Another Mormon Question - Jesus as Savior?

[Kristine1957]

Maybe some people here need to read the Holy Bible…
According to the Bible " he remains FOREVER has a priesthood that DOES NOT pass away. There wasn’t a priesthood that was lost through some man made idea of an apostasy!

Futhermore, GOD is the perfect Priest Forever!

 

[Lehl]

You are very welcome!

zerinus

That’s right, folks. You’ve seen first hand what a Mormon does when confronted with sound logic using LDS-specific examples to refute their absurdities.

When in doubt, bear your testimony. Very similar to sticking their fingers in their ears and going “LALALALALALALA, I can’t hear you!”

For those of you who went, “HUH?” to Allweather’s post…Joseph Smith, this “Prophet” and the “Lord’s Mouthpiece on Earth”, that “wrote scripture on par with the Bible” according to Zerinus, prophesied about 6’ foot beings dressed as Quakers that lived up to a 1000 years on the moon. And they were even going to get “the gospel” preached to them.

I think we’ve rested our case.

 

[zerinus]

That’s right, folks. You’ve seen first hand what a Mormon does when confronted with sound logic using LDS-specific examples to refute their absurdities.

When in doubt, bear your testimony. Very similar to sticking their fingers in their ears and going “LALALALALALALA, I can’t hear you!”

For those of you who went, “HUH?” to Allweather’s post…Joseph Smith, this “Prophet” and the “Lord’s Mouthpiece on Earth”, that “wrote scripture on par with the Bible” according to Zerinus, prophesied about 6’ foot beings dressed as Quakers that lived up to a 1000 years on the moon. And they were even going to get “the gospel” preached to them.

I think we’ve rested our case.

That is a fabrication. There is no reliable evidence that Joseph Smith made such a claim. The Book of Mormon, however, is a 500 page document for all to see. It is a volume of scripture from the Lord. That is what I judge him by.

zerinus

 

[Lehl]

IF it was indeed a fabrication, how incredibly ironic then that the following “prophet”, Brigham Young, expounded upon inhabitants of the moon by adding that there are inhabitants of the SUN.

**Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? **When we view its face we may see what is termed “the man in the moon,” and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet.

Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, Vol. 13.

 

[Allweather]

Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, a volume of scripture from the Lord on a par with the Bible; the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price, two other volumes of scripture on a par with the Bible; the Restoration of the priesthood, after the original one was lost through the Apostasy; and the full organization of the true Church of Jesus Christ, which no longer existed through the Apostasy. That is what I judge him by.

zerinus

I agree with the part that I bolded for emphasis. Joseph Smith, Jr did, indeed, produce the Book of Mormon. He created it out of thin air, with or without help from other idea people. In fact, the first edition of the Book of Mormon indicates on the title page that Joseph was the author.

As for the moon-men thing, my understanding is that this originated during a Patriarchal Blessing given by Joseph Smith, Sr, the father of the prophet, rather than the prophet himself. However, since Sr was a really important figure in the LDS operation by that time (it being a thoroughly family operation) it is worth noting.

Still, it wasn’t out of bounds for mid-19th century people to wonder about life on the moon. When I was a child in the 50s and 60s, I often wondered about it, as did others. No one really knew, even mid-way into the 20th century, whether there was or was not life on the moon. It still can’t be completely discarded as a possibility, even though life resembling anything found on Earth is not something very many people would find likely.

The point I was trying to make is that so-called Christian revelation can’t be taken seriously if it doesn’t line up with what has come before. Mormons tend to throw out what came before if it doesn’t line up with what is new. That is an upsidedown approach that leads them into error, and error is where they find themselves today, up to their eyeballs in it.

This is what Zerinus doesn’t want to belly up to the bar over. He wants to “prove” the BoM is true and that Joseph Smith, Jr is a true prophet because Joseph Smith said so. Pretty thin evidence if you ask me.

 

[zerinus]

The point I was trying to make is that so-called Christian revelation can’t be taken seriously if it doesn’t line up with what has come before. Mormons tend to throw out what came before if it doesn’t line up with what is new. That is an upsidedown approach that leads them into error, and error is where they find themselves today, up to their eyeballs in it.

The “point” you are trying to make is out of order, as usual. Mormons don’t “throw out what came before”. Mormons accept 100% what came before, that is inspired and comes from God. It is the Bible that “came before,” that is inspired and comes from God. We accept that absolutely. What we “throw out” are the false doctrines of post-Apostate Christendom, which is an entirely different thing.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

The “point” you are trying to make is out of order, as usual. Mormons don’t “throw out what came before”. Mormons accept 100% what came before, that is inspired and comes from God. It is the Bible that “came before,” that is inspired and comes from God. We accept that absolutely. What we “throw out” are the false doctrines of post-Apostate Christendom, which is an entirely different thing.

zerinus

Apart from some arguments over papal authority, and some heresies which have existed from the earliest times, all Christians on 6 April, 1830, were in agreement as to the kernal of the faith. Then came Joseph Smith, Jr and some other odd zealots, who devised new and unusual religions that deviate significantly from Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant.

The Mormons glommed onto the American Exceptionalism idea that was popular in those days, which helped them to identify with the people that surrounded them. It was a stroke of genius. Say what you will about Joseph Smith, Jr, he was quite the brilliant, and visionary, inventor of religion. There is no question that he was a man driven by his vision.

Anyways, my feeling is that the Mormon ideas about plurality of gods doesn’t sit well with Jews. Being that Jews are monotheists, and that this is a thing that is taught throughout the Torah, the Old Testament, it just doesn’t seem likely that Mormon claims to “accept 100% what came before” have the ring of accuracy to them.

 

[zerinus]

Anyways, my feeling is that the Mormon ideas about plurality of gods doesn’t sit well with Jews. Being that Jews are monotheists, and that this is a thing that is taught throughout the Torah, the Old Testament, it just doesn’t seem likely that Mormon claims to “accept 100% what came before” have the ring of accuracy to them.

Your problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, but at the same time abscond from the responsibility of having to sustain, maintain, and defend that position by theological analysis and scriptural exegesis. In other words, you like to play the “idiot card”! You like to maintain what is essentially a theological and scriptural position; but as soon as somebody tries to challenge your theological and scriptural position by theological reasoning, and scriptural analysis, you cry: “I am dumb, I am stupid, I am an idiot; I can’t comprehend, nor reason out of the scriptures; and I don’t want to engage in theological analysis and scriptural exegesis of my theological position.” I have noticed that about you on numerous occasions. That is deeply hypocritical and extremely dishonest—and, I might add, extremely “dumb”!

I believe that my theological position is biblical; and I believe that I am can defend that position convincingly through scriptural reasoning, analysis, and exegesis. But you run away from that! You appeal to what I will call the “idiot clause”! Your reply is: “I am dumb, I am an idiot, I am stupid; I can’t reason out of the scriptures, and I cannot engage in a theological and scriptural discussion with you!” That is hypocritical and dishonest—as well as being extremely stupid. If you are that scripturally ignorant and incompetent, then what are you doing here, engaging people in what is essentially a scriptural and theological debate? If, on the other hand, you want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, and come here and debate it with other people, then you should accept the responsibility to be able to defend it through honest scriptural exegesis—or else, if you can’t, to admit defeat.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

The scriptures of Judaism and Christianity provide a consistent message of monotheism. What’s interesting is that even the BoM does as well. I find the LDS position to have been lacking in scriptural support and to have changed significantly over time as well. I have already listed numerous passages that emphasized and even explained this. I have yet to see the LDS give any support for a plurality of Gods other than “modern revelation”. They shy away from their own prophets writings on much of this topic though as being incorrectly transcribed or non-canonical. So where is this exegesis and theological analysis that supports LDS eternal progression?

 

[Phil12123]

That is a fabrication. There is no reliable evidence that Joseph Smith made such a claim. The Book of Mormon, however, is a 500 page document for all to see. It is a volume of scripture from the Lord. That is what I judge him by.

zerinus

**If it was a fabrication, it was fabricated by a Mormon who believed Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that he (J.S.) said that the moon was inhabited, so it depends on how reliable other Mormons were who testified of such claims, such as O.B. Huntington:

http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x291/Phil12123/?action=view&current=moonmen1a.jpg

http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x291/Phil12123/?action=view&current=moonmen2a.jpg

And here is proof that Brigham Young believed the SUN was inhabited, as has been posted:

http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x291/Phil12123/?action=view&current=moon-JOD13-271c.jpg**

 

[MelanieAnne]

Your problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, but at the same time abscond from the responsibility of having to sustain, maintain, and defend that position by theological analysis and scriptural exegesis. In other words, you like to play the “idiot card”! You like to maintain what is essentially a theological and scriptural position; but as soon as somebody tries to challenge your theological and scriptural position by theological reasoning, and scriptural analysis, you cry: “I am dumb, I am stupid, I am an idiot; I can’t comprehend, nor reason out of the scriptures; and I don’t want to engage in theological analysis and scriptural exegesis of my theological position.” I have noticed that about you on numerous occasions. That is deeply hypocritical and extremely dishonest—and, I might add, extremely “dumb”!

I believe that my theological position is biblical; and I believe that I am can defend that position convincingly through scriptural reasoning, analysis, and exegesis. But you run away from that! You appeal to what I will call the “idiot clause”! Your reply is: “I am dumb, I am an idiot, I am stupid; I can’t reason out of the scriptures, and I cannot engage in a theological and scriptural discussion with you!” That is hypocritical and dishonest—as well as being extremely stupid. If you are that scripturally ignorant and incompetent, then what are you doing here, engaging people in what is essentially a scriptural and theological debate? If, on the other hand, you want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, and come here and debate it with other people, then you should accept the responsibility to be able to defend it through honest scriptural exegesis—or else, if you can’t, to admit defeat.

zerinus

If your point of view is valid, you can make it without calling people names or referring to them as stupid.

 

[Phil12123]

Your problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, but at the same time abscond from the responsibility of having to sustain, maintain, and defend that position by theological analysis and scriptural exegesis. In other words, you like to play the “idiot card”! You like to maintain what is essentially a theological and scriptural position; but as soon as somebody tries to challenge your theological and scriptural position by theological reasoning, and scriptural analysis, you cry: “I am dumb, I am stupid, I am an idiot; I can’t comprehend, nor reason out of the scriptures; and I don’t want to engage in theological analysis and scriptural exegesis of my theological position.” I have noticed that about you on numerous occasions. That is deeply hypocritical and extremely dishonest—and, I might add, extremely “dumb”!

I believe that my theological position is biblical; and I believe that I am can defend that position convincingly through scriptural reasoning, analysis, and exegesis. But you run away from that! You appeal to what I will call the “idiot clause”! Your reply is: “I am dumb, I am an idiot, I am stupid; I can’t reason out of the scriptures, and I cannot engage in a theological and scriptural discussion with you!” That is hypocritical and dishonest—as well as being extremely stupid. If you are that scripturally ignorant and incompetent, then what are you doing here, engaging people in what is essentially a scriptural and theological debate? If, on the other hand, you want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, and come here and debate it with other people, then you should accept the responsibility to be able to defend it through honest scriptural exegesis—or else, if you can’t, to admit defeat.

zerinus

What in the world are you talking about? It does not take much scripture to show the OT and NT are thoroughly monotheistic. For starters, let me hear your “honest scriptural exegesis” of the following verses:

**Isaiah 43:10 — Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:6 — 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.

Isaiah 44:8 — 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.

Isaiah 45:5 — I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

Isaiah 45:21 — Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.**

**Even the Book of Mormon says there is only ONE God. Show me ONE verse in the Book of Mormon that teaches a plurality of gods. You can’t do it, can you?
**

 

[Allweather]

Your problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it. You want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, but at the same time abscond from the responsibility of having to sustain, maintain, and defend that position by theological analysis and scriptural exegesis.

My posts derive from exegesis (none of it originally mine) but I don’t go into long-winded layouts of cherry-picked verses. I don’t see the value in that.

I note that lately, brother Zerinus, you’ve avoided doing very much exegesis yourself, preferring rather to poke a boney finger in the eyes of various people here, an example of which is found in the post to which I am replying now. I don’t see any exegesis in this post of yours. You’ve written two long paragraphs, the second of which is little more than a redundant repetition of the first. Where’s the beef?

In other words, you like to play the “idiot card”! You like to maintain what is essentially a theological and scriptural position; but as soon as somebody tries to challenge your theological and scriptural position by theological reasoning, and scriptural analysis, you cry: “I am dumb, I am stupid, I am an idiot; I can’t comprehend, nor reason out of the scriptures; and I don’t want to engage in theological analysis and scriptural exegesis of my theological position.” I have noticed that about you on numerous occasions. That is deeply hypocritical and extremely dishonest—and, I might add, extremely “dumb”!

Brother Zerinus, I am not a theologian. And neither are you. Your arguments are quite a lot thinner than mine are, even though you sometimes pump them up with groupings of verses from your “modern scripture” which, you think, gives the appearance of theological gravitas. Your use of the Bible is mostly erroneous, as has often been pointed out to you by me and by others.

**I believe **that my theological position is biblical; and I believe that I am can defend that position convincingly through scriptural reasoning, analysis, and exegesis.

Emphasis mine. Yes, you believe lots of things. Recently you gave us your testimony… again. One thing we’ve noticed about you, brother Zerinus, is that when you’re against the logical wall, you resort to your Mormon testimony as a last resort. In case your memory is vacant, I suggest you back up a few pages and re-read this and other threads in which you’ve done this, as recently as yesterday. Is your testimony of JS, Jr. considered good exegesis in the halls of theological pondering? Maybe this works at BYU, but not anywhere else. But don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of testimony, and I often give my own. But I do find it odd that you criticise ME for not throwing Bible verses to and fro, while you are often unable to give much more than your testimony.

If …you want to maintain a theological and scriptural position, and come here and debate it with other people, then you should accept the responsibility to be able to defend it through honest scriptural exegesis—or else, if you can’t, to admit defeat.

zerinus

I’m not in combat, so I have no victory to claim, and no defeat to acknowledge. I’m sorry if you feel that you’re in combat here, brother. But, I do understand why you do. You’re defending the indefensible, promoting the impossible, sustaining the unsustainable, and maintaining the unmaintainable, and claiming to be doing so by cherry-picking Bible verses which are mostly incorrectly interpreted by you. Yes, I can understand why you feel embattled.

 

[zerinus]

Brother Zerinus, I am not a theologian. And neither are you.

You just speak for yourself, my friend. You may not be a theologian (and apparently proud of the fact); but I am, and I can defend the LDS position from the word of God.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

which LDS position? (they tend to change) and which God? (LDS have so many)

 

[Allweather]

You just speak for yourself, my friend. You may not be a theologian (and apparently proud of the fact); but I am, and I can defend the LDS position from the word of God.

zerinus

Sorry, brother. I recalled this subject coming up a few months earlier, and thought I remembered you stating, then, that you are not a theologian. My bad.

I am neither proud nor ashamed of not being a theologian. My interest in theology is only as far as is needed to be able to explain my faith to people who are interested. That doesn’t take a degree in theology. I also have an interest in helping to lead confused people out of the sects and back into the true faith. Considering that few people ended up in the sects because they had degrees in theology, but rather had serious deficiencies in knowledge, it follows that one doesn’t need to be a theologian in order to help lead them Home.

In this case, since you are a theologian, I will stand aside while you back up a few posts and deal with the handful of Bible verses provided by phil12123 which seem to support the Jewish/Christian notion of One God as opposed to the Mormon notion of plurality of gods.

In friendship…

 

[zerinus]

Sorry, brother. I recalled this subject coming up a few months earlier, and thought I remembered you stating, then, that you are not a theologian. My bad.

Don’t make false accusations. I have never made such a statement, and you recalled no such thing about me.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Don’t make false accusations. I have never made such a statement, and you recalled no such thing about me.

zerinus

It is a small matter. I take you at your word. You are a theologian. You are now, were then, and for all I know always have been a theologian. I don’t want to argue with you over this.

I’d rather you spent your time doing the necessary exegesis that will dispose of the handful of Bible references posted earlier today by phil12123 that appear to support the orthodox Christian and Jewish understanding that God is One.

Let’s not quarrel over meaningless things. You’ve made the following statement about yourself:

"“I believe that my theological position is biblical; and I believe that I am can defend that position convincingly through scriptural reasoning, analysis, and exegesis.”"…Zerinus

By “Biblical” I take it you mean that you will not have to resort to the “modern scriptures” in order to make your case.

In friendship…

 

[Phil12123]

…I can defend the LDS position from the word of God.

zerinus

**Well, go for it! I’m still waiting for you to do that. All the verses from Isaiah that I gave you are good place to start your defense.

And don’t forget that ONE verse from the Book of Mormon showing a plurality of gods. Still waiting for that, too.**

 

[Phil12123]

Oh, and btw, while you’re looking for that ONE verse in the Book of Mormon that shows a plurality of gods, you might also consider the following verses there, and do some honest exegesis of them:

**Alma 11:
26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Ether 2:
7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.
8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fullness of his wrath should come upon them.**