Do LDS Prophets Really Talk To God?

[Nicea325]

There are no LDS doctrines taught by Jesus. Not that god was once man, not that adam was God, not plural marriage, not the Word of Wisdom, not that there should be 15 apostles, not that there should elder’s quorums, not that there should be a first presidency, not that you should baptize for dead people, marry dead people, have odd temple ceremonies where you have blood oaths and women pledge to obey men, not temple ceremonies where you have secret handshakes and words or be pulled thru a curtain, or that He was so weak He could not keep his own Church going, or that you should wear special underwear with special symbols…

and I could go on and on

My reaction to the above: :whacky::hypno:

 

[theidler]

There are no LDS doctrines taught by Jesus. Not that god was once man, not that adam was God, not plural marriage, not the Word of Wisdom, not that there should be 15 apostles, not that there should elder’s quorums, not that there should be a first presidency, not that you should baptize for dead people, marry dead people, have odd temple ceremonies where you have blood oaths and women pledge to obey men, not temple ceremonies where you have secret handshakes and words or be pulled thru a curtain, or that He was so weak He could not keep his own Church going, or that you should wear special underwear with special symbols…

and I could go on and on

Couldn’t agree more - why was Jesus not explicit about these doctrines in the Bible Parker? Or for that matter, why not even in the Book of Mormon? Both the Scriptures and your Book of Mormon profess to contain the fullness of the Gospel, so why is there no mention of all the aspects of Mormonism that TexanKnight mentioned?
Technically, if what you say is true of the Holy Trinity being nowhere explicitly taught by Jesus, then what of your own peculiar doctrines?

 

[Crdl2Grv]

It is very frustrating that you will not just plainly state what you really believe rather then trying to find language to cover up what you really believe. It is nothing but camouflage. I’m sorry, but how many times do we have to hear this and cover the same ground over and over and over?

I’m starting to believe in an infinite regression of Parkers, typing on an infinite number of Earths, all “perfectly united” in the “one purpose” of using shopworn rhetorical tricks to cover up their true beliefs.

 

[ParkerD]

…

Sorry, but this is not what you believe. You do not believe that they are “One God”, but rather three God’s united in one purpose. It is very frustrating that you will not just plainly state what you really believe rather then trying to find language to cover up what you really believe. …

SteveVH,

It is the language of the Intercessory prayer in the New Testament, the language of the Book of Mormon, the language of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the language of the Old Testament. They are “One God” or “the Lord is One”.

My belief that They are “One God” differs from yours profoundly, it is true, but for me to say They are “One” is absolutely in agreement with my firmly, deeply held beliefs about the Godhead, and absolutely in agreement with the Savior’s intercessory prayer where He used the word that translated to be “one”, and used it several times.

 

[TexanKnight]

SteveVH,

It is the language of the Intercessory prayer in the New Testament, the language of the Book of Mormon, the language of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the language of the Old Testament. They are “One God” or “the Lord is One”.

My belief that They are “One God” differs from yours profoundly, it is true, but for me to say They are “One” is absolutely in agreement with my firmly, deeply held beliefs about the Godhead, and absolutely in agreement with the Savior’s intercessory prayer where He used the word that translated to be “one”, and used it several times.

Brother Parker, there is no reason to dodge the questions here re: what Jesus taught

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

Mormons do not believe Jesus is God, at the most a demi-God. Their claim is receiving direct communication from the God they call Father in heaven.

No, Jesus is fully God in every respect with His own power completely separate and distinct from His Father’s.

Questions:
What was the first cause? In other words … What or whom initiated the progression of Fathers begetting Sons ?

Why does there have to be one?
You’re effectively asking the same thing as if I asked you your opinion on the origin of God.
Why can’t this have always happened, without end into the eternities past, and the same into the future eternities. You believe that God has existed, exactly as He is, outside of time, with no beginning; this idea is no more fantastic than that a never ending progression of Father/Son relationships have existed. Just because the very idea boggles our human minds, doesn’t mean it can’t be that way.

Let me tell you why there would be no prophets after Christ. Because Jesus knew. …that those afore-mentioned false prophets would confuse even the most intelligent of his children…

To me that argument is a much better argument for continuing to lead His church through a living prophetic figurehead. He always sent a prophet to people whenever they were led astray: these men would reiterate the truths of the gospel, exhort them to pray, repent and turn back to the Lord. Until the people listened to the prophet and followed their words, there was never anything new revealed to them as they were showing more then anything else their lack of preparedness to receive it. It follows the same principles as entry into heaven; we are asked to live by God’s laws now, to show not only that we want to live by His laws in heaven, but to show (as much to ourselves) that we can.
Christ (and therefore God also) being “the same yesterday, today and forever” doesn’t suggest the kind of God who performs a complete u-turn on the way He has operated for at least 4000 years.

. So, it follows that the Holy Ghost must also One with Them, as was indicated at the Baptism of Jesus, when all Three were clearly present.

But this doesn’t follow logically. Simple, basic logic concludes that when you are made aware of three distinct things (as at Jesus’ baptism) then they are obviously separate. Jesus’s baptism does not offer any specific support of Trinitarian doctrine at all. It can only be taken as supportive if viewed with the assumption of the Trinity to begin with; which didn’t exist at the time. Jesus would surely have used it to explain this new revelation of God’s nature immediately, otherwise (as would clearly have been the case) those believers present would logically deduce as I showed above.

By insisting that God is merely an “exalted man”…limited skills that he can muster,

"merely"? By definition, and exalted man is a god. Because we know who He is, we do not diminish His awesome power, his love, nor insult Him by understanding His past and origins.

QUOTE=Telstar;8902192]a god that has no infinite power of his own, that cannot really ‘create’ anything, at all, and is totally dependent on the existence of ‘materials’ outside of himself, to put together as well as he can with the

Who said anything about “no infinite power of His own” or that He is “dependent on” anything? He is perfect, and therefore is prudent. If there is something already there that He can work with, why not make use of it? This does not mean that He is dependent on it, nor that He has no power to create it.

A point about the OP and thread subject: I agree that with only Catholic understanding and interpretation of the gospel and scriptures, the posed question is a reasonable one. I hope, therefore, you can see that I could just as well ask “is the Catholic Pope/Magisterium really led by the Holy Spirit?”

 

[rainman10]

To me that argument is a much better argument for continuing to lead His church through a living prophetic figurehead. He always sent a prophet to people whenever they were led astray: these men would reiterate the truths of the gospel, exhort them to pray, repent and turn back to the Lord. Until the people listened to the prophet and followed their words, there was never anything new revealed to them as they were showing more then anything else their lack of preparedness to receive it. It follows the same principles as entry into heaven; we are asked to live by God’s laws now, to show not only that we want to live by His laws in heaven, but to show (as much to ourselves) that we can.
Christ (and therefore God also) being “the same yesterday, today and forever” doesn’t suggest the kind of God who performs a complete u-turn on the way He has operated for at least 4000 years.
"

I can certainly understand why you would have to see it that way. It MUST be this way for Mormonism to work. But Jesus KNEW that satan would be sending his own “prophets”, like Joseph Smith & Co., to mislead unsuspecting and uninformed people and lead them astray. You have to overlook this fact, because then your statements above become very doubtful.****

 

[rainman10]

I can certainly understand why you would have to see it that way. It MUST be this way for Mormonism to work. But Jesus KNEW that satan would be sending his own “prophets”, like Joseph Smith & Co., to mislead unsuspecting and uninformed people and lead them astray. You have to overlook this fact, because then your statements above become very doubtful.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormon Cultist,
You speak of Christ as separate and with His own power.

Christ is God, of the same substance as the Father. the power being the Holy Spirit.

When you compare all the teachings of Mormonism, and I am implying all the teachings…yes, God made a U turn and is giving us a new message and the focus is man.

The difference between Mormonism and Christ’s established universal Catholic Church is that Mormonism focuses on man’s beginnings…always eternal and always there before conception to enter into this world for exaltation to become a god vs. finding God Himself in the Catholic Church.

When the host is elevated at the altar and the priest says, ‘This is My Body’…and the cup, ‘This is My Blood’…and we receive the Eucharist…that brings us eternal life…God physically present among us…we enter into eternal life now…

What Joseph Smith did was invalidate the Eucharist and Christianity…and yes, your name says it,…to invalidate people’s history and ‘canonize’ yourself and your followers automatic saints for rejecting Christ’s Church…and putting all sorts of fears into people where they cannot even approach any Catholic teachings with reason and freedom…and if they want to get out, and being married, they could lose their children…and be shunned as was the case here in the USA…yes Mormonism is a cult.

 

[TexanKnight]

To me that argument is a much better argument for continuing to lead His church through a living prophetic figurehead.

Then you misunderstand the argument. Your rophet" is one of the reasons Jesus knew what would happen. Joseph Mohammed Ellen James Smith is exactly what I am talking about.

He always sent a prophet to people whenever they were led astray:

If that were true, then there would bnot have been 1600 years without a prophet would there? If people were led astray with some Apostasy in 100 AD and, as you say, Jeus ALWAYS sent a prophet when people were led astray, then He would have sent one in 100 AD. Your own argument shows your guy was not a prophet.

these men would reiterate the truths of the gospel, exhort them to pray, repent and turn back to the Lord.

Show me ANYWHERE in Jesus’ teachings that He would send another prophet. ANYWHERE.

But you have an additional problem: Your “prophet” did not reiterate truths of the Gospel and teach to pray. Your prophet : Had at least 9 versions of an alleged First Vision, made up a book, got people to build him a house, was instrumental in a bank scandal, made up a rule to have lots of wives, married dead people, taught that God was Spirit, then taught that God was flesh, made up new gospel that god the father was once man, etc etc etc., then tried to kill people when he went away "as a lamb:. Jesus chastized Peter for using a sword, your guy shoots people with a gun

A point about the OP and thread subject: I agree that with only Catholic understanding and interpretation of the gospel and scriptures, the posed question is a reasonable one. I hope, therefore, you can see that I could just as well ask “is the Catholic Pope/Magisterium really led by the Holy Spirit?”

There you are again, admitting your guys are not prophets and apostles. Again, I thank you

 

[Jerusha]

Here is a quote from These Three are One by David Cunningham. It is a heavy book, going through many analogies of the Trinity, and showing us how belief in the Christian Trinity can help us live Christian lives.

p.86
But again, let us reverse the image: if we already know something about God, then we are in a much better position to think about how certain features of God’s character are made salient in the world that God has created. If we believe, for example, that God values human freedom above all else (and even above human safety and predictable outcomes), then we may be able to make some marginal degree of sense out of the evil that we see in the world around us-- at least to the extent that is can be traced to the free operation of the human will. Note how poorly the example works in reverse: by observing the evil around us, we could hypothesize a God who is simply apathetic, or cruel, or a gambler, or one who delights in the ways of the wicked, or any of a number of other possible hypotheses. But if we begin with certain beliefs about the One who produces the world, we can go on to draw inferences about the world as God’s “production” – which may in turn help us better understand our beliefs about its producer.

 

[KathleenGee]

I pray daily for the Mormons and I pray that they get into some solid theology on the nature of God.

 

[TexanKnight]

I pray daily for the Mormons and I pray that they get into some solid theology on the nature of God.

Amen

 

[KathleenGee]

When we know more the truth of God, the more we love Him and want to believe in the truth about Him.

When we begin to learn more about the truth of God, begin to love Him more ardently for His sake and not what we can utilize Him for, the more we likewise grow in truth in who we are, and the more authentic loving we are…vs being just nice.

True understanding of God with authentic faith leads one to see that all of us are sinners in need of God’s mercy, and He does not play favorites…and that the way to authentic sanctity is Christ Crucified, the only bridge to the Father.

 

[Telstar]

No, Jesus is fully God in every respect with His own power completely separate and distinct from His Father’s.

You might say that, but do LDS teach that Jesus was always God, long before He was born to Mary? If LDS believe Jesus is God, equal to the Father, then why do you refuse to pray to Him? Is it because He’s a lower class ‘god’?

Why does there have to be one?

Because, if there’s no ‘first cause’, then you’re left with a belief that some kind of human being is the only god that’s ever existed. That means you believe there’s no real ‘god’.

You’re effectively asking the same thing as if I asked you your opinion on the origin of God.
Why can’t this have always happened, without end into the eternities past, and the same into the future eternities. You believe that God has existed, exactly as He is, outside of time, with no beginning; this idea is no more fantastic than that a never ending progression of Father/Son relationships have existed. Just because the very idea boggles our human minds, doesn’t mean it can’t be that way.

God never had an ‘origin’. He always was, and always will be, the only God.

The reason it could never happen is because that’s exactly like the pagan beliefs of Rome and Greece, who also saw their ‘gods’ as artificially ‘glorified’ human beings with ‘special powers’. Jesus and the Apostles clearly told us that was idolatry. Idolatry worships mankind, or other creations of God, as if they were ‘gods’.

To me that argument is a much better argument for continuing to lead His church through a living prophetic figurehead. He always sent a prophet to people whenever they were led astray: these men would reiterate the truths of the gospel, exhort them to pray, repent and turn back to the Lord. Until the people listened to the prophet and followed their words, there was never anything new revealed to them as they were showing more then anything else their lack of preparedness to receive it. It follows the same principles as entry into heaven; we are asked to live by God’s laws now, to show not only that we want to live by His laws in heaven, but to show (as much to ourselves) that we can.
Christ (and therefore God also) being “the same yesterday, today and forever” doesn’t suggest the kind of God who performs a complete u-turn on the way He has operated for at least 4000 years.

Jesus left us the Apostles, with Peter as their leader, to form and guide His Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The successors of Peter (Popes) are the head of the Church on earth, with Jesus as the True Head in Heaven. The Cardinals and Bishops, along with Priests and the rest of the clergy function as the other Apostles did, to ensure that no individual can ever lead the whole Church astray. The Pope and hierarchy of the Church are still guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to guide all followers of Jesus in the right direction so they don’t stray from the Truth of Christ. That’s always been the main function of the hierarchy of the RCC.

But this doesn’t follow logically. Simple, basic logic concludes that when you are made aware of three distinct things (as at Jesus’ baptism) then they are obviously separate. Jesus’s baptism does not offer any specific support of Trinitarian doctrine at all. It can only be taken as supportive if viewed with the assumption of the Trinity to begin with; which didn’t exist at the time. Jesus would surely have used it to explain this new revelation of God’s nature immediately, otherwise (as would clearly have been the case) those believers present would logically deduce as I showed above.

It shows that there are Three distinct Persons in God, but Jesus said They are “One”. He also said there’s only One God, but He never said They’re only “one in purpose”.

"merely"? By definition, and exalted man is a god. Because we know who He is, we do not diminish His awesome power, his love, nor insult Him by understanding His past and origins.

Exactly. Which, as I already said, is a very ancient form of idolatry that brings God down to our level, by assigning to Him the same attributes as any man. That means you don’t really believe in an all powerful God, Who is completely separate and distinct from mankind, and has always existed as He is. That’s a tremendous insult to the true majesty and dignity that belongs to God, Who was never a “mere man” (imperfect) like we all are.

Who said anything about “no infinite power of His own” or that He is “dependent on” anything? He is perfect, and therefore is prudent. If there is something already there that He can work with, why not make use of it? This does not mean that He is dependent on it, nor that He has no power to create it.

If you think God ever needed to use matter or ‘intelligences’ that ‘always existed’ to ‘form’ things, then you’re placing huge limitations on Him. By thinking that He didn’t create all matter in the first place, you diminish His true power and dominion over all of His creations, including man. He created everything that exists. Before God began His creation, He was totally alone. Nothing else existed, at all.

A point about the OP and thread subject: I agree that with only Catholic understanding and interpretation of the gospel and scriptures, the posed question is a reasonable one. I hope, therefore, you can see that I could just as well ask “is the Catholic Pope/Magisterium really led by the Holy Spirit?”

I would have to answer that with an emphatic, “Yes!”, without any hesitation. He has never abandoned His position as the Guide and Protector of the Faith of the Catholic Church.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Questions:
What was the first cause? In other words … What or whom initiated the progression of Fathers begetting Sons ?

Why does there have to be one?
You’re effectively asking the same thing as if I asked you your opinion on the origin of God.
Why can’t this have always happened, without end into the eternities past, and the same into the future eternities. You believe that God has existed, exactly as He is, outside of time, with no beginning; this idea is no more fantastic than that a never ending progression of Father/Son relationships have existed. Just because the very idea boggles our human minds, doesn’t mean it can’t be that way.

Seriously… think about what you are saying here.

“… boggling the human mind” … is not a valid supporting statement.
… and asking why it cant happen is not supporting your belief.

Where in (non LDS) Scripture … is it clearly stated … that there has been a progression of fathers and sons without end into eternity past?
… or where is it stated in (non LDS) Scripture that God the Father is not the only one true Father? … and that there are other fathers of populations in other universes.

For my part…
I “believe that God has existed, exactly as He is, outside of time, with no beginning”
because I believe the Scriptures …
God declares boldly that he is the first cause …
“I am the Alpha…”

Gen 21: 33
Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called upon the name of the LORD, the Eternal God.

Numbers 23: 19 also clearly states, in speaking of God the Father …

“God is not a man, nor is he a son of man”

It cant be stated more clearly than that.
… the above scriptures quickly and simply answers your question …
" Why can’t this have always happened, without end into the eternities past…?"

Of course you might reply by saying … well he’s not a man now … but he was.
If this is so … what is the proof… using non LDS Scripture?

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ referred to Himself as the Son of Man more than He did, Son of God…

When He says He is the Son of Man…He is speaking of the New Adam, Christ is the New Adam Who became carnate through the flesh of Mary in the Holy Spirit…Mary of mortal human flesh like us except sin. Thus through the flesh of Mary, Christ is the Son of all mankind, the new life and the new restoration for all, through baptism.

 

[1voice]

Christ referred to Himself as the Son of Man more than He did, Son of God…

Jesus was definitely both the Son of God and the son of man … according to the Scripture.

My comment above focused on God the Father. That is the context in which I quoted the Scripture that states:

in speaking of God the Father …

“God is not a man, nor is he a son of man”
…Numbers 23: 19

That Scripture indicates that God the Father has no human lineage. This clearly contradicts the LDS Church assertion that it is a viable belief/truth to say that God the Father … has a father.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I see you visited this thread also, so once again I ask…

Zaffiroborant:

There is nothing that shows early Christians believed in marrying dead people.

Mormon_Cultist:

There is surprising evidence that many early Christians did, in fact, believe and practise this. But would really deserve a thread all to itself.

Here is a thread for you to present this evidence.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
Questions:
What was the first cause? In other words … What or whom initiated the progression of Fathers begetting Sons ?

Why does there have to be one?
You’re effectively asking the same thing as if I asked you your opinion on the origin of God.
Why can’t this have always happened, without end into the eternities past, and the same into the future eternities. You believe that God has existed, exactly as He is, outside of time, with no beginning; this idea is no more fantastic than that a never ending progression of Father/Son relationships have existed. Just because the very idea boggles our human minds, doesn’t mean it can’t be that way.

Scripture, by definition cannot … and does not contradict itself. Therefore, any writing that claims to be God inspired … cannot contradict the Scripture. If words fail that test …they are not God inspired.

Jesus was definitely both the Son of God and the son of man … according to the Scripture.

Scripture also speaks of God the Father …

“God is not a man, nor is he a son of man”
…Numbers 23: 19

That Scripture indicates that God the Father has no human lineage. This clearly contradicts the LDS Church assertion that it is a viable belief/truth to say that God the Father … has a father.