Mormons and authority

[eddie_too]

miriam1947,

this is what wikipedia says about the document from which janderich took the quotation he referred to as moses 1:39:

“The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses is an 18th- or 19th-century magical text allegedly written by Moses, and passed down as hidden (or lost) books of the Five Books of Moses or Pentateuch. A grimoire, a text of magical incantations and seals, it purports to instruct the reader in the spells used to create the miracles portrayed in the Judaeo-Christian Bible. The work was printed with annexes or reputed Talmudic magic names, words and incantation, many taken from Christian biblical passages. It shows diagrams of “Seals”: magical drawings accompanied by incantations intended to perform various tasks, from controlling weather or people to contacting the dead or Christian religious figures. Copies have been traced to 18th-century German pamphlets, but an 1849 printing, aided by the appearance of the popular press in the 19th century, spread the text through Germany and Northern Europe, to German immigrants in the United States and eventually helped popularize the texts among African Americans in the South and Caribbean, and Anglophone West Africa. It influenced European Occult Spiritualism, as well as popular religious movements in the American South (Hoodoo), the Caribbean (Rastafarian), and West Africa.[1]”

it is not a biblical source. just as the book of mormon is not a biblical source.

 

[iepuras]

No, I am simply stating what it means to be saved. Salvation consists in having the same knowledge, attributes, and power as the Father. As Joseph Smith said, So the Father must be like the Son, and the Son the Father or they are not saved.

Please see my post #83 in this thread. You could also investigate the reference to Widtsoe’s book found on the web. I also believe it is explained under “Spirit of the Lord” in Mormon Doctrine but I don’t have the book in front of me right now, so can’t be sure.

Do you realize how strange it sounds to say that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are “saved”? Christians believe God does not need to be saved as He is perfect by nature. We are fallen creatures by nature and need to be saved by Him so that we can partake of His divine nature through His grace. God is Being. He is Truth. He is Love. He is Alpha and Omega and uncreated. Man is created and can do nothing on our own. Do you see the difference?

Also, your post #83 describes what the Mormon “Spirit” does. It does not describe who or what the “Spirit” is. Your use of the term “the Spirit” can be confusing to Christians (see FrankLJ’s post at #237) so it is best to define that term rather than throwing it around and Christians mistakenly believe you are referring to the Holy Spirit, third person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[iepuras]

They say their Holy Spirit has a body? Which of their scriptures teach that?

Mormons believe in a godhead consisting of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have glorified bodies of flesh and bone (no blood). Before Jesus came to earth, Mormons believe He had only a spirit body. The Holy Ghost has a spirit body and many Mormons believe the Holy Ghost will receive a physical body during the Millenium. I’m not sure that this is official teaching, even though I was taught this numerous times when I was LDS during Sunday School and early morning seminary.

When Mormons refer to the “Spirit”, they are not referring to the Holy Ghost, the third person in their godhead. Our LDS friends have yet to define what the “Spirit” is so everyone understands who or what they are referring to. The Mormon Holy Ghost is rather fickle and will flee if one enters a bar, is getting ready to sin or even stays out past midnight.

 

[Miriam1947]

miriam1947,

it is not a biblical source. just as the book of mormon is not a biblical source.

Yes I know that which is why I posted the link to

biblegateway.com/passage/…&version=RSVCE

You can choose from many translations of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant. No Mormon scriptures will be found there.

 

[RebeccaJ]

miriam1947,

this is what wikipedia says about the document from which janderich took the quotation he referred to as moses 1:39:

“The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses is an 18th- or 19th-century magical text allegedly written by Moses, and passed down as hidden (or lost) books of the Five Books of Moses or Pentateuch. A grimoire, a text of magical incantations and seals, it purports to instruct the reader in the spells used to create the miracles portrayed in the Judaeo-Christian Bible. The work was printed with annexes or reputed Talmudic magic names, words and incantation, many taken from Christian biblical passages. It shows diagrams of “Seals”: magical drawings accompanied by incantations intended to perform various tasks, from controlling weather or people to contacting the dead or Christian religious figures. Copies have been traced to 18th-century German pamphlets, but an 1849 printing, aided by the appearance of the popular press in the 19th century, spread the text through Germany and Northern Europe, to German immigrants in the United States and eventually helped popularize the texts among African Americans in the South and Caribbean, and Anglophone West Africa. It influenced European Occult Spiritualism, as well as popular religious movements in the American South (Hoodoo), the Caribbean (Rastafarian), and West Africa.[1]”

That isn’t the Mormon" Book of Moses", though it is similar in idea (“lost” texts of divine providence reappearing in the Americas). Try this Wikipedia article instead, for the Mormon version:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Moses

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, I am simply stating what it means to be saved. Salvation consists in having the same knowledge, attributes, and power as the Father.

Sorry, I don’t agree that this is what Mormonism teaches. Mormonism teaches two ideas, one salvation and the other exaltation. What you are describing here is exaltation, not salvation.

As Joseph Smith said, So the Father must be like the Son, and the Son the Father or they are not saved.

Which, is a really weird statement that doesn’t make sense at all, even in a Mormon context.

Still the question remains, who/what is your God saved from?

For Christians, Jesus is God, and God is our Salvation. There is no belief among Christians that Jesus needed to save Himself, as God does not need to be saved.

 

[eddie_too]

thanks rebeccaj

i did not know that there was more than one book of moses.

 

[RebeccaJ]

thanks rebeccaj

i did not know that there was more than one book of moses.

Neither did I! I had not heard of the non-Mormon one before I read your post.

 

[Tarquin]

They say their Holy Spirit has a body? Which of their scriptures teach that?

When I was last involved in discussing their religion, they believed that the Holy Spirit (at that time called the Holy Ghost) would some day be incarnate. Since he was spirit only, but for “eternal progression,” a person needs a physical body. There are also some teachings that are not known by most that address this. I may be able to include it in another post.

 

[Tarquin]

You have not understood the Spirit of the Lord nor the Holy Ghost. You see change in doctrine when there is none. The Lectures on Faith correctly explain the Spirit, the doctrine has not changed. It has just been misunderstood by critics. As is stated, “…possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit.” This statement is as true today as it was then. It matches what I have been explaining for pages and pages.

Ah, yes, I forgot. The plain and precious truths of the Gospel, the most correct book on the earth, is incomprehensible unless you have a Mormon explain it to you. Why even publish it then? Why not just go around teaching the truth, since it has no correlation with what is in your scriptures, be they the Book of Mormon or the Lectures on Faith.

It does not match what you have been claiming. You claim there are three Gods. The Lectures on Faith clearly teach there are only two Gods. You see three where there are two. The shared mind is the Holy SPirit. The Holy Spirit is the mind. The Holy Spirit is not God, not even personage. You have to say it “means” that - although it does not say it, and says otherwise, because that is what you believe. It’s not reformed English. You don’t have to translate it. Accept the words at face value, same as Joseph Smith meant them to be taken.

 

[TexanKnight]

Ah, yes, I forgot. The plain adn precious truths of the Gospel, the most correct book on the earth, is incomprehensible unless you have a Mormon explain it to you. Why even publish it then? Why not just go around teaching the truth, since it has no correlation with what is in your scriptures, be they the Book of Mormon or the Lectures on Faith.

It does not match what you have been claiming. You claim there are three Gods. The Lectures on Faith clearly teach there are only two Gods. You see three where there are two. The shared mind is the Holy SPirit. The Holy Spirit is the mind. The Holy Spirit is not God, not even personage. You have to say it “means” that - although it does not say it, and says otherwise, because that is what you believe. It’s not reformed English. You don’t have to translate it. Accept the words at face value, same as Joseph Smith meant them to be taken.

further, Lectures on Faith teaches God is Spirit and Jesus a “tabernacle of flesh”

js changed that later to fit his need to make the lds god a former sinful man

 

[Tarquin]

This line of questioning is funny in a way, because I wager if I asked you some questions we would see that you put limits on God but have not acknowledged them. For instance, why doesn’t God save everyone?

I’d like to add my thought on this. In my case, I do not claim that he does not. I do not believe he is limited in that way. God has no rational limit. It is irrational to say there is a concept of a single figure such that the figure is both a circle and a square, has both one continuous angle-less curved line as well as four straight lines with four angles. There are no rational limits to God. It may be that we do not see certain manifestations of God, indeed there are many we cannot because our senses are finite, limited, fixed in time and space while God is unbounded and transcendent. I put no rational limits on God. So when you are talking with me, such a line of questioning would not be funny.

 

[Tarquin]

One in Purpose

I find 34 listings for the word “purpose” in the Book of Mormon and 27 in the Doctrine and Covenants. I have not yet found any teaching in your “core scripture” (BoM) or latter-day revelation (D&C) that supports your contention that the God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit are “one in purpose” to the exclusion of being one in identity (one God). Regardless of whether there are three persons in one God, or God and Jesus are different beings, the Book of Mormon says they are one being. Who bases his faith in a physical pantheon, puts his trust in created beings. In the case of Mormons, since it is believed that God has a body of flesh and bone, they are in fact, putting their trust in “the arm of flesh.”

On your mistaken notion that the Book of Mormon three Persons in one God are not just three Persons but also three Gods, after describing the his doctrine in 3 Nephi 11:31-40, the Lord warns: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine…and whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil…” The doctrine nowhere includes polytheism. However, it does give a warning to anyone who would add such a doctrine: “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil.”

Your church leaders changed the doctrines, then they tried to change the Book of Mormon to cover it up. But they did a poor job of it. If it is so clear that the Gods are “one in purpose,” the following changes might not have been seen as necessary:

(1830): “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh”
Modern: 1 Nephi 11:18 “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.”

(1830): “And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.”
(Modern): 1 Nephi 11:32 “And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world.”

Please don’t say it was for “clarity,” yet leave all the other references about “we are One God” unaddressed. Such half-baked inconsistency is unbecoming God and unbecoming a prophet of God.

To re-review a few of the verses:

Tarquin: “. . . sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God . . .” - Mormon 7:7
Janderich: Yes, of course they are one. They are of the same mind, they share the same Spirit. This does not mean that all three of the are the same person.

The Book of Mormon does not say that! “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock” The Book nowhere says they “are of the same mind.” The closest it comes is 3 Nephi 7:16 “Therefore, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds,” referring not to gods but to “hard” people who are blind to the truth. You are re-interpreting what the Book of Mormon says. You do not have the authority to do that.

T: “Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent . . .” - Mosiah 5:15
J: see no contradiction here, just because one person is omnipotent doesn’t mean another cannot be. It is not a competition, the will of the Father is the will of the Son.

The Book of Mormon does not say that! “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock.” The Book of Mormon nowhere says there are two or three or more “omnipotent” beings. The Bible does not teach it. The D&C does not teach it. The Pearl of Great Price does not teach it. What non-standard source are you using for your innovations on the pure teachings of the Gospel as restored by the Book of Mormon? Can we agree what omnipotent means – all-powerful, not just powerful in the realm in which we preside.

T: “And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations” – “Title Page”
J: Again, no contradiction. Christ is the eternal God, the Father is the eternal God.

Yes! Christ and Father are “the” ONE eternal God. Each is not a separate God, but both together are “God.” “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock.”

T: “. . . sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God . . .” - Mormon 7:7
J:Yes, of course they are one. They are of the same mind, they share the same Spirit. This does not mean that all three of the are the same person.

Hey! Pay attention! No one is contending that they are the same “Person.” You claim the Book of Mormon passages are saying they are three persons and three Gods. We are saying they are three “Persons” (as theologically defined) and One God. You are saying there is a pantheon.

T: “And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.” – 3 Nephi 11:36
J: Same as above.

Your argument here is even weaker. The passage says they “are one” and you say “they are not the same.” You say “the same person” but the Book of Mormon is talking about “God,” not “person.” Pay attention. The Book of Mormon does not say “person”! “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil.” They are, in fact “one” in the sense of “God” not “person.” They are one (in the theological sense) God, not three (in the nonchristian sense) co-godlets.

 

[Tarquin]

I was asked about the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. This may address that plus offer further thoughts on the clear, unmistakable monotheism that permeates the Book of Mormon, to the chagrin of modern Mormons. I do not mean to stray from the topic. However, Mormon claims about God lead to avenues hardly commiserate with His true Nature. In addressing the Mormon view of the Holy Ghost, and of God, historically, this cannot be helped.

There is one. only one True God. He is the Creator of all that is. He is perfect (complete) Love, Intelligence (Intelligibility), Power (Energy), Truth, Life. All other love, intelligence, power, truth, and life that exists, that we enjoy and can produce, derive from God. True God is the supreme subject, and all creation is His object.

Mormons, however, believe in sub-gods headed on our planet by a council of three, presumably with equal authority since Janderich claims they are equally omnipotent, if you can imagine such a thing, which I assure you, you cannot without redefining the word. They are objects, not Subjects, of creation. The reason our planet’s rulers do not conflict is, for some unstated reason, they decided to cooperate. Apparently they have free will, so that if one decided at any particular moment to stop cooperating, he could; the other two, being merely omnipotent rather than supra-omnipotent, could not stop him.

Mormon God is dependent on forces outside his control. He may use the priesthood, but lacks the power to take it, and never could create it. Mormon Priesthood is somehow co-existent with but independent of the gods. Priesthood had to be conferred on God by an Authority with the power to confer it. “There are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state.”

• God was not God from all eternity to all eternity, but only “to” all eternity! Then God has been subject to the pressures, hazards, and requirements of mortality, and dependent on the mercy of some other being for his redemption, and is subject to whatever heavenly statutes relate to conjugal relationships.

There is no Ultimate God in Mormonism, but only us human beings, some of whom are fortunate enough to please the ones over us so they let us share in their secret knowledge. Mormon “Godhead” is composed of three sub-gods who by some unknown means have had their lives extended presumably for eternity but that has not yet been demonstrated.

1. One sub-god is the Father, regarding whom the inspired leaders of the church have taught, ““There are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state.” A mortal man, with a wife or wives
2. One sub-god is the Son, who could not fully become God unless and until he successfully fulfilled his role as Messiah. Previously he was a sort of honorary god, meaning no disrespect, but not fully God, who went by the name Jehovah, which brings yet additional complications and contradictions into the picture.
3. The third sub-god is no less a mortal than the other two. He just hadn’t got his body yet.

Of the three, only God the Father has proven himself. Supposedly he will never experience a change of heart leading him to do some misdeed resulting in a loss of status. Only two of the three have physical bodies – the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit does not have a body of flesh and bone. He didn’t use to; but things have changed. The Mormon prophets have taught clearly and unequivocally:

“…the Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God…” (Heber C. Kimball)

He is a Personage of Spirit, a Spirit Person, a Spirit Man, a Spirit Entity. He can be in only one place at one time and he does not and cannot transform himself into any other form or image than that of the Man whom he is, though his power and influence can be manifest at one and the same time through all immensity.” (Bruce R. McConkie)

“But the Holy Ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take himself a body, as the savior did or as God did, of the gods before him took bodies.” (Joseph Smith)

“Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.” (Franklin D. Richards, Words of Joseph Smith)

Mormons worship man-gods, like ancient Egyptians and Romans and Greeks, not God. They even worship, when they worship the Holy Spirit / Holy Ghost, nothing more than a man:

“If you find out who Joseph was, you will know as much about God as you need to at present; for if he said, ‘I am a God to this people,’ He did not say that He was the only wise God. Jesus was a God to the people when he was upon earth, was so before he came to this earth, and is yet.” (Journal of Discourses 4:271)

“What an uproar it would make in the Christian world to say, I am an Apostle of Joseph. Write it down, and write it back to your friends in the east, that I am an Apostle of Joseph Smith.”

“What can the above mean other than Adam ‘Creator’ is ‘God the first’; (Brigham Young said Adam was the principle builder (creator or organizer of the earth). Jesus Christ is the ‘Redeemer’, and is ‘God the second’); and why not Joseph Smith who was the ‘Witness or Testator’, ‘God the third?’ That is just what the scripture means. These three personages, one a glorified, resurrected being, and the other two his sons, un-embodied spirits, and in their premortal state, in accordance with a set program endorsed by the Council of Gods, entered into an ‘Everlasting Covenant’ relating to ‘their’ dispensation of things to men on the earth’. (citation lacking; it may have been by Musser, a responsible gentleman who diligently studied, strongly supported, and meticulously followed the teachings of Smith and Young.)

 

[Tarquin]

A further instance of monotheism in the Book of Mormon. I would show instances of tritheism but there are none!

“Now have we not reason to rejoice? Yea, I say unto you, there never were men that had so great reason to rejoice as we, since the world began; yea, and my joy is carried away, even unto boasting in my God; for he has all power, ball wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things, and he is a merciful Being, even unto salvation, to those who will repent and believe on his name.” Alma 26:35 “He” – singular. “God” – singular. “a merciful Being” – singular. “His name” – singular.

From Doctrine and Covenants 19, purportedly revealed in 1829, several years before Smith introduced the idea of multiple gods to the church, speaks of “Christ the Lord” as one of the three Persons that constitute the One God: “ 1 I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. . . . 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

Obviously, then, if Mormons believe Jesus is “the greatest of all,” he must be greater than the Father. If he is not greater than the Father, he is not greatest of all, but only the greatest of some or at best the co-greatest of all.

The Book of Mormon irrefutably teaches monotheism - not three (mortal) persons with godly powers, but One God manifest in three (divine) Persons. The Book of Mormon nowhere states there are three Gods. The Book of Mormon consistently teaches “one God.” As for Mormons who try to tell you otherwise, they lack the spirit of discernment, the spirit of understanding, “And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock,” warns the Book of Mormon about its theology of One God.

 

[Tarquin]

Janderich, do you believe in many prophets or in only one “Prophet?” Why limit the Godhead to three? Why not make it six. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, God the Joseph Smith, God the Brigham Young, and God the Thomas Monson. After all, Smith, Young and Monson, do share the same mind, do cooperate rather than compete, and are “one in purpose” in harmony with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are they not? If they do not qualify as Gods because their callings are different, then they qualify as a single “Prophet” since among themselves they are presumably one in purpose. If it is a question of callings, then they are the called. Not just Smith, Young, and Monson, but also the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whoever has the power and authority to call Smith, Young, Monson, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to serve His purposes, that is my God, the God over heaven and earth and over prophets and over lesser deities. Mormons worship lesser deities. Admit it. You’ll feel better about yourself when you do.

Although the Book of Mormon nowhere says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in purpose, neither does it anywhere say they share the same mind. (People are, however, exhorted to determine “in one mind and in one heart” to not be taken captive. 2 Nephi 1:21). Now they may be one in purpose, and they may share one mind, because although they Book of Mormon does not affirm this, positively, it nowhere states otherwise. It nowhere says they are of two minds or of three minds, and it nowhere says they have different purposes. Well, sort of it does –

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the number of Gods. The Book of Mormon recognizes only one God, not three, despite Mormondom’s best efforts to argue the contrary. Here is why the same cannot be said about the number of Gods, why we cannot equivocate on the number, and why we cannot claim any number but one. The Book of Mormon does not say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in purpose, but neither does it say anything to the contrary. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon does not say, in a positive affirmation, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods, but it does make a contrary, positive assertion, that they are one God.

There is no ambiguity. The book does not say in one place they are one God and in another place they are separate Gods, even though they may be separate Persons, theologically speaking.

Different Purposes

I mentioned they sort of have different purposes. Actually the ultimate purpose is the same for all three Persons. Their individual roles have distinct purposes as well, for bringing about that ultimate purpose.

Abinadi explains in Mosiah 15 and 16:
“1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
16:15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Three Persons are one God. When that one, single, singular God appears in the flesh as Jesus, “he shall be called the Son of God.” He was not the “Son of God” until he appeared in the flesh. “Because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God.”

The phrase “having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son” is problematic. It could mean, “having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, (he, the Father) being the Father and the Son,” or it could mean” “having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, (he the one who subjected the flesh) being the Father and the Son.” Either the Father is the Father and the Son, or the Son is the Father and the Son. But if either of those is true, they are both true! God is “the Father and the Son.”

Note that it is not talking about the Mormon concept of “Godhead” here. That is a different word with a different meaning. We need to understand words as commonly understood unless the text where they are used define them differently. Philosophers do this, ecclesiasts do this, scientists do this, redefining, making more precise, adding technical details, or broadening the scope of a word.

The Bible, too, does it. “Faith” described by Paul seems a different “faith” than that described by James, because Paul says, “justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” while James says, “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” The Mormon explanation I heard was that works and faith are equally required. For those who haven’t heard the Catholic explanation for this, you can read one at catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-James.htm. Briefly, Galatians 3:10 makes it clear that Paul was talking about “works of the Law” being insufficient. James 2:15-17 makes it clear that James was talking about clothing and feeding the destitute, a charitable act not necessarily required by the Mosaic Law and Jewish traditions, due to their loop-holes.

But this sort of exegesis does not apply to the Book of Mormon! If any verse does use “God” in the sense of a multiple-membered “Godhead,” it is the rare exception, and insufficient to overturn common understanding of a word so clear as “God,” clear to Christians but increasingly vague and ambiguous to Mormons.

 

[Tarquin]

The Eternal Father

“He is also “the Father” because he was conceived.” This is a very weird statement! He is the Father because he was conceived!? Normally when we talk about someone who was conceived, we call him a Son. It must be a very exceptional context to speak of someone being a Father because of his being conceived. This is so bizarre, I’m not going to address it yet. However, we can learn more about the Book of Mormon commitment to belief in a single God of Three Persons by considering the following Mormon terminology.

That the Eternal Father is “the Father” and is distinct from the Son and the Holy Ghost, is obvious from the following:

“We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” (First Article of Faith of the Mormon Church’s official creed)

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.” (Blessing on the sacramental bread, as reported in Moroni 4:3).

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it…" (Blessing on the sacramental wine (since, much diluted), as prescribed in D&C 20:79).

Zeezrom (ya gotta love ‘im) brings out the truth of the Godhead:

The visionary (Mosiah 8:20) Amulek, arguing with the devil-expert (11:21) Zeezrom, affirms, “I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord (11:22). Zeezrom discovers what is not contrary to the Spirit of the Lord: “Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
And he answered, No.” (11:28-29). Mormons are confronted with this problem very often, and have the usual “explanation” for it, namely, although it says what it says, it does not mean what it says, it means the opposite of what it says. They are free to so believe. I believe that when asked if there was more than one God, such as a Father God, Son God, and Spirit God, and Amulek said “No,” he meant there was only one God: Father, Son, and Spirit, although being three Persons, not being three gods but one God.

32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

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 (not “Godhead” – Tarquin), to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Curiously, 46 “Now, when Amulek had finished these words the people began again to be astonished, and also Zeezrom began to tremble. And thus ended the words of Amulek, or this is all that I have written.”

• curiously, the author seems not to know whether Amulek had finished speaking at this point or not, or whether the author had simply stopped writing about Amulek’s additional words for some reason. “Thus ended the words of Amulek” . . . “or" . . . "this is all I have written,” I’m not sure which.

The End
… till I hear whether Janderich has modified his views.

 

[PaulDupre1]

The Eternal Father

32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

To be fair, I think this part of the argument is weak.

Jesus did say that he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And Jesus could rightly be called the Eternal Father of heaven and of earth if we use the word heaven as it was used anciently (or the heavens) to denote the sky and outer space.

After all, the pre mortal Jesus did create everything according to the will of the Father. People who start something are often called the father of that thing. Therefore, as Claude Monet is the father of impressionism, so could Jesus be called the Father of heaven and of earth.

There are many good arguments against Mormonism. I just don’t think this is one of them.

Respectfully,

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[marywarfield]

To be fair, I think this part of the argument is weak.

Jesus did say that he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And Jesus could rightly be called the Eternal Father of heaven and of earth if we use the word heaven as it was used anciently (or the heavens) to denote the sky and outer space.

After all, the pre mortal Jesus did create everything according to the will of the Father. People who start something are often called the father of that thing. Therefore, as Claude Monet is the father of impressionism, so could Jesus be called the Father of heaven and of earth.

There are many good arguments against Mormonism. I just don’t think this is one of them.

Respectfully,

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Excep the Father creator of all is a seperate distinct person
from His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus is NOT the Father.
To say so in Catholicism according to Aquinas is
a sacrilege. God the Creator of all is spirit.

 

[Tarquin]

To be fair, I think this part of the argument is weak.

Jesus did say that he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And Jesus could rightly be called the Eternal Father of heaven and of earth if we use the word heaven as it was used anciently (or the heavens) to denote the sky and outer space.

After all, the pre mortal Jesus did create everything according to the will of the Father. People who start something are often called the father of that thing. Therefore, as Claude Monet is the father of impressionism, so could Jesus be called the Father of heaven and of earth.

There are many good arguments against Mormonism. I just don’t think this is one of them.

Respectfully,

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I think you are correct, PaulDupre1.

There is a lot of ambiguity for a book in which the “plain” and precious lost parts of the Gospel are to be found.

The strong part of the argument is that “Eternal Father” seems to be - seems to, so this has a weak point, too - refer only to “God the Father” never to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The seemingness and ambiguity do make this part of the argument weak. Thanks for point it out.