you quote the Bible, yet do not understand it, nor read it to its full extent, watch, by quoting one verse, you can miss the meaning or change the meaning alltogether, read as follows; you then say; this is what the Bible says; you say; the Bible says; you state; I state, that its clear that you yourself, have fallen for the doctrine of satan, the father of lies, tell us, what was his first lie to humans?
Randalfo So are saying that Christ was lying when he said "ye are Gods and children of God"? If we are not then why did he say it? Are you saying that God lied to Adam and Eve when he told them "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die”. Adam lived 930 years later so if you take what God said at face value then that was not technically true. What God meant is that on the day they ate the fruit there bodies would change and they would be subject to death and at some time they would surely die. Satan knew this and so he used that knowledge to entice Eve into partaking of the fruit. Satan spoke the truth along with lies to deceive Eve. He told her that they would not surely die, but be as the God's knowing good and evil. That was a lie mingled with truth. The lie was they would not surely die but being like the God's knowing good and evil was true. Satan thought that revealing the truth to Eve and having her get Adam to partake that it would thwart God's plan. Satan did not realize that it was God's plan all along to have man fall. This was an excellent example of how Satan will weave both truth and lies in order to deceive us. Twisting truth is a much more of effective way of deceiving than all out lying witch can be easily disproven. Just look how good that worked for Bill Clinton. hee hee.
Brigham Young was a prophet; he considered it doctrine: "Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true." Are you telling me he was disbelieved during his time? The evidence at that website indicates otherwise: "President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us." (Hosea Stout)How would you question a prophet today, if he were to declare "one particular doctrine ... which God revealed unto me," even it it was: "namely that Adam is our Father and our God"? What would be your grounds for disagreement? Orson Pratt, an apostle, was almost excommunicated for opposing Adam-God Doctrine (Minutes of Meeting of Council of the Twelve, Church Historian's Office; Brigham Young Collection). Most of all: Why believe Spencer W. Kimball was right to denounce it? Doctrine & Covenants still calls Adam the "Ancient of Days", a title given to God by Daniel (Daniel 7:13; cf. Isaiah 43:13). Christ hasn't been given his nature, and that's where our beliefs diverge. He is by nature God (Col. 2:9; Philippians 2:6). We are joint-heirs by adoption. Look at the reasoning in Galatians 4:4-8: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father. So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods."We did not have those rights as children of (created) Adam, our biological father. We could not call God "Father" without Christ; because we are not physically of his "bloodline", we are not heirs by default. What makes Jesus different is not that He was born of a woman, or born under the law, but that He was God's uncreated (eternal), only-begotten and beloved Son. For any purpose other than salvation and eternal life, Adam would have been enough. Also note that there are people who "by nature are not gods". Who might those be? See Randolfo's post. You can't just quote words and think they prove your statement. You must show your reasoning, or at least the author's reasoning. The difference is whether we reflect God's glory or our own. This divine potential seems more self-serving than God-serving to me. It's not about how good God is, even though you try to make it sound that way, but about how good you (potentially) are. God did not create us to stare at him -- who ever said that? And if He did, how would "being gods" of any order make a difference to that? Why will heaven will be boring unless we are exactly as God himself? I don't have a problem with what our glorified natures will be -- we'll be whatever we'll be --but I do have a problem with how you think we attain it and how you think it is available. Through Joseph Smith and his church? I don't think so.
Jenyar I must say I enjoy your questions the most. You ask good intelligent questions that require thought rather than some others that just regurgitate what they have read from anti-Mormon propaganda. I will respond to what you wrote later when I have more time.
read more, it was to give them pause to think. listen, Jesus is called the "Word of God" because He is the Living Bible, try reading more passages than one or two "standards" (Jehovah's Witnesses use this verse-hopping process, to make their points, that you may or may not be using to make your point?), so read the whole chapter, see what lead up to that confrontation & then decide what Jesus meant no, I'm saying that you need to find out who is saying what, then try to understand it, if you read that verse again you will see that the liars are satan, Adam & Eve. BTW, satan apparently is real good at quoting Scripture too, but only to set traps for people. BTW, nice touch, trying to equate me (literally) with satan, you tricky little devi, you ;-) , or are you playing the devil's advocate? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! hmmm, maybe? I think that what really happened, was that they became subject to death, that the DNA clock started ticking down from that moment using a fallen man, tsk, tsk, what a bad example to use here, but from my standpoint, mormonism does that exactly what you say here, twisting truth to create a whole new religion, Brutus1964 can you prove either one of these books is true?; 1) The "BoM", which claims to be the recent history of the Americas (roughly 3 to 2 thousand years) & has no traceable connection to the real history of the Western Hemisphere, its peoples, fauna & flora and 2) the "Book of Abraham", which preports to be true history, but instead the foundation papyrus document turns out to be a guide to breathing from the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" see below: http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html http://www.lds-mormon.com/abraham.shtml http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/fallofbookabraham.htm
Jenyar This essay by Eldon Watson explains in detail the Adam-God theory. It explains both the early church teaching on the subject as well as modern day teaching. I think we can all agree that the Church today teaches against Adam being God the Father. Adam was Michael the Arch-Angel in the Pre-existance not Elohim who is God the Father. They are not the same being. http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/7AdamGod.htm
Brutus, Thanks for the link. But it only brings more questions to my original point ( which you have not answered). In Isaiah when we read "Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." [Isaiah 6:2], we do not let this stand free of interpretation, but we interpret it in view of Joseph Smith's declaration that "An angel of God never has wings." [TPJS p 162], thus requiring a figurative rather than a literal interpretation of the passage in Isaiah. Similarly, we do not require the most straightforward interpretation of John 4:24 "God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth." but we interpret it in light of D&C 130:22 "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." The Book of Mormon says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God. Are we required to accept that in its most direct and straightforward interpretation? Not at all. We know from the Pearl of Great Price that two separate personages appeared to Joseph Smith in the First Vision, so we go through some theological gyrations in order to make it possible for the two seemingly dissonant passages to agree. In order to do that, we interpret and explain the "oneness" of God, and to some that appears to be an invalid interpretation.These reinterpretations "in view of Joseph Smith", are exactly my problem. As we've established, Brigham Young explicitly said: "He [Adam] helped to make and organize 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.Their solution to the problem (since they can't get around it), is: "It is apparent that the report of the discourse has been corrupted right at this critical juncture, and we have neither an accurate nor a complete account of what was said."Their alternative version says: When our Father came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him, and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle, and Adam is Michael, our God and all the god that we have anything to do with.Apparently this "tabernacle" is Adam Jr. (i.e. God Jr. or Michael) who in turn fathered Jesus with Mary: Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. [Ben E. Rich, who was not present, said Brigham Young said here: Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character, who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven]The site solves the difficulty by introducing even more ambiguity: "Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr." When there are two Adams, one a son and the other his father, both identical physical entities with flesh and bones, this is supposed to make resolving the inconsistencies easier, but it creates another one: with the Bible. 1 Cor. 15:45-49 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam [Christ], a lifegiving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.Which of the "two Adams" doctrine should we accept? Who carries the authority? That is what I want to know.
Jenyar I think the question you are asking is can a prophet be wrong and still be a prophet? I am going to answer that on my own without using others opinions or websites. Here is what I personally believe about the Adam-God theory as well as other wild beliefs that have occasionally been introduced into the church. First I do not believe any human being is perfect and that includes prophets. The prophets in the Bible were all replete with thier own foibles yet God did not turn his back on them or his people. Brigham Young did teach that Adam was the God the Father. I think that is well documented. Was this false doctrine? I would say it was. Did the fact that Brigham Young taught one bit of false doctrine make him a false prophet? I say definitely not. One of the bases for so many fundamentalists of every stripe is that they demand purity in all things. They say if something isn't 100% right then it makes it 100% wrong. That standard of purity is impossible for any human being, any organization, or any church to meet. We claim to be the only true church on the Earth. However we make no claim of 100% purity 100% of the time. It is possible for false doctrines to be introduced into the church. I believe that God has two methods of weeding out false doctrines from his church. One of them is time. False doctrines will never pass the test of time. Eventually they will be rejected by the church as a whole and forgotten. The other is we always have a living prophet that can set things straight again. The Adam-God theory has not passed the test of time and has been rejected by the church as a whole; therefore we can know with a surety that it was a false doctrine. Brigham Young was wrong in his thinking. Does that mean he was 100% wrong on all other things he taught? Absolutely not. Did he lie about what he believed? No, he taught what he thought at the time to be the truth. The standard that many have set for prophets is completely unrealistic. We should not believe that just because 100% of Joseph Smith's prophesies did not come true that he was 100% wrong. Prophets are not fortunetellers. I think the Bible is quite clear on what God thinks of fortunetellers. Prophets may warn people about what may happen if God's commandments are not followed, but if the warnings that were uttered by the prophet does not come to pass that does not mean the warning was false? Prophecy is based on the faithfulness or the unfaithfulness of men. For instants if the world suddenly turned to God and repented do you think all the bad things in the Book of Revelations would happen? No they wouldn't. Would that make John a false prophet? No, because his prophecies were based on what will happen if man does not follow God. God has never demanded absolute purity from his prophets. If that was the case there could never be prophets. Jesus Christ was the only perfect man to ever walk the Earth. No one before him and no one after him will ever match that in this lifetime. The best thing to do is always follow the living prophet. He alone has the authority to proclaim what is false and what is true. If he makes a mistake then God will sort it all out in his own time.
The problem is that one "prophet" can make (and has made) mistakes at the cost of the truth; people are mislead. "Thinking you are right" is just not good enough. And this is why authority is so important: that we can measure what we have against what has survived. We are fallible, and are wholly dependent on God for our information about Him. Joseph Smith implied that God had failed to preserve even an image of truth about himself, and that He has chosen (by proxy) to reveal a new truth to one American. How has false teachings been identified until now? By keeping to God's chosen path very closely. By staying on it. Not by overriding the "corruption" with something new and alien. God has steadily been establishing his kingdom (of truth, mind you) since Day 1 -- He did not miss the boat for 1700 years. Even the Reformation didn't establish a new church, but a church going back to the Bible alone: that which has been faithfully transmitted and preserved. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel... no prophet ever had only his own testimony to rely on. "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said" (1 Corinthians 14:29). They were always judged from within the greater context, and their message was always come back to the truth, to justice, to honesty, to God's plan for salvation. That was why their prophesies were considered authoritive: they had already stood the test of time. "And we have the word of the prophets made more certain" (2 Peter 1:19). As Jesus said: God is not the God of the dead. Those prophets are still alive in their words, because God's word is still alive, has always been alive. What they said is still valid. What this means is that anyone can discover what God has done and promised without the need for an intermediary. The Christian church had to learn this truth the hard way. What Joseph Smith and the "latter-day Saints" do, is to replace them as prophets, not to succeed them. When a prophet's authority outweighs even Moses or Jesus, as it did in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's teachings, it seeks to outweigh God himself, and that must never be. Many Mormon authorities agree with this (D&S 1:188), and you should heed them. If it does not confirm the Law and the Prophets, it denies them. Moses once said "I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!" (Numbers 11:29), and God has done just that: poured his Spirit out on his children. And the days prophesied by Joel (Joel 2:27-29) came 2000 years ago. There are no "latter days" after those days! It was fulfilled then and there: Acts 2:32-33 "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.The LDS church has called all Christians and Jews liars, and thereby separated themselves from the heilsgeschichte (salvation history). They consider those who "keep to the keeping" as lost and deluded, thereby declaring God's work to have been in vain. "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" -- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley ""What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" -- Prophet Joseph Smith "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" -- Apostle Orson PrattBut where the Mormon church agrees with the verifiable truth, I have no problem with it. But most of Mormon doctrine does not come from the Bible or even the Book of Mormon; it comes from Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. "There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent." (Mosiah 3:17) "Acts 4:11-12 "... then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' Salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Jenyar The church of today does not stress at all the deeper doctrines that were more commonly taught in the past. That is because the church would rather stress the points that will actually affect your salvation rather than just pique your interests. Whether or not Adam was God or how Jesus Christ was conceived is fine for intellectuals to discuss and contemplate, but knowing or not knowing those things has absolutely no bearing on your eternal progression. God and Christ do not care a whit whether you understand all the intricacies of how the world was created; only that you have faith that God and Christ lives, and that Christ died to atone for our sins, and to obey the commandments they have given us. Many who delve into the mysteries of the gospel either go overboard and join fundamentalist groups or they lose their testimonies entirely because they lose sight of the simple truths of the gospel. It is the simple truths that save, not the mysteries.
We could agree, Brutus, but why call yourself a Mormon if its doctrines are not necessary for your salvation? Why attempt a monopoly on the truth if the simple truth has been available since the first apostles? I believe the Mormon church traps the salvation message of Christ in their incredible doctrines, much like the Pharisees did long ago. I have no wish to demolish your faith or any Mormon's, but these things we discussed causes too much confusion to let the truth be "simple". This is exactly the reason why you have to downplay many things your prophets taught. If they carry the authority they profess to have, you would be blowing like a leaf in the wind, with nothing to hold on to. You would have to admit that they have used this authority to lead people astray in the past, people who were required to believe them, and yet those prophets have never been denounced as Deut. 13:5 prescribes. You would have to admit that their revelations possibly weren't revelations at all, like polygamy and the Adam-God doctrine. I'm glad you have found a way to survive in such a confusing environment, and I'm sure many Mormons do. But spare a thought for those who follow the same truths outside the Mormon church, and have done so for the past 2000 years. According to your prophets, we have to repent or lose our salvation, and only they may dispense it. According to Jesus He is Saviour of the world, even the gentiles -- even those outside Israel (for whom He came) -- can find salvation in Him; this is the expressed love of God. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you" (D&C 21:4). Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses 13:95). "The prophet does not have to say 'Thus saith the Lord' to give us scripture", from The Fourteen Fundamentals by Ezra Taft Benson.
Jenyar I read the Fourteen Fundamentals by Ezra Taft Benson. I agreed with every single point. You should always follow the living prophet. God will hold you responsible if you do not. Like I mentioned before the prophets are not perfect but ours is not to question his every utterance and only follow what we think is right. We are to follow the living prophet and take what he says as scripture. If the prophet makes a mistake the lord will sort it out himself. It is not our responsibility to sort it out for him. If I lived in Brigham Young’s time then I would be expected to obey what he said, regardless. If Gordon B Hinckley dies then we would follow the new living prophet. He would supersede anything that any previous prophet has said because he is called of God to speak to us in our day. This may sound strange but God works in an orderly fashion. Only the prophet can receive revelation for the entire church or for the world. We can all receive revelation ourselves too but only to the extent of our own stewardship. For instance I can receive revelation from the lord that pertains to myself and my family. If I have a church calling then I can also receive revelation regarding that calling. I cannot receive revelation for my ward or stake or the church in general unless I hold keys for that particular calling. The lord will never go to anyone except for his prophet to speak for the entire world. So if anyone besides the designated prophet ever rises up and claims to have received special revelation for the church or for the world we can no with a surety that that person is a false prophet. The lord has commanded us to follow the living prophet. As long as we do that we will never be lead astray.
That is like saying: "we will continue with sin until the Lord corrects it. We will allow ourselves to be misled by the failures of men because we do not trust God's successes." Psalm 146:3 Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. John 2:24-25 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.Mormonism has this in common with Islam: they rely on the failure of God's words to men. Where they agree or overlap, they see it as confirmation of their own message, but where they depart they consider themselves authoritive. You say the "standards set for the prophets are unrealistic". Yes, it is unrealistic to grant them such absolute authority, with full knowledge of human weaknesses. It is realistic to expect them to live up to their claims if they want to invoke God himself to support it.
Having immersed myself in a great deal of theological and religious thinking over the last few weeks, I must say I do find this doctrine of the Mormons more than a little disturbing. The "living prophet" appoints to himself the equivalent role of infallibility of the Pope - but by calling himself "prophet" he rates as higher even than the Pope, and on a level with the Prophets of old! The Prophets spoke directly to God, is that what the "living Prophet" claims for himself? Even the Pope would only claim that his pronouncements are moved by the Holy Spirit, rather than by direct revelation. And now (1980) these "living Prophets" are claiming their pronouncements as superior even to Scripture? Even in these ecumenical times it's surprising to me that the LDS has not been utterly censured by all the other churches as being utterly blasphemous and heretical. The Catholics of course accept no higher authority than the Pope - but all the other Lutheran-inspired Churches would surely find such a so-called Prophet absolutely as unacceptable as they do the Pope. This has every single appearance of a cult, like the Branch Davidian or Heavens Gate. The only difference is that the LDS has outlasted its first cult leader, and succeeded in appointing successors to keep the believers entranced.
So, basically, it is enough to profess yourself a Mormon, repeat some taught lines -- and that's it? No need to understand what you are talking about? Believe the prophets by the word -- simply because *they* say that LDS is the only right church? While I can imagine this to be easy for someone who is born and raised Mormon, it is hard, if not impossible for someone who has not been born and raised Mormon. I read the Book of Mormon, prayed as it says in the end -- and a thousand questions opened up. *I* wanted to have answers. The only way *I* could join the church is that I would GIVE UP MYSELF, treat my personality and my mind as some whim that needs to be done away with. I have met some converts, spoken with them. I even knew a missionary who converted at age 22. The way I see it, those people had sad personal stories and have, in my opinion, converted in desperation, not in true belief. If they had been visited by missionaries of some other church and offered regular attention, they had converted to that church -- it just so happens that LDS has the most elaborate missionary network and acitivty. They would have accepted any helping hand that would be willing to stay with them as long as they needed it. But just because LDS has the most elaborate missionary network and acitivty doesn't make it the right church, nor your doctrine to be *the* means to salvation.
In a way we are all prophets because we all can receive personal revelation from the lord through the Holy Ghost. The difference is the keys that we hold. The living prophet today has the same calling and authority as any of the prophets in the Bible. This includes Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Isaiah. However some prophets have held keys that only they possessed. Moses held the keys for the gathering of Israel and as the law giver, and Abraham held the keys of the Abrahamic covenant. Joseph Smith held the keys of restoring the Gospel. Brigham Young held the keys of leading the Saints to Utah and establishing communities around the west and so forth. Each prophet holds keys that are necessary for their particular time. We do not hold any prophet above or even equal to Jesus Christ. He is above any prophet and only he has the power and keys to our salvation. Jesus Christ leads the Church. The prophet is only his mouthpiece. You asked if we hold our living prophets words above scripture. Our definition of scripture is any truth that comes from God. So any pronouncement from the church that comes from God is scripture. If you receive a personal revelation concerning you or your family that is scripture. The Bible is scripture as far as it is translated and interpreted correctly. We are not expected to blindly follow the prophet. We have the gift of the Holy Ghost to testify to us what is right and wrong. We also have a principle in the church called common consent. The prophet along with every leader in church must be sustained by all the members of the church. Every six months we hold a General Conference were we raise our hands to either sustain the leaders of the church or if we have reason to oppose him being the prophet we can raise our hand in opposition. If any know of a reason that a church leader should not hold his position then their voice will be heard. Now what if a prophet comes out and says that we should all drink Kool-Aid or says it is time to leave our bodies in order to hitch a ride on a UFO? In the Church the prophet is not a lone voice. He has counselors and the council the 12 apostles. When the prophet receives a revelation before it is announced to the public the council must agree on the matter first. They are prophets, seers, and revelators in their own right so they all must agree and speak with one voice. If they do not then the revelation will never be accepted or canonized by the church. The brethren in the council often have their own opinions and they are encouraged to let there voices be known when they are in council. But, once they have all agreed then the debate is over and they speak as one voice. So if the President of the Church ever got too old and senile and started making ridiculous pronouncements then we have the council to safeguard the church.
Let's call this the 'doctrine of the keys'. Please tell us where you get it from and how you substantiate it.
