Anything I missed?

[_MCB]

Case in point, Roger.

Oh, come on, SB. AF was GIVING you a case in point. If it bothers you, put him on ignore.

[_Roger]

Simon:

From your point of view, I can understand what you are saying. However, we do in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God -- the only God we need be concerned with.

??? Are you serious? Where is it written in the LDS canon that " God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God" ???

In the first place, to be technically correct, you'd have to say "we do in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been Gods..." but your church doesn't even believe that.

This flies in the face of everything every x-Mormon I know tells me about LDS doctrine. Is this some sort of LDS semantic word game or are you being serious?

So Heavenly father had no father before him?

So there has been no eternal progression of gods leading up to Heavenly Father? He has always been God? He did not become God? So Snow's couplet is nonsense? Was Talmage out of his mind when he wrote:

"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement - a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (emphasis added) (Articles of Faith, James Talmage, p. 430)

Are you now casually wiping out what Talmage proclaimed as being "the eternal truth"?

Please explain.

We also believe in the universality of the atonement. Again, this topic alone could be several threads by itself, but let me just say this: I have two friends and one academic colleague who happen to be Evangelical (two Baptist, and one Presbyterian). I go to their services and auxiliary activities (Christmas parties, etc.) all the time. What is taught there is remarkably similar to what is taught at my services. I guess I just do not see the wide gap between our beliefs that some traditional Christians see. Oh well, I am happy to call them Christian, even if they will not return the favor. (p.s. this is not about you, specifically)

Similar because the vocabulary is similar or even exactly the same. But the definitions are a world apart. I do not dispute what you mean by "the universality of the atonement" I dispute that you (LDS) believe salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned. There is no "after all we can do" clause to John 3:16. Rather Paul instructs us that:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Do you intend to boast in your good works when you get to the Celestial Kingdom, Simon? Will your good works (like enduring endless slander on MDB in defense of the one true church) help get you into the Celestial Kingdom? Or are you resting everything on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross?

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

The atonement is universal. The atonement cannot be purchased. The atonement is complete and cannot be supplemented with good works. Don't get me wrong, good works are exactly that... good. But they cannot enhance, ensure or even supplement the atonement. They are separate issues.

Imagine if my friends Minister began teaching about all of the Human follies of the great reformers like Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther, etc.?

The difference is we don't follow revelations by Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther, etc.

It is not the place or the time to talk about such things. The point is, humans are not perfect and never will be. It is too easy to look at Joseph Smith in hindsight and see all of his mistakes. I do not deny that he made mistakes, of course, but if that is all we see then of course we will vilify the Church.

I agree with that! He makes it quite easy! But again, like most other LDS I've had this discussion with, you're either missing the point or intentionally deflecting it. I'm perfectly fine with Joseph Smith being a human. As you acknowledge, his faults prove his humanity. I'm concerned about his truth claims and revelation. Apart from your testimony, what supports that? What is in question is whether or not he really spoke for God.

He did not willingly die, but he was pretty sure he was going to.

No he wasn't. He had cheated both death and justice in the past and he was hoping to do it once again. True, he was a risk taker. True, he was smart enough to know his risk-taking put his life in jeopardy. True, he could take logical stock of his circumstances in 1844 and come to the conclusion that things don't look good, but he wasn't pretty sure he was going to die. If anything, he would have been more sure he was going to die after being sentenced to execution in Missouri.

Joseph Smith's "fight or flight" response overtook him, just like it must have for every other martyr throughout history.

What are you talking about? Have you read the account of Stephen? (Acts 7) There's no fight or flight response overtaking Stephen.

You agree that you would fight back to preserve your life,

Yes, most likely.

and I would certainly do so as well. It is unfair to say that, because Joseph Smith did, he is disqualified for being a martyr.

No, it's absolutely fair. What you and I are both admitting is that we (along with Joseph) probably don't have what it takes to be a martyr.

He has suffered. Everyone is different, and can handle different amounts of suffering. I humbly submit that no one can handle multiple taring and featherings, threats on his life, threats against his family, (the list goes on and on) as Joseph did without admitting the con.

What good could possibly come from "admitting the con" as the mob is tarring and feathering you? You think Joseph says... okay boys, I admit it! I got up that gold Bible nonsense and proclaimed myself a prophet... so, now you have to let me go!

How likely is that?

In the first place, I don't think Joseph himself thought the Book of Mormon was a con. I think he may have actually believed he was qualified to add revelation to the manuscript Rigdon provided him with. I don't know for sure. It's kinda sticky like how much does Warren Jeffs actually believe in himself? But he was certainly a con-man. You tell me, Simon! Was there really Spanish buried treasure on Josiah Stowell's property that kept slipping into the earth the closer the diggers got to it?

For me, there are two options: he believed it and was wrong, or he believed it and he was right.

But there are more legitimate options. He did not believe it and was right. He believed part of it and was partially right. He came to believe it over time. There are probably more.

No man knows any historical figure's history, Roger!

Simon, I'm not treating you like a juvenile. You know what Joseph said about that, right? He said if he hadn't lived it himself he wouldn't believe it! The point being that you earlier asserted that Joseph Smith was just a normal guy! I'm emphasizing that even he disagrees with that assessment and even you are apparently now conceding:

You're right, he was an extraordinary guy. Anyone can list the bad attributes of any historical figure, but the fact remains that he did a lot of good things, too.

So that's my point. Joseph Smith was no ordinary guy by any stretch of the imagination. Beyond the extraordinary events of his life, he made some very extraordinary truth claims. Those claims are such that they either have to be true or false. There is no wishy-washy middle ground. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. When we start looking at the evidence, things start looking bad for Joseph Smith... and that's when you (will likely) resort to either:

1. slamming the Bible in an effort to deflect attention from Joseph
2. appealing to your own personal revelation.

And what if they "attack" it? What then?

Then they have no right to complain when the "Mopologists" defend their faith.

Simon, you still don't get it. Of course they do. They can complain all they want--here anyway. And, in turn, so can you. Or you can triumphantly point out what you think is hypocrisy in their behavior. That's what free speech is all about. Coming from the MADhouse (as I am guessing you do) I can see how that might take a while to sink in.

All the best.

[_Simon Belmont]

??? Are you serious? Where is it written in the LDS canon that " God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God" ???

In the first place, to be technically correct, you'd have to say "we do in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been Gods..." but your church doesn't even believe that.

This flies in the face of everything every x-Mormon I know tells me about LDS doctrine. Is this some sort of LDS semantic word game or are you being serious?

I assure you, I am not attempting to play any sort of "game." Perhaps you have not had much experience with LDS, aside from some missionaries and some ex-Mormons that you've talked to.

That's okay (and I am not trying to paint you as ignorant).

To be honest, LDS doctrine is pretty vague on the issue of "infinite regression" or the idea that God had a father, and he had a father, etc. etc. I imagine that this is the case, however, and I think a lot of LDS do believe that this is the case. But, and this is a big but, it is all speculation. The only God we should be concerned about is the God of our Universe, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are united in purpose, and they constitute one God.

I guess that could be viewed as polytheism, but so could belief in the "trinity" which by its very meaning, means "three." The FAIR Wiki notes:

The Saints worship one God. There are no competing divinities in whom they put their trust. LDS scripture contains such language (1 Nephi 13:41, 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5, Alma 11:26-37, Morm. 7:7, D&C 20:28, Mos. 1:20), but it is qualified in somewhat the same way that Creedal Christians have found a way of saying "three"—as in Trinity—and yet also one.

In other words, LDS can speculate all they want about "infinite regression" but, it is wasted time, because we only need be concerned with the God of our Universe for He is the only one that matters.

Similar because the vocabulary is similar or even exactly the same. But the definitions are a world apart. I do not dispute what you mean by "the universality of the atonement" I dispute that you (LDS) believe salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned. There is no "after all we can do" clause to John 3:16. Rather Paul instructs us that:

There are no members of the Church that believe we can "work" our way into Heaven. No LDS believes that he or she has power over the grace of Jesus Christ to "buy" an afterlife reward. Remember, faith without works is dead. We believe in following the commandments, in being good people, in serving others, just as you do. The grace of Christ saves all the penitent people who accept him and follow his commandments, remember "if ye love me, keep my commandments."

Do you intend to boast in your good works when you get to the Celestial Kingdom, Simon? Will your good works (like enduring endless slander on MDB in defense of the one true church) help get you into the Celestial Kingdom?

Absolutely not.

Or are you resting everything on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross?

This reminds me of a serious question I've had for a while:

If you, as an EV, become saved and later murder someone, are you still saved?

The atonement is universal. The atonement cannot be purchased. The atonement is complete and cannot be supplemented with good works.

We agree on this.

Don't get me wrong, good works are exactly that... good. But they cannot enhance, ensure or even supplement the atonement. They are separate issues.

We follow what Jesus said: if ye love me, keep my commandments.

I agree with that! He makes it quite easy! But again, like most other LDS I've had this discussion with, you're either missing the point or intentionally deflecting it. I'm perfectly fine with Joseph Smith being a human. As you acknowledge, his faults prove his humanity. I'm concerned about his truth claims and revelation. Apart from your testimony, what supports that? What is in question is whether or not he really spoke for God.

Personally, the strongest evidence for me are the personal accounts of those who were closest to him. There came a time when I had to sincerely and prayerfully ask myself "do I believe that Joseph Smith saw what he said he saw?"

No he wasn't.

I am sorry, but my evidence rejects your claim:

"I am going [to Carthage] like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall be said of me—He was murdered in cold blood" (Doctrine and Covenants 135:4).

What are you talking about? Have you read the account of Stephen? (Acts 7) There's no fight or flight response overtaking Stephen.

Okay, not every martyr attempts to avoid their own demise, but most do. It's our nature as Humans. It appears as though you missed my quote. Here it is again:

The first question that might be asked is: Do martyrs resist death? Paul resisted being put to death through Rome’s legal and judicial system, apparently taking advantage of every provision of Roman law that might bring an acquittal. Joseph’s situation was a little different. He was with friends who were simply visiting him in jail, he had the (false) promise of the Governor that he would be safe, and he had means of protecting himself and his friends.

What good could possibly come from "admitting the con" as the mob is tarring and feathering you? You think Joseph says... okay boys, I admit it! I got up that gold Bible nonsense and proclaimed myself a prophet... so, now you have to let me go!

I anticipated that you would say that, as I have had this discussion with others (see my Joseph Smith Megathread). He most certainly admit the con, no matter how futile it may have been. When fight or flight kicks in, a man will try anything to end the torment and suffering. He knew it would be fruitless to admit the con, but he would have tried anything, I assure you.

You tell me, Simon! Was there really Spanish buried treasure on Josiah Stowell's property that kept slipping into the earth the closer the diggers got to it?

No, and Joseph Smith didn't believe there was, either. In fact, he asked Josiah to stop the insanity. Also, when you are destitute, a youngster might do anything for $14 dollars per day.

But there are more legitimate options. He did not believe it and was right.

That's not an option. If he did not believe and it was right, then none of the events surrounding the Restoration would have taken place. He would have cast it off as hallucination or something.

He believed part of it and was partially right.

Then we must ask what part?

Simon, I'm not treating you like a juvenile.

I did not get that impression, but thank you for clarifying.

You know what Joseph said about that, right? He said if he hadn't lived it himself he wouldn't believe it! The point being that you earlier asserted that Joseph Smith was just a normal guy!

I should clarify: I meant normal in respect to his personality and mental faculties.

When we start looking at the evidence, things start looking bad for Joseph Smith... and that's when you (will likely) resort to either:

1. slamming the Bible in an effort to deflect attention from Joseph

I do not "slam the Bible," because I believe it is the word of God. I also am unsure as to what you are referring here.

2. appealing to your own personal revelation.

I have discovered that the Lord reveals things to me through study, because that is how I learn best. I am, at heart, an academician, Roger.

[_Roger]

Simon:

To be honest, LDS doctrine is pretty vague on the issue of "infinite regression" or the idea that God had a father, and he had a father, etc. etc. I imagine that this is the case, however, and I think a lot of LDS do believe that this is the case.

Well Simon, if what you speculate is actually the case, then it cannot also be that: "we do in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God." The two are mutually exclusive. If you believe that even though Heavenly Father had a father of his own--he was born God--no progression required--even that doesn't work because being born implies a beginning which means that Heavenly father was not always God. If Heavenly Father had a father he could not have always been God. What you now proclaim as "speculation" was taught as sound doctrine for many decades as both the Snow couplet and the Talmage quote make clear.

But being vague on an issue is still different from the positive assertion you made:

we do in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God -- the only God we need be concerned with.

You can't (and don't) support the positive assertion you made by pointing out that there is no support for the assertion (ie. by making the additional assertion that "LDS doctrine is pretty vague on the issue of 'infinite regression.'" Okay, maybe it is vague. That does not demonstrate that the LDS church does "in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God." All it does is add to the confusion.

The fact is, if God became God, he was not always God.

Let's see what LDS Inc. actually has to say about this:

God the Father. The truths about God that Joseph Smith restored are of paramount importance. In 1844, he taught that “it is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another.” 7 Ten years earlier, the Lectures on Faith, which Joseph Smith directed and approved, taught that to acquire faith unto salvation one needs a correct idea of God’s character, perfections, and attributes, and that one needs to know that the course of life one is pursuing is according to God’s will. 8 He also added, “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” 9

The Prophet explained that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens”; that “he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”; and that he “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling.” 10 Through the Prophet, we learn that we “are begotten sons and daughters unto God” and that Christ is the Firstborn. (D&C 76:24; see D&C 93:21–22; Heb. 12:7–9.) As God’s children, we may become gods ourselves through Christ’s atonement and the plan of salvation, being joint heirs of Christ of “all that [the] Father hath.” (D&C 84:38; see also Rom. 8:17; D&C 76:58–60; D&C 132:19–21.) Along with these concepts is the concept of divine parents, including an exalted Mother who stands beside God the Father. 11

The LDS doctrine of Heavenly Father has led one recent commentator to write, “The Mormons espouse a radical, anthropomorphic conception of God that sets them far apart from other religions.” 12 That concept includes the truth that man and woman are created in the image of God. (See Moses 6:9; Gen. 1:27.) These truths draw all men and women into a relationship with God built upon familial love, trust, feelings of self-worth, hope, and humility, all in proper balance.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideN ... 82620aRCRD

If you want to change the doctrines of Joseph Smith then you will be following Simon's revelation rather than Joseph's.

We are sinners, Simon. If God himself "was once as we are now, and is an exalted man" then God was a sinner as we are now. Think about that for a moment. Joseph Smith even emphasizes the heretical point:

he worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling

So right there you've got progression whether infinite or not. The God of the Bible does not change; he has always been God. Joseph Smith's God and yours are not compatible. They have incompatible characteristics. Joseph's Heavenly Father was once a man and worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, yours has always been God. Apparently you agree with me on that point rather than Joseph Smith.

But, and this is a big but, it is all speculation. The only God we should be concerned about is the God of our Universe, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are united in purpose, and they constitute one God.

The "God of our universe" declares that he's it:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

You know as well I do that Brigham Young and others taught that there were many Gods. The Book of Abraham teaches a plurality of Gods. The doctrine of eternal progression implies it. The fact that you someday hope to be a god proves it. This is incompatible with the God of the Bible.

I guess that could be viewed as polytheism, but so could belief in the "trinity" which by its very meaning, means "three." The FAIR Wiki notes:

The Saints worship one God. There are no competing divinities in whom they put their trust. LDS scripture contains such language (1 Nephi 13:41, 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5, Alma 11:26-37, Morm. 7:7, D&C 20:28, Mos. 1:20), but it is qualified in somewhat the same way that Creedal Christians have found a way of saying "three"—as in Trinity—and yet also one.

Interesting twist. You might be able to get away with that if it weren't for the blatant plurality of the Book of Abraham. Christians believe in One God consisting of three persons. You believe in three Gods united in purpose comprising one Godhead--which is actually three god among billions or even more Gods. Monotheism vs polytheism. Mormonism is incompatible with Isaiah 43 and 44; Christianity is not. Just because the concept of a triune God is difficult for humans to grasp does not mean it is false. The Trinity, not the godhead, is expressed in the opening verses of Genesis:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Note the verse does not say: "Then the Gods said..." as your own Book of Abraham does. Instead we get our first glimpse of the Triune God right there in the opening chapter of the Bible.

There are no members of the Church that believe we can "work" our way into Heaven. No LDS believes that he or she has power over the grace of Jesus Christ to "buy" an afterlife reward.

Fine! Then can you tell me right here and now that beyond any doubt you will go to the Celestial Kingdom? Can you tell me that you do not have to do any works to get there? Just merely being a Mormon gets you there? If I convert to Mormonism tomorrow, that guarantees that I will go to the Celestial Kingdom if I die the next day?

Remember, faith without works is dead. We believe in following the commandments, in being good people, in serving others, just as you do. The grace of Christ saves all the penitent people who accept him and follow his commandments, remember "if ye love me, keep my commandments."

Of course! Faith without works is not faith, Simon. Faith is what saves you in the first place. You don't do the work to get the faith that saves; rather because you have faith you are saved and works follow. Works demonstrate that your faith is alive. But that's not what Mormonism teaches. That little phrase "after all we can do" drastically changes the whole ballgame. Again, please tell me that you know you will go to the Celestial Kingdom...... to quote Vicini from the Princess Bride: "I'm waiting..." : )

Or are you resting everything on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross?

This reminds me of a serious question I've had for a while:

If you, as an EV, become saved and later murder someone, are you still saved?

I note that you avoided the question. I think that's probably because the answer is "no." Instead, you're hoping that the atonement will be enough to make up the difference after all you can do.

By contrast, I am placing all my eggs in one basket--the basket of the atonement of Christ and nothing else. I know there is nothing I can do to even get close to putting myself in God's presence because of my sin. In answer to your question, then, does that mean I place my trust in Christ and continue to live like the devil? Can I commit murder and still be saved? As you probably know such stuff is the fodder for much theological debate. Joseph, being Joseph, came up with is own (allegedly divine) answers but that doesn't mean he was right. I'd say it's up to God. Only God knows our heart. If I accept Christ, like you say, I should follow his commandments and "thou shalt not kill (murder)" is one of them. But as I pointed out, we are all guilty of breaking the commandments and if you break one you're just as separate from God as you are if you break them all. The key is this... if I truly accept Christ as my savior and ask him to become the Lord of my life, rather than me, then I should not desire to commit murder or break any of the other commandments. Of course, living in the flesh means I will fail at times and be successful at other times. But my salvation rests on what Christ has done, rather than what I do.

Personally, the strongest evidence for me are the personal accounts of those who were closest to him. There came a time when I had to sincerely and prayerfully ask myself "do I believe that Joseph Smith saw what he said he saw?"

Really? Think about that for a minute. Who were some of the people who were closest to him? Oliver Cowdery? Do you believe Oliver's testimony that Joseph had an affair? David Whitmer? Do you believe David when he tells you Joseph was a fallen prophet? Sidney Rigdon? Do you believe Sidney when he says Brigham led your church off into apostasy? John C. Bennett? Ezra Booth? Warren Parrish? Frederick G. Williams? William McLellin? William Law? Etc., etc. Do you think these people provide strong evidence? Every one of them knew Joseph Smith first hand. Many of them were his closest friends at one time.

I am sorry, but my evidence rejects your claim:

Your "evidence" was written after the fact by a very biased source.

When fight or flight kicks in, a man will try anything to end the torment and suffering. He knew it would be fruitless to admit the con, but he would have tried anything, I assure you.

We disagree on that, Simon. In the first place the tarring and feathering was not because Joseph produced a golden Bible. It had more to do with what was happening right then and there in Hiram, OH at the Johnson farm and in Kirtland in 1831. At least one of the "mobbers" was a member of the Johnson family! They brought a doctor along to "emasculate" Joseph. This was about adultery as much as anything else. Joseph knew that. He knew "confessing the con" would do nothing but further tarnish his image. Instead, he pleads for mercy.

Not only that, but have you read Bushman? He talks about Joseph living in the age of honor in which a man's pride was paramount. According to Bushman we don't completely understand the mentality of that day where a man's honor and reputation, when challenged, could lead to a duel. Of course, devout LDS that he is, he uses that to explain some of Joseph's behavior that we might find odd today, but if Bushman's argument is true, then it applies here as well as we consider whether Joseph would have "confessed" when fight or flight kicks in to save his skin. I don't think so. Pride prevented it.

So we disagree, but our disagreement is somewhat moot, since I said I think Joseph may actually have believed in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and if so, there would have been nothing to "confess." In other words, he may have believed ancient Nephites really did exist. And he may have believed he had the authority to add to their scripture.

You tell me, Simon! Was there really Spanish buried treasure on Josiah Stowell's property that kept slipping into the earth the closer the diggers got to it?

No, and Joseph Smith didn't believe there was, either. In fact, he asked Josiah to stop the insanity. Also, when you are destitute, a youngster might do anything for $14 dollars per day.

Well then you agree Joseph was a con-man! Or at least a con-boy! The fact is the stories about slippery treasures were Joseph's, Simon. He was an active participant in the insanity. I agree that he may have done it in an effort to improve the destitute situation his family was in, but, regardless, he was an active participant and quickly became the star of the show! In fact he developed quite a reputation as a crystal gazer. You don't find it just a little troublesome that the Book of Mormon was allegedly translated through the same occult methodology that Joseph had employed when he was pretending to see buried treasures only to have them slip away?

He believed part of it and was partially right.

Then we must ask what part?

This, of course, is speculation on my part, but I think Joseph Smith believed the manuscript Sidney Rigdon gave him was really an authentic account of ancient Nephites. Eventually, it dawned on him that he could write himself into the script, so he took advantage of that. Whether he viewed doing so as a "con" or not is difficult to say.

I should clarify: I meant normal in respect to his personality and mental faculties.

I still disagree. Sure, he had a humble upbringing. Sure, he was poorly educated. But he certainly had an unusually charismatic personality and his mental faculties seem to have been well above average.

I do not "slam the Bible," because I believe it is the word of God. I also am unsure as to what you are referring here.

Good. We agree then.

2. appealing to your own personal revelation.

I have discovered that the Lord reveals things to me through study, because that is how I learn best. I am, at heart, an academician, Roger.

Studying LDS history is completely different from knowing through personal revelation that the Book of Mormon is true.

Question for you...

Was Isaiah 29:11 fulfilled when Martin Harris went to see Charles Anthon? If so, how was it fulfilled?

All the best.

[_Jason Bourne]

We are sinners, Simon. If God himself "was once as we are now, and is an exalted man" then God was a sinner as we are now. Think about that for a moment. Joseph Smith even emphasizes the heretical point:

I think the KFD is open for interpretation. I do not read it to say God was once a measly man like you or me. Rather that he was a man same as Jesus. Jesus was God before he came to earth. He was a man just like us as far as being mortal. And He is God now. Jesus said he saw the Father and is only doing that which He saw the Father do. Extropolating all this I see God the Father as a savior of another world like Jesus was ours. So he was always God and was a savior and is stilll God.

Course I think one can argue your conclusion as well.

[_sock puppet]

We are sinners, Simon. If God himself "was once as we are now, and is an exalted man" then God was a sinner as we are now. Think about that for a moment. Joseph Smith even emphasizes the heretical point:

I think the KFD is open for interpretation. I do not read it to say God was once a measly man like you or me. Rather that he was a man same as Jesus. Jesus was God before he came to earth. He was a man just like us as far as being mortal. And He is God now. Jesus said he saw the Father and is only doing that which He saw the Father do. Extropolating all this I see God the Father as a savior of another world like Jesus was ours. So he was always God and was a savior and is stilll God.

Course I think one can argue your conclusion as well.

Jason, Elohim's role as the savior of another world is one I recall reading about some 30 years ago. In what I read, it was also explained that it was a second mortal probation, the first being like what we're now going through and that Elohim had done that at one time in the past as well. And correspondingly, as part of our own progression, we too will each some day have to do our second mortal probation, i.e. be the savior of another world.

As mentioned by Simon, my understanding is that as intelligences, with neither a body nor a spirit, we have existed eternally. Elohim is our father by which we passed from mere intelligences to having spirit existences.

Just relating what I recall of the teachings I read about.

[_Simon Belmont]

Well Simon, if what you speculate is actually the case, then it cannot also be that: "we do in fact believe that God the Father, and God the Son (Jesus Christ) have always been God."

Roger,

We believe that there is no beginning nor end to intelligences. All intelligences are divine -- we are all gods; we always have been and we always will be. Therefore, God was always God.

We are sinners, Simon. If God himself "was once as we are now, and is an exalted man" then God was a sinner as we are now. Think about that for a moment. Joseph Smith even emphasizes the heretical point:

We can speculate on this, but how do we know that a "generation" ago, God's God had the same rules and commandments as God has for us? How do we know that sin existed in that generation? Sure, we have speculation that, since God was once mortal he was automatically a sinner, but it is only speculation. The point is, we don't worry about it, because we are concerned with the God of our Universe and no other.

The "God of our universe" declares that he's it:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

That's right, there is no other God beside Him.

Interesting twist. You might be able to get away with that if it weren't for the blatant plurality of the Book of Abraham. Christians believe in One God consisting of three persons. You believe in three Gods united in purpose comprising one Godhead

Two equally confusing doctrines.

Fine! Then can you tell me right here and now that beyond any doubt you will go to the Celestial Kingdom?

I hope so. As of right now, I cannot imagine why I wouldn't. I have to continue to follow the teachings of Christ: "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," and "If ye love me, keep my commandments," and what was that about the eye of the needle and the rich man? Also, in Mark we read: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and in James: "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves," and in Timothy: "That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate," in Matthew: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."

The Bible is full of scripture that explains the nature of grace and works, and only Paul says that grace alone saves you. But Paul was talking to the Romans, whom he was just trying to get to believe in the first place -- milk before meat and all that.

Now, I am not "Bible Basher," but I have read it and studied it.

I'd say it's up to God. Only God knows our heart. If I accept Christ, like you say, I should follow his commandments and "thou shalt not kill (murder)" is one of them.

So you must do works, as well.

But as I pointed out, we are all guilty of breaking the commandments and if you break one you're just as separate from God as you are if you break them all.

Is this equating murder with shoplifting?

The key is this... if I truly accept Christ as my savior and ask him to become the Lord of my life, rather than me, then I should not desire to commit murder or break any of the other commandments. Of course, living in the flesh means I will fail at times and be successful at other times. But my salvation rests on what Christ has done, rather than what I do.

I respect your beliefs, but can you at least see how this seems silly, from an outsider's perspective? "If I am saved, I will not want to murder, so the question is moot." But how many saved Christians have murdered? "Then," you might say "he or she was not truly saved." Well then, how can we know if we are truly saved? The murderer thought he was, but then murdered.

Your "evidence" was written after the fact by a very biased source.

As was much of yours, concerning Whitmer, Cowdry, Harris, etc. We must be careful with second, or third hand accounts.

The fact that you someday hope to be a god proves it. This is incompatible with the God of the Bible.

Did the Early Christian Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus, and others teach doctrines which were incompatible with the Bible as well? I have many teachings from them which accept the divine nature of men to become Gods. And what of the many passages in the Bible which talk about Theosis?

Not only that, but have you read Bushman?

Indeed, Rough Stone Rolling is a great book. I am assuming you've read it also. Joseph Smith was tormented and persecuted for his entire short life after the discovery of the Golden Bible -- these events were directly related to it. We can speculate that he was hated for other reasons, but I reject that those other reasons were enough to put him through a living hell from about 1826 to 1844.

Well then you agree Joseph was a con-man! Or at least a con-boy! The fact is the stories about slippery treasures were Joseph's, Simon. He was an active participant in the insanity. I agree that he may have done it in an effort to improve the destitute situation his family was in, but, regardless, he was an active participant and quickly became the star of the show! In fact he developed quite a reputation as a crystal gazer. You don't find it just a little troublesome that the Book of Mormon was allegedly translated through the same occult methodology that Joseph had employed when he was pretending to see buried treasures only to have them slip away?

Joseph Smith was indeed a boy, and as a boy he made mistakes just like we all do. He was an active participant in the folk magic of his day, as were most other people. As Quinn notes:

“Not surprisingly, many of New England's practicing alchemists [a chemist who attempts to turn baser metals into gold] were Yale and Harvard graduates (including Massachusetts's chief justice), and the last of these men continued their experiments into the 1820s....”

And he goes on to explain Joseph's Silver Cup, found in Genesis 44:2, in which "he divinith"; the magical rod of Aaron found in Exodus 7:9-12, and sortilege found in Acts 1:26. Furthermore, Quinn also states:

“1825, a Massachusetts magazine noted with approval that a local clergyman used a forked divining rod.... Similarly, a Methodist minister wrote twenty-three years later that a fellow clergymen in New Jersey had used a divining rod up to the 1830s to locate buried treasure and the ‘spirits [that] keep guard over buried coin’....”

So yes, Joseph Smith was involved in the folk magic of his time, and as Bushman says, it was a "preparatory gospel." The Lord used items and symbols with which Joseph Smith was already familiar to bring about the Restoration.

Was Isaiah 29:11 fulfilled when Martin Harris went to see Charles Anthon? If so, how was it fulfilled?

[/quote]

Remember, Anthon specifically said: "I cannot read a sealed book."

Believe it or not, it is remarkably similar to Isaiah's "I cannot, for it is sealed."

[_Roger]

Jason:

I think the KFD is open for interpretation. I do not read it to say God was once a measly man like you or me. Rather that he was a man same as Jesus. Jesus was God before he came to earth. He was a man just like us as far as being mortal. And He is God now. Jesus said he saw the Father and is only doing that which He saw the Father do. Extropolating all this I see God the Father as a savior of another world like Jesus was ours. So he was always God and was a savior and is stilll God.

Course I think one can argue your conclusion as well.

It's an interesting take on it, for sure. I think the weight of common LDS teaching and understanding up until about Hinckley is against that interpretation, however. I mean the Talmage quote I posted is pretty typical of the pre-Hinckley era and I don't see how you can reconcile it with the notion that God was not a man like we are, but rather like Christ was. There is a striking difference that Mormons may not get. For the non-Mormon Christian to say: "God himself was once as we are now" and "he was once a man like us" is to leave no other viable alternative other than God was a sinner like we are for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only human who "knew no sin" was Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is impossible for God to have been a man "like us" and yet sinless, hence the charge of blasphemy which Talmage recognizes and yet stands against since this was revelation from the prophet Joseph Smith. I don't see Talmage making the case that God, as a man, was actually not like us in that he was sinless. Rather I see him arguing that he progressed just like we (or I should say good Mormons) can.

All the best.

[_Roger]

We believe that there is no beginning nor end to intelligences. All intelligences are divine -- we are all gods; we always have been and we always will be. Therefore, God was always God.

I disagree, of course, but you can't be "gods" like God is now, Simon, or there would be no distinction. Are you saying there is no difference between you and Heavenly Father? I seriously doubt that. Again, semantics seems to confuse the debate. For a Christian to say God has always been God, means exactly that. God is the only eternal, omnipotent, omniscient completely holy living entity in or out of the universe. Period. He has always been that way. No progression. Progression would imply that God was not fully God at some "point" in time. But God stands outside of time. He is not bound by time or space or the laws that govern the universe (which he created). You see God as existing within the universe, we see God as creating it.

Eternity-past is a pretty mind-blowing concept. I am always amazed at how LDS (at least most of the ones I've had this discussion with in the past) seem to blow it off as no big deal. We all existed as intelligences into eternity past and yet somehow progressed to the state we find ourselves in at the present. That's a contradiction. If we had an eternity past to progress we'd have progressed an eternity ago. Progression requires a starting point and by definition eternity has none.

So there's no way God could always have been God and yet progressed (ie. changed). God is the only living entity the Bible describes as being "from everlasting to everlasting" and the Bible also claims that "I the Lord, do not change." Malachi 3:6.

We can speculate on this, but how do we know that a "generation" ago, God's God had the same rules and commandments as God has for us? How do we know that sin existed in that generation? Sure, we have speculation that, since God was once mortal he was automatically a sinner, but it is only speculation. The point is, we don't worry about it, because we are concerned with the God of our Universe and no other.

Again, the whole "generation" thing is incompatible with the concept of eternity. And "God's God" is contrary to Isaiah 44:8. How could God have a God that he didn't know? How could there be any God that God doesn't know about? Answer: there isn't. If God had a God he's a liar because he claims to be the only God (Isaiah 44:6) and flatly states he knows no other. How could you know something God doesn't, Simon? It is primarily these notions that render Mormonism a heresy.

Two equally confusing doctrines.

Let me commend you here for not claiming the LDS concept of Godhead is coherent while the Trinity is not. I freely acknowledge, however, that the LDS concept of Godhead simplifies the matter and brings it closer to something understandable. --which, I think, is part of the problem. God, by definition, is not completely understandable. The LDS concept of Godhead has the markings of a human origin precisely because it simplifies God by altering his attributes, resulting in polytheism.

Fine! Then can you tell me right here and now that beyond any doubt you will go to the Celestial Kingdom?

I hope so. As of right now, I cannot imagine why I wouldn't.

I've no doubt you're a nice guy, Simon. I'm sure you're a worthy temple goer, you've done lots of baptisms for the dead, you try not to lie or steal and I'm confident you've never murdered anyone. But we all know you fail at things. You've admitted it yourself. You admitted that your approach to Schmo and some other posters "didn't work." No doubt you try to be a worthy LDS, but if God was standing here right now do you really think he'd say: Simon, my good son! You've made it! You are worthy as worthy can be! Bottom line, you just admitted that you can't say that for sure. Instead you "hope so."

Well it doesn't work that way in orthodox Christianity:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

There's no "works" in there as a condition of salvation. Therefore the Christian can be confident and know for sure that he or she is saved. Why? Because salvation does not depend on any future works, rather it depends on faith in the work that has already been accomplished by the only sinless human who ever lived.

Now the Bible does teach that there will be different rewards in heaven based on character and works, but getting there (salvation) does not depend on human works. So while you go on "hoping" and striving to improve your record, I can rest assured and strive (freely) out of love for God and what he's done for me.

The Bible is full of scripture that explains the nature of grace and works, and only Paul says that grace alone saves you. But Paul was talking to the Romans, whom he was just trying to get to believe in the first place -- milk before meat and all that.

None of the verses you mentioned listed "works" as a condition of salvation. You won't find any verses that do. The closest is the James verse you already listed and, as I've already pointed out, does not contradict salvation by grace.

Now, I am not "Bible Basher," but I have read it and studied it.

Great! I would encourage you to continue to read it and study it. A fabulous book to go along with it is: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist, by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.

So you must do works, as well.

No. That's LDS doctrine. If you (truly) love God you will do good works out of gratitude. It's sort of like the difference between the National Guard and volunteers. The Guard does something (like helping victims of hurricane Katrina) because they have their orders. Volunteers do the same thing (sometimes better) out of love and compassion. Both do good works.

Is this equating murder with shoplifting?

No. Not at all. It is merely saying that shoplifting puts a gulf between you and God as much as murder does. We all know murder is bad, right? Well God says you can't do ANYTHING wrong if you want to be in my presence because I'm holy. NOTHING WRONG. Period. Do you know anyone besides Jesus who makes the grade? Certainly not your founding prophet. ; )

I respect your beliefs, but can you at least see how this seems silly, from an outsider's perspective? "If I am saved, I will not want to murder, so the question is moot."

But that's not what I said. Sometimes I still want to murder! I still sin, even though I don't want to!

17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

You say, well that's a pretty miserable state to be in! Yes, it is! You're right! And--forgive me Simon, but--according to the Bible, despite all your hoping, you're there too.

Thankfully that's not the end of the story:

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

But how many saved Christians have murdered? "Then," you might say "he or she was not truly saved." Well then, how can we know if we are truly saved? The murderer thought he was, but then murdered.

We can know because salvation is not based on works--either good or bad. Does the National Guard soldier hate the people he's helping or does he love them though he's obligated to help? Only he & God know the answer because it's a matter of the heart. But for the volunteer, the love he has in his heart is made evident by his works.

David was a murderer, Simon. But he eventually woke up and confessed his sin and repented. He suffered huge consequences as a result (despite his repentance) but was still labelled "a man after God's own heart."

Good works are good and we should all do them. But salvation is not based on works. If it was, no one could be saved because the standard is higher than human accomplishment can attain.

Your "evidence" was written after the fact by a very biased source.

As was much of yours, concerning Whitmer, Cowdry, Harris, etc. We must be careful with second, or third hand accounts.

This is what drives me nuts. You accept Oliver's and David's and Martin's testimony when they say what you want them to say. When they don't you appeal to second or third hand accounts. The witness statement you see in the Book of Mormon is a second hand account, Simon. They may have signed it, but they didn't write it.

The fact that you someday hope to be a god proves it. This is incompatible with the God of the Bible.

Did the Early Christian Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Hippolytus, and others teach doctrines which were incompatible with the Bible as well? I have many teachings from them which accept the divine nature of men to become Gods. And what of the many passages in the Bible which talk about Theosis?

Theosis does not mean that we become God. If any of them taught that then they were teaching heresy:

Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.
This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothéōsis) - "Deification in God’s Essence", which is imparticipable.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

Indeed, Rough Stone Rolling is a great book. I am assuming you've read it also. Joseph Smith was tormented and persecuted for his entire short life after the discovery of the Golden Bible -- these events were directly related to it. We can speculate that he was hated for other reasons, but I reject that those other reasons were enough to put him through a living hell from about 1826 to 1844.

I am about 3/4 of the way finished. I like Bushman. He's obviously a devout LDS and has a pro-Joseph bias, but that's to be expected. The thing is, yes Joseph was persecuted but he didn't produce the Book of Mormon thinking it would lead only to persecution... and in fact it didn't. By Nauvoo, Joseph was reaping bountiful rewards of prophethood. He had thousands of devoted followers. He was the commander of the Legion. President of the church. A Master Mason. His word was as good as law. It wasn't all persecution, Simon.

Joseph Smith was indeed a boy, and as a boy he made mistakes just like we all do. He was an active participant in the folk magic of his day, as were most other people.

I'm not concerned about "most other people" (even though you're wrong about that. Seer stones, etc. were certainly popular but most Christians did not dabble in them).

Remember, Anthon specifically said: "I cannot read a sealed book."

Believe it or not, it is remarkably similar to Isaiah's "I cannot, for it is sealed."

Agreed. So then the fulfillment was that Anthon could not read the characters?

All the best.

[_Roger]

Simon:

I realize our posts are getting pretty long so.... just wondering if you agree with this:

Remember, Anthon specifically said: "I cannot read a sealed book."

Believe it or not, it is remarkably similar to Isaiah's "I cannot, for it is sealed."

Agreed. So then the fulfillment was that Anthon could not read the characters?