Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[mmsiciliana]

I found this interesting article that goes deeper in the meaning of this scripture:

"The word Petra for rock is used 16 times in the New Testament. 11 times of a massive cliff rock, a bedrock, 5 times symbolically of Christ himself. (EX.1 Cor.10:4 The rock in the wilderness is Christ)

The name Peter (Petros) a masculine noun means small rock or stone. In Mt. 16:18 is the first time it is used saying “I will build my church”, a future event when the Spirit is sent and the body of Christ is formed. Jesus said “ I say unto you ,you are Peter (Petros) and upon this Rock (Petra feminine noun meaning a massive rock) I will build my church.” First we see who the rock is, second we see it is Jesus building the church not Peter. it is Jesus who states I will build my church, he protects it and gives increase to it. When we think about a foundation for a building it needs to be reliable, this comes through testing. There is only one who the Bible speaks as the rock that cannot be moved, that is Christ. All one has to do is look at Peter and we find he was moved numerous times showing he cannot be the foundation of the Church. The church is built upon the rock, Christ.

If Jesus were actually referring to Peter as the rock, Jesus would not have used the MASCULINE word petros for the rock. Jesus instead used a different Greek word for “this rock” a FEMININE word petra indicating something other than Peter. Since the Holy Spirit guided the apostles writings into all truth we should expect the precise words used to convey the meaning (John 14:26; 16:13). Arguments such as they spoke in Aramaic don’t hold up either. Maybe they did speak this language but it was written in the Greek and therefore the distinction. The ones that were there and heard what Jesus said wrote it in Greek."

Here it the complete article…

letusreason.org/RC6.htm

Yes, let us reason. In the Greek language, there are masculine nouns and feminine nouns. The word for big rock, boulder, etc. is a feminine noun: Petra. The word for a small pebble is masculine: Petros. In English, there are no feminine or masculine nouns. A rock is a rock. A pebble is a pebble. And, it is the same in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke and was speaking when he renamed Simon. Kephas is the Aramaic word for Rock. Jesus said, You are Kephas and upon this Kephas I will build my Church." Or, in English, “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

Yes, Jesus did name James and John the “Sons of Thunder” in one verse, probably because they asked Jesus to send lightning to destroy their enemies. However, they are only called that in one verse. Simon is called Peter more than 100 times! Kephas is used 8 times. Hardly the same as the “Sons of Thunder.”

 

[mmsiciliana]

The Bible also says that we are spirit …Even though we clearly have a body of flesh and bones:

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Rom 8:9

By this reckoning, God, too, can be said to not be “in the flesh” because he follows spiritual principles.

In addition Latter Day Saints responds by quoting D & C 93:33-35:

“For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.”

That is the reason Jesus Christ is a resurrected being and ascended to heaven with his body, and for this reason all mankind will be resurrected. A resurrected person is superior to someone with only a spirit. It stands to reason the Father also has glorified and immortal body like Jesus. Otherwise, why would Jesus have an immortal a glorified body and the Fathers would not?

Your understanding of Jesus is limited and contaminated by the Nicene Creed, which was concocted by men! That is when man added to the scriptures! If you read your Bible carefully you will see that Spirit of Jesus was the first begotten by the Father. However, that does not imply that Jesus had a beginning. Jesus always existed from eternity to eternity as intelligence or light and truth before he inherited a spiritual body and a physical body.

He was the first spirit among all the children of God, the Father.

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Col 1:15

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” Rom 8:29

Our spirits are offspring of God, who is the Father or our spirits.

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” Acts 17:29

“Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” Heb 12:9

Jesus confirmed that we are his siblings and that we have the same Father:

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” John 20:17

Maybe you would like to try to contrast the Father and the Son. According to your belief, the Father has only a spirit, while the Son has a spirit and body. You probably agree that Jesus is also God, consequently we have two Gods: one that has only a spirit (Father) and the other that has spirit and body (Jesus). There goes down your concept of Trinity!

When Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of creation, he is referring to the fact that Jesus is the first man to rise from the dead.

Jesus taught us to call God “our Father” when he taught us to pray the Lord’s prayer. That does not mean we were all “spirit children” of the Father before we were conceived.

According to what God has revealed to us, there is one God ONLY. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. But there is only one God. God is pure spirit. But, approximately 2000 years ago, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the eternal Word of the Father, united a human nature to his Divine Nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, was born, lived for 33 years and eventually willingly died on the cross for our sins. How do we know Jesus is true man? He died and God cannot die. How do we know Jesus is true God? He arose from the dead by his own power and human beings cannot arise from the dead of their own power. The fact that the second Person of the Blessed Trinity became a human being does not negate the truth of the Trinity.
It is not understandable by our minds, however, so some try to bring God down to their own level by “explaining” in an understandable way why the constant teaching of the Church founded by Jesus Christ “must” be wrong.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Lax16,

But not one of those seems to have addressed the singular phrase, “a nail in a sure place”. That is the phrase that brings the meaning into the entire passage about the key of David and Who is the bearer of that key. Oh, well.

Not all bible translations have your “singular phrase”. you seem to be reading alot into 6 words, may because of this?
http://www.officialstreetpreachers.com/Mormonism/veil4.jpg

 

[ParkerD]

Not all bible translations have your “singular phrase”. you seem to be reading alot into 6 words, may because of this?

Zaffiroborant,

I haven’t read a source other than the Bible itself talking about “a nail in a sure place” and the key of David from Isaiah 22:21-23, so if the citation you linked showed something about it, I haven’t read it nor do I care to read it now. I prefer the Bible as the source of doctrine and as much understanding as possible directly from the text there. It is like drinking from the pure stream rather than from a faucet with water with chemicals in it. I prefer the purer source.

Sorry if the translation you use lost the meaning from the Hebrew. It’s a beautiful passage, and I am in awe of its power.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,

But not one of those seems to have addressed the singular phrase, “a nail in a sure place”. That is the phrase that brings the meaning into the entire passage about the key of David and Who is the bearer of that key. Oh, well.

Oh Parker - don’t give up so easily.

From schooloffaith.com

…Hezekiah’s political reform begins with his own advisors. Shebnah, Hezekiah’s first prime minister, is corrupt and loyal to Assyria. Isaiah recounts the injustices of Shebnah and how Hezekiah replaces him with a new prime minister, Eliakim.11 Eliakim is appointed “over the household,” a technical phrase that means that he is in charge in all things under the king Isaiah makes clear that this is an office and that the authority goes with the office. Because Eliakim replaces Shebna, Eliakim receives Shebna’s authority. This phrase, “over the household,” is used in other places in the Old Testament to describe the powers of a political office. For example, it used to explain how Joseph was placed over the house of Egypt.12 In this authority, Joseph wields more power than any other person in Egypt, except for Pharaoh himself. **The same expression is used to indicate that Moses is God’s prime minister, his vicar, who rules and adjudicates on behalf of God Himself.13 Jesus also uses this phrase when he is talking to Peter, who is put “over his house.”14 This authority is a broad authority that rests in the office, rather than simply being invested in a particular person.****Isaiah goes to great lengths and uses many expressions to explain this authority to Eliakim. Isaiah says that Eliakim will be a “father” to his people, a papa (which is where we get the ****term “pope”). **The Lord tells this new prime minister that he shall “place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.”15 Eliakim is also told that he will be a peg “fastened in a sure place.”16

**This last reference is an allusion to how tents in this time are held together by one strong **peg in the middle. If the main peg is strong, then the tent is capable of withstanding storms. The strength of the tent is dependent on of firm peg, which was usually hammered into a rocky foundation or some other “sure place” in order to make sure that the other stakes would not come up from the sand when the wind blew. So it is now with the office that Eliakim takes under King Hezekiah.

**I **really like how the phrase “a peg fastened in a sure place” ties in with Peter being the peg in the middle of the tent (the Church). If the main peg is strong (Peter) then the tent is capable of withstanding storms (the Church will continue).

According to you the Catholic Church fell into apostasy. Also according to you, Jesus was the rock. How can you say that Jesus, as the rock, was not strong enough to last???

 

[lax16]

Jesus got it right, but you don’t! There is ample evidence of an apostasy even in the OT.

evanfaust - still waiting for ample evidence of the apostasy…

 

[ParkerD]

Oh Parker - don’t give up so easily.

From schooloffaith.com

…Hezekiah’s political reform begins with his own advisors. Shebnah, Hezekiah’s first prime minister, is corrupt and loyal to Assyria. Isaiah recounts the injustices of Shebnah and how Hezekiah replaces him with a new prime minister, Eliakim.11 Eliakim is appointed “over the household,” a technical phrase that means that he is in charge in all things under the king Isaiah makes clear that this is an office and that the authority goes with the office. Because Eliakim replaces Shebna, Eliakim receives Shebna’s authority. This phrase, “over the household,” is used in other places in the Old Testament to describe the powers of a political office. … **The same expression is used to indicate that Moses is God’s prime minister, his vicar, who rules and adjudicates on behalf of God Himself.13 Jesus also uses this **phrase when he is talking to Peter, who is put “over his house.”14 This authority is a broad authority that rests in the office, rather than simply being invested in a particular person.**Isaiah goes to great lengths and uses many expressions to explain this authority to Eliakim. Isaiah says that Eliakim will be a “father” to his people, a papa (which is where we get the ****term “pope”). **The Lord tells this new prime minister that he shall “place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.”15 Eliakim is also told that he will be a peg “fastened in a sure place.”16

**This last reference is an allusion to how tents in this time are held together by one strong **peg in the middle. If the main peg is strong, then the tent is capable of withstanding storms. The strength of the tent is dependent on of firm peg, which was usually hammered into a rocky foundation or some other “sure place” in order to make sure that the other stakes would not come up from the sand when the wind blew. So it is now with the office that Eliakim takes under King Hezekiah.

**I **really like how the phrase “a peg fastened in a sure place” ties in with Peter being the peg in the middle of the tent (the Church). If the main peg is strong (Peter) then the tent is capable of withstanding storms (the Church will continue).

I find all that really sad. Are none of those people familiar with the concept of nails in the hands of Christ by which He was nailed to the cross, and that thus “a nail in a sure place” is a representation of how Christ was crucified? And that the key of David gives us access to be with God through His suffering on the cross including suffering the pains of the nails in His hands by which His body was hung there?

 

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
Continuation:

According to you the Catholic Church fell into apostasy. Also according to you, Jesus was the rock. How can you say that Jesus, as the rock, was not strong enough to last???

I wouldn’t actually say the “Catholic Church fell into apostasy”. I would say some key leaders attempted to keep the church going, but had disagreements and eventually lost the Spirit through disagreements and through attempting to please men rather than to please God.

Jesus’ very teaching about the rock being the place on which a wise man should build his house (thus the foundation of the person’s house), gives the answer to your question. He taught, “And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man,… and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 8:26-27)

So Jesus is not saying He would prevent or lessen the rain, the floods, and the winds, and thus the “beating” that would happen upon a person’s house even if they were a member of the church. He is saying that those things will happen in a person’s life, and it will depend on where they have built their house as to whether their house will not “fall”. The circumstance is not dependent on Christ, at all–for He is the rock on which the wise man ought to be building his house. The circumstance is totally dependent on the individual–on where they build, and how they build.

The person who “heareth these sayings…, and doeth them”, is likened to a “wise man”.

This allows no compromise–no “lukewarmness” as the apostle John talked about. It requires an absolute commitment to getting and keeping the Holy Spirit in a person’s life through their being “born of water and of the Spirit” and then proceeding to live by the doctrine with firmness.

The apostle John warned the seven churches about distracting conditions around the members and among the members. It means that there were enough problems that this was the major issue at the point in time he was writing to them in the early chapters of the Book of Revelation.

It has nothing to do with the “strength” of Jesus, the “strength” or Peter or John, or the “strength” of the pure message of the gospel. It has everything to do with the individual people who needed to live by and heed the pure message and doctrine and keep the Holy Spirit individually and collectively. Some did, one can assume, but the drifting from pure doctrinal truth (such as shifting Isaiah 22:21-23 to mean Peter rather than Christ exclusively as the atoning and Redeeming One) led to compromised teachings and a compromised, impure faith. That is good enough to have a very happy life, no doubt, since the doctrines have breadth as well as depth and encompass many facets of happiness in life.

So from that standpoint, even with the differences among believers in Christ, there is a path to happiness that Christ is a part of in each of the denominations, and they allow as much truth-getting as a person is desirous of receiving if they also study the Bible and pray sincerely.

 

[lax16]

I find all that really sad. Are none of those people familiar with the concept of nails in the hands of Christ by which He was nailed to the cross, and that thus “a nail in a sure place” is a representation of how Christ was crucified? And that the key of David gives us access to be with God through His suffering on the cross including suffering the pains of the nails in His hands by which His body was hung there?

Parker - why is this making you sad

Who said that “none of these people are familiar with the concept of nails in the hands of Christ…” ??? You would have to ask them. However, the purpose of your question came about many posts ago with you trying to disprove that Peter was the Rock. As evidence has been provided, you continue to give emotional responses…

If you were to read the chapter of Isaiah in question, you would understand all of the symbolism presented that absolutely foretold of Jesus, Peter, and the Church.

If a person can also see the connection with Jesus and the crucifixion, great.

Why do you always try to get off subject?

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
Continuation:

I wouldn’t actually say the “Catholic Church fell into apostasy”. I would say some key leaders attempted to keep the church going, but had disagreements and eventually lost the Spirit through disagreements and through attempting to please men rather than to please God.

Parker - I have a question for you.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - why is this making you sad

Who said that “none of these people are familiar with the concept of nails in the hands of Christ…” ??? You would have to ask them. However, the purpose of your question came about many posts ago with you trying to disprove that Peter was the Rock. As evidence has been provided, you continue to give emotional responses…

If you were to read the chapter of Isaiah in question, you would understand all of the symbolism presented that absolutely foretold of Jesus, Peter, and the Church.

If a person can also see the connection with Jesus and the crucifixion, great.

Why do you always try to get off subject?

The central subject of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the atonement of Christ, which provides access to grace. Why I would be sad is for the loss of doctrinal understanding among people. If you’re saying I shouldn’t be sad about that, then I guess we differ. I think it can make a difference in people’s lives–a profound difference. I don’t consider that a change in subjects, at all. Conversation about the gospel ought to always lead toward how it changes people’s lives for the better, here and hereafter.

 

[lax16]

The central subject of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the atonement of Christ, which provides access to grace. Why I would be sad is for the loss of doctrinal understanding among people. If you’re saying I shouldn’t be sad about that, then I guess we differ. I think it can make a difference in people’s lives–a profound difference. I don’t consider that a change in subjects, at all. Conversation about the gospel ought to always lead toward how it changes people’s lives for the better, here and hereafter.

Where did I say that you shouldn’t be sad? Parker, really…

 

[ParkerD]

Where did I say that you shouldn’t be sad? Parker, really…

I’ll repost the quote with the frowning face that usually means the person doing the frowning is the person doing the writing, which would mean the person doing the writing had some reason to frown.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - why is this making you sad

This was the quote that I understood to mean I was being questioned about the legitimacy of a feeling I was expressing.

 

[mmsiciliana]

Lax16,

I wouldn’t actually say the “Catholic Church fell into apostasy”. I would say some key leaders attempted to keep the church going, but had disagreements and eventually lost the Spirit through disagreements and through attempting to please men rather than to please God.

Jesus’ very teaching about the rock being the place on which a wise man should build his house (thus the foundation of the person’s house), gives the answer to your question. He taught, “And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man,… and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 8:26-27)

So Jesus is not saying He would prevent or lessen the rain, the floods, and the winds, and thus the “beating” that would happen upon a person’s house even if they were a member of the church. He is saying that those things will happen in a person’s life, and it will depend on where they have built their house as to whether their house will not “fall”. The circumstance is not dependent on Christ, at all–for He is the rock on which the wise man ought to be building his house. The circumstance is totally dependent on the individual–on where they build, and how they build.

The person who “heareth these sayings…, and doeth them”, is likened to a “wise man”.

This allows no compromise–no “lukewarmness” as the apostle John talked about. It requires an absolute commitment to getting and keeping the Holy Spirit in a person’s life through their being “born of water and of the Spirit” and then proceeding to live by the doctrine with firmness.

The apostle John warned the seven churches about distracting conditions around the members and among the members. It means that there were enough problems that this was the major issue at the point in time he was writing to them in the early chapters of the Book of Revelation.

It has nothing to do with the “strength” of Jesus, the “strength” or Peter or John, or the “strength” of the pure message of the gospel. It has everything to do with the individual people who needed to live by and heed the pure message and doctrine and keep the Holy Spirit individually and collectively. Some did, one can assume, but the drifting from pure doctrinal truth (such as shifting Isaiah 22:21-23 to mean Peter rather than Christ exclusively as the atoning and Redeeming One) led to compromised teachings and a compromised, impure faith. That is good enough to have a very happy life, no doubt, since the doctrines have breadth as well as depth and encompass many facets of happiness in life.

So from that standpoint, even with the differences among believers in Christ, there is a path to happiness that Christ is a part of in each of the denominations, and they allow as much truth-getting as a person is desirous of receiving if they also study the Bible and pray sincerely.

You seem to be saying that it really doesn’t matter what “denomination” one belongs to, one can still be “happy.” That’s like saying it doesn’t matter whether you’re eating beans for supper every day or have your choice of lobster, crab, steak, etc.–each person is “happy” because he is fed the same. Only in the Church Jesus Christ Himself founded is there the fullness of faith and the unadulterated Gospel.

You say you love to read the Bible. What about Paul’s warning that if anyone preaches a new Gospel, that person is cursed?

 

[mmsiciliana]

This was the quote that I understood to mean I was being questioned about the legitimacy of a feeling I was expressing.

Parker - why is this making you sad

Parker, that is a sad face, not a frowning face.

 

[ParkerD]

You seem to be saying that it really doesn’t matter what “denomination” one belongs to, one can still be “happy.” That’s like saying it doesn’t matter whether you’re eating beans for supper every day or have your choice of lobster, crab, steak, etc.–each person is “happy” because he is fed the same. Only in the Church Jesus Christ Himself founded is there the fullness of faith and the unadulterated Gospel.

You say you love to read the Bible. What about Paul’s warning that if anyone preaches a new Gospel, that person is cursed?

MMSiciliana,
If you’re saying that no one in the world is happy except Catholics, then I strongly disagree. The teachings of Christ and His gospel bring happiness as those teachings are lived. The happiness comes from living the teachings. There is a cause and effect relationship. Jesus taught this principle.

But yet, to inherit what the book of Revelation talks about, is to inherit more than earthly happiness.

A “new gospel” means “changed doctrines of the gospel.”

Changed doctrines would be such things as–well, do you really want to know? I really dislike getting into that kind of discussion, because it leads merely to no new insights for anyone. You have, I would imagine, read discussions about the kinds of doctrinal changes that mean the gospel was “added to” or in other words, “changed.”

Have a good day.

 

[ronin67]

You seem to be an expert on Mormonism. At what point do you suggest Joseph Smith changed from a monotheist to believing in the plurality of Gods? When Joseph Smith was 14 years old in 1820, he saw the Father and the Son in the Sacred Grove. He says there were TWO personages that he saw. Was Joseph a monotheist at this time? When did Joseph EVER claim to be a monotheist?

lol, where do you get this stuff??? Possibly some anti-mormon tracks?

Is their any record that Joseph Smith tested the spirits per the requirement outlined in the book of 1 John? If not, then we have issues. If Joseph Smith tested the spirits and it was God the father and Christ, then I’m sure they wouldn’t mind being tested since it is a requirement that God approved of in his Holy Inspired word. Also, I thought human beings couldn’t look on the face of God directly? Puzzled to say the least about Joseph Smith’s vision and the Book of Mormon in general.

May God Bless!

Ed

 

[ParkerD]

Is their any record that Joseph Smith tested the spirits per the requirement outlined in the book of 1 John? If not, then we have issues. If Joseph Smith tested the spirits and it was God the father and Christ, then I’m sure they wouldn’t mind being tested since it is a requirement that God approved of in his Holy Inspired word. Also, I thought human beings couldn’t look on the face of God directly? Puzzled to say the least about Joseph Smith’s vision and the Book of Mormon in general.

May God Bless!

Ed

Ronin67 (Ed),
Here is the passage in 1 John 4:

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

All of those verses contain the application of the principle to “try the spirits whether they are of God.”

One does that by understanding and testifying that Jesus Christ “is come in the flesh”, which Joseph Smith certainly did; one also embraces the doctrinal teachings of the apostles such as John, which Joseph Smith certainly did, including the doctrine of loving one’s brother as John explained throughout his epistles.

So, yes, Joseph Smith “tried the spirits whether they are of God.”

Human beings without the enlargement of the Holy Spirit and without being made not a “mere mortal man” but a “son of God”, would be unqualified to “see the face of God and live.”

 

[lax16]

MMSiciliana,
If you’re saying that no one in the world is happy except Catholics, then I strongly disagree. The teachings of Christ and His gospel bring happiness as those teachings are lived. The happiness comes from living the teachings. There is a cause and effect relationship. Jesus taught this principle.

Parker - It doesn’t matter what people say, only what we are commanded by God and Jesus Christ to do.

Is this about our “happiness” or about spreading the news of the Gospel as set forth by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago? And several thousand years before that prophesied in the Hebrew Bible?

Aren’t we obligated to do that?