Christ each have separate, physical bodies of flesh and bone. I also believe that they are three separate parts of one Godhead with one central purpose. And I have just as many scriptures to support my view as you have to support yours.

So how is a person to decide what is really true?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Eightball: What is your take on Genesis 1:26-27 which says that we were created in the image of God? How could this be so if He didn't have a physical body with a distinct image?

Or what about 1 John 4:16 that says God is love? Written by the same John to whom you refer, doesn't the fact that this verse is obviously figurative suggest that "God is spirit" could also be figurative in nature?

I see a lot of these kinds of scriptures that seem to suggest that God is a physical being and that there are three separate personages (like the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3 where all three are present). I understand where you're coming from with the scriptures about him being one, but you can't deny there are other scriptures that seem to suggest that they are three separate beings.

I believe that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons and that God and Christ each have separate, physical bodies of flesh and bone. I also believe that they are three separate parts of one Godhead with one central purpose. And I have just as many scriptures to support my view as you have to support yours.

So how is a person to decide what is really true?

The only thing that creates the illusion of a trinity that is one is when people INTERPRET what they read. Rather that just accept what they read. None of the passages used to justify the trinity as one actually do so. A child can and does say they are one with their parents at times. Does that suddenly mean that the child IS the parent?

Jesus was used by God to create things. That was and is his purpose. He is so like God as to be the same , but not physically one. Simply in thought and deed and belief. Jesus existed BEFORE the Earth and before man. God created him first and thus the reason he is called his first born. All of this is in the Bible. One must twist what is said in the Bible to create the fiction that there is a trinity of one.

 

[BigBarry]

The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.

Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?

Do you change your underwear every day?

I asked you first.

Do you ever play "magic plates" and pretend that your dinner plates are the golden plates and then act out joseph translating them? I bet that's a fave game while the women churn butter.

 

[Truthspeaker]

The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.

Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?

Do you change your underwear every day?

I asked you first.

Do you ever play "magic plates" and pretend that your dinner plates are the golden plates and then act out joseph translating them? I bet that's a fave game while the women churn butter.

When are you going to grow up?

 

[BigBarry]

T, what do you enjoy more, milking a cow or your wife, if ya know what I mean...

And I'll take that as a no for the daily change of religious undies.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Is anyone in agreement with me that the above idiot should be banned from the board?

 

[BigBarry]

T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?

 

[Eightball]

Eightball: What is your take on Genesis 1:26-27 which says that we were created in the image of God? How could this be so if He didn't have a physical body with a distinct image?

Or what about 1 John 4:16 that says God is love? Written by the same John to whom you refer, doesn't the fact that this verse is obviously figurative suggest that "God is spirit" could also be figurative in nature?

I see a lot of these kinds of scriptures that seem to suggest that God is a physical being and that there are three separate personages (like the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3 where all three are present). I understand where you're coming from with the scriptures about him being one, but you can't deny there are other scriptures that seem to suggest that they are three separate beings.

I believe that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons and that God and Christ each have separate, physical bodies of flesh and bone. I also believe that they are three separate parts of one Godhead with one central purpose. And I have just as many scriptures to support my view as you have to support yours.

So how is a person to decide what is really true?

The only thing that creates the illusion of a trinity that is one is when people INTERPRET what they read. Rather that just accept what they read. None of the passages used to justify the trinity as one actually do so. A child can and does say they are one with their parents at times. Does that suddenly mean that the child IS the parent?

Jesus was used by God to create things. That was and is his purpose. He is so like God as to be the same , but not physically one. Simply in thought and deed and belief. Jesus existed BEFORE the Earth and before man. God created him first and thus the reason he is called his first born. All of this is in the Bible. One must twist what is said in the Bible to create the fiction that there is a trinity of one.

I'll let scripture speak very clearly again:

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2. He was in the beginning with God.

3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Bringing up scripture that states "in our or His image" is using inductive reasoning instead of deductive. Yes, God in His unique but mysterious person did become a Man when He indeed entered time and space with physical human birth in Bethlehem.

The problem again is that the LDS approach to Jesus is clearly humanistic, or fleshly, in origin and disregards the "not-of-man"/"uncreated" and "is our Creator" aspect of God. The trinity is a manmade word to describe as best as possible a most infinite, and beyond our finite-minds description of God's make-up.

John's gospel/book is so very, very clear. Even in Genesis, it says let us make man....Yet Jesus says God is one.... Surely this is confusing to the natural mind, just as "eternity" is uncomprehensible to the finite mind. We nod in agreement to eternity as something with no end, yet when we really try to comprehend "eternity" our brains go "tilt".

Also keep in mind that eternity is totally not related to "time" as time has a start and a stop or at least sense of physicality.

Eternity means something that didn't have a "start" or an "end".

Christ said clearly that He is the "I AM" then then the Jews wanted to stone Him for "clearly" announcing that He was God, not a god or another god. There is but "one" Alpha and Omega".

Collosians clearly states that all Creation, space/time/being/sense of awareness........all things.............were Created through and by Christ Jesus. Genesis says that God is the only Creator.

These are all evidences of a Creator/God that that has a most intriguing, yet mind boggling make-up.

God pre-existed eternally. He was not created. That is what "I AM" means. This again puts our finite minds into "tilt".

Joseph Smith and the later prophets did not comprehend this most intriguing nature of God's make up, as all man cannot, yet in my opinion needed to "box" God into something that would be understandable to man's finite mind/understanding. Thus, the doctrine of a bone and flesh god, that exudes a total existence/being of created origin. Again this flies in the face of "Before Abraham, I AM", as clearly stated by Jesus Christ. Also in Hebrews, (Author either Paul or Apollos), Jesus is referred to as Melkizedek the priest from Abraham's day. It is stated that Melkizedek had no lineage or human lineage. Many bible scholars believe that Melkizedek was one of many pre-incarnate visitations by Jesus Christ. Seems to make sense as Genesis or the bible which normally gives lineages to all important characters leaves Melikizedek's absent.

Science works overtime trying to explain why things happen, occur, or just exist. Science does this with great expertise, starting with a hypothesis, and hopefully working towards a theory, and then a law or fact.

When it comes to the makeup of the Judeau/Christian God, science cannot tap into it at all. God jumps and trumps the realm of matter, existence, time, etc.... The scriptures scream out clearly that Christ is God, and is pre-existent/eternal in every way. Yet in some mind-blowing way, He and God our One. The Holy Spirit is referred in masculine tense throughout the bible, and by Jesus to His disciples.

To say that "God used Jesus to create all things" is total unfounded conjecture. Collosians does not say that at all nor does John.

This is an attempt to fit the biblical Jesus into the LDS parameters of their non-biblical definition of Jesus.

The third Person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, was sent by Jesus, as He clearly stated to His disciples before His ascension into the heavenlies to sit at the right hand of God. He said that the H.S. was being sent "in His Place". To also firm up the One-God Three persons explanation, Jesus said that He and the father are One, not just in agreement, but are One as in the "same". Check out the original greek tense for "One", and it doesn't standing alongside and totally separate, but One in mind, being, purpose.....etc.....

The said that He was the vine and we were the branches. We could not live or survive without the nourishment of the vine itself.

Did Jesus talk to Himself in the Garden or on the Cross, or when He went off to pray............Bolder Dash! That is "finite" mans explanation cause man can't understand how Jesus can talk to God the Father and also be God too. So finite man must do it within the parameters of his/man's physical, time, matter, limitations, and say, God can't express Himself as three personages yet be one in mind, being, intent.........It just doesn't compute.

The true Holy Spirit abiding Christians don't "tizzy" over this most mysterious topic, but just "accept" that God is above and beyond us when it comes to understanding His makeup. Afterall, He made us, not the other way around.
******
Maybe someday at the great ressurrection or the time when those who die and are Christians and the bible says they will see Him face to face, we will be given minds that can comprehend or understand this most mysterious, and infinite aspect of God's makeup/being. For now, the true Christian is not hung up about why Jesus calls Himself God/I AM, or evidences such as having the power to ressurrect the dead(Lazarus), or the power to take back up His life after crucifixion.........The true Christian just accepts that scripture is God breathed through the His inspiration of many authors over a long span of time from the O.T. to N.T..

The true biblical Christians knows that God is "omnipotent" and because of that, he/she knows that scripture has been kept intact from the time of it's original God inspired authorships up to present.

This is the other "bugaboo" that the LDS church exists or stands or falls upon. God had to be non-omnipotent, which totally goes against His very nature/attribute.

To believe in a god that can't keep His Word to mankind protected throughout the ages is not a god that man can rely upon for peace, serenity, protection, and kept-promises for the future or present.

The whole of the LDS church stands or falls upon the above statement. God must be weak/inept in order for Mormonism to flourish, and be accepted. All other LDS teachings aside, the core of it's doctrine is that the present day bible is accurate only where it agrees with it's latter day prophet's teachings/findings in the BOM, Pearl of Great Price, and Journal of Discourses.

I.E.: The LDS church stands or falls upon it's founder's credibility, and the accounts that he gave to his followers. When they are put up against the bible of that time, the KJV, it falls very short, and very anti-biblical. The LDS church claims that where the KJV and J.S. Jr.'s and later prophets teachings are at "logger heads" then the bible is corrupted. Now we are back to a very weak, and non-omnipotent Judeau/Christian God, who in the O.T. and N.T. reveal a much different personage and power/ability.

I personally cannot, and will not abide in a god who can't protect his communications to mankind over the centuries.

 

[Skeptik]

The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.

Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?

Do you change your underwear every day?

Lots of junior high school kids don't, so BB might not be any different from his classmates.

 

[Truthspeaker]

T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?

Hello!

Moderators?

Administrators?

Anyone out there?

This is unacceptable.

 

[Skeptik]

T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?

Hello!

Moderators?

Administrators?

Anyone out there?

This is unacceptable.

There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing. One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper". I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.

Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.

 

[Truthspeaker]

T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?

Hello!

Moderators?

Administrators?

Anyone out there?

This is unacceptable.

There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing. One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper". I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.

Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.

Well there is a red flag above each post you can click on to report stuff including rude or harrassing posts like the ones recently posted. I've reported a bunch of them and nothing has happened yet.

 

[Skeptik]

Hello!

Moderators?

Administrators?

Anyone out there?

This is unacceptable.

There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing. One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper". I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.

Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.

Well there is a red flag above each post you can click on to report stuff including rude or harrassing posts like the ones recently posted. I've reported a bunch of them and nothing has happened yet.

Based on what I've been reading on this forum, I'd say most likely nothing will. Those other two I mentioned don't allow personal insults, have curse filters, and a generally higher level of dialogue.

 

[Truthspeaker]

There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing. One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper". I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.

Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.

Well there is a red flag above each post you can click on to report stuff including rude or harrassing posts like the ones recently posted. I've reported a bunch of them and nothing has happened yet.

Based on what I've been reading on this forum, I'd say most likely nothing will. Those other two I mentioned don't allow personal insults, have curse filters, and a generally higher level of dialogue.

interesting... I may check them out.

 

[trueblue]

Is anyone in agreement with me that the above idiot should be banned from the board?

I think everyone is in agreement...

 

[Truthspeaker]

Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 12 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?

 

[N4mddissent]

Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 4 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?

Honestly, Truthspeaker, I just have difficulty with that from a critical thinking perspective. It's a bit like an author selling a book on alien abduction going on T.V. and claiming he actually saw an alien body in the woods. I would have trouble trusting his account, since 1) anecdotes are not evidence and 2) it is convenient enough to bring his motivation into question.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 12 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?

He just fell over the ruins or hewas looking for them? And why?

Here is the account. Joseph and some of the men thought some of the hills were peculiar looking as they camped near them. So Joseph decided to get a company together to explore them. They thought they were man made hills and decided to excavate a portion of the hills. This is what they claim to have found. Because of their belief in the book of mormon and it's claims of ancient societies and mounds being heaped up for military purposes, they were curious. This is what they claimed to have found.Zelph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How did he know his name?

He didn't know his name until he prayed to God for a revelation on the subject.

Lamanite? Isn't that a floor tile?

No. It is a group of people descended from or associated with the children of Laman, Lemuel or the sons of Ishmael or Zoram. It's a very broad term which is more religious than genetic.

 

[trueblue]

Eightball: That was a very long, confusing definition. I'm glad I knew ahead of time what you were going to say or I never would've made it through. Of course I don't believe a God that wanted to inspire belief in himself would be so mysterious and confusing. Nor do I see the discrepancies you claim from your interpretation of the same scriptures, no matter how often they are repeated.

I do agree, however, with your statement that the LDS Church rises or falls with the credibility of Joseph Smith. Either it was as he said and he did indeed see God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, or he didn't. If he did, he was a prophet who has shed great light on the nature of God and the LDS Church is true. If he did not, he was not a prophet, and the closest thing to Christ's Church on earth is Catholicism. Any other option is a derivation of Catholicism (or non-Christian altogether) and therefore more distant from true power and authority and without any claim on divine authority.

I believe it is true because of my experiences with the LDS faith. I believe it because I took it for a test drive and every premise I tested held. Since those experiences I have seen many others test the same basic principles of the LDS faith and reach the same results and conclusions independent of myself or other outside influence. I've come to have such confidence in these processes, such as sincere prayer, that I am comfortable saying that I know they work-- I know it is true.

You are not expected to believe me or any other person on these kinds of things. God is our Heavenly Father and He will speak to us if we pray to Him-- but we must pray in faith, with open, sincere hearts and a willingness to do whatever we're told (regardless of how it matches our political views or our personal reasoning). If you or I do so in the name of Christ, that prayer will be answered-- just as it has been for me and millions of others in all nations, languages, demographics or socio-economic groups. We can ask God directly if Joseph Smith was a prophet and whether the LDS faith is true. We can show our faith in prayer by studying a bit on our own first-- by trying it out. Reading in the Book of Mormon is a great, credible, risk-free way to do this.

That is all the LDS Church offers the world-- an opportunity to learn independently and ask God to know if it is true. The invitation is open to everyone. We get excited about it sometimes because of how our lives are positively impacted afterward in ways most of us never would have thought beforehand.

So that's where I'm coming from. Through answers to prayers I feel confident saying that I know that Joseph Smith did see God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ. And I cannot deny the implications that follow such a marvelous event.

From my view, it is the trinitarians who are twisting, see. Because clearly, if Joseph Smith saw them as two, separate, physical beings who taught him about who they were, etc., then the the trinity is an absurd notion created by apostates. If Joseph didn't see them, then I readily admit that he is the heretic. I don't suppose there is any way to resolve that conflict other than to ask God. I have done so and am confident and comforted by the answer I have received many times.

If you haven't already, I invite you to do the same. You don't have to receive the same answer I did. But if you're really sincere and really want to know, you will.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 12 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?

Honestly, Truthspeaker, I just have difficulty with that from a critical thinking perspective. It's a bit like an author selling a book on alien abduction going on T.V. and claiming he actually saw an alien body in the woods. I would have trouble trusting his account, since 1) anecdotes are not evidence and 2) it is convenient enough to bring his motivation into question.

Well I've read the account and because I value the character of the man Joseph Smith, I believe him, since he was not a liar. I'm not trying to prove this incident happened but here are the eyewitness accounts. Zelph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This discovery produces more questions in my mind than answers because I am such a detail inquisitive person. But it does fascinate me. I don't have a problem trusting the account because he never tried to sell it for profit. He never made money off his religion. He never tried. His motivation was only to find truth and expose it to the world. So he is one of three things to people. Deceitful, deluded or inspired of God. Each person has to make their own conclusions