Mormons: Did Christ need to be saved?

[NewSeeker]

Miriam,

Not being obvious serves the good purpose of letting there be a sifting process and letting those who want to know something about their own pre-mortal life, desire to know and thus exercise the faith and prayer necessary to find it out through the Holy Spirit.

This is merely run of the mill, passive-aggressive Mormon-speak about those who try but fail to gain a witness that the Mormon church is true. Those who do not come to the same conclusion as Mormons on this or any doctrinal point did not really ‘desire to know’, did not ‘exercise the faith and prayer necessary to find it out through the Holy Spirit’; they are insincere and are unwilling to do what is required to gain a testimony. The proof is in their failure. They have been ‘sifted’.

What tripe.

 

[ParkerD]

Rainman10,

As a follow up comment, another question that could be asked that has some similarity, is the following:

Did Christ need to be baptized?

If the person being asked that question is told, “just answer yes or no”–then it puts them in the inadequate position of not being able to explain that the Savior said, when John asked “comest thou to me?”–

“for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15)

The Savior didn’t “need to be baptized”, but He did it–He was baptized, “to fulfil all righteousness.”

The Savior didn’t need to ask, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”–but He did it. He showed His humility, and showed “thus it becometh to fulfil all righteousness”, that He would ask that of His Father.

So let it be known that there are some things Jesus did to show the way for His followers, even though He was and is perfect and they (we) are not. He fulfilled all righteousness. He showed obedience to His Father and to His Father’s will. He prayed, “not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). He sought and did His Father’s will. His every act was according to His Father’s will. During His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, “being in an agony he prayed more earnestly”–He who was already perfect prayed more earnestly in the agony of those hours of the beginning of His atoning sacrifice for all humankind.

He merited the return to His Father in glory without “needing” to ask for it, but He showed His acknowledgement that it is the Father’s plan of salvation and glory, that the Father desires our prayers as well as He was “well pleased” with the Savior’s prayers, and that it was completely appropriate for Jesus, who merited the throne of glory through having lived a perfect life of obedience, to even yet pray “glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was”.

Since the question keeps coming up, here is an explanation, along with the following explanation by one of the Catholics who wrote a comment during this thread discussion.

 

[ParkerD]

Quote by Telstar:

The focus of that prayer is NOT on Jesus looking for a pat on the back from His Father to pump up His ego. He is asking His Father to take care of everyone that will follow Him (that the Father has given to Him), while they still remain on this earth, because He will be going back to the Father, to share the same power and glory that He always had, before. He sacrificed and set aside all of the power that He had as God, and humbled Himself down to our level, when He chose to take on human flesh. Now that He was going back to the Father, He would once again share in all of that power and glory of God that was always His, from the beginning, even though He had set it all aside to live as a humble human being, in order to save us from the sin that had closed Heaven from all mankind. He came here to be the perfect sacrificial Lamb of God, so that we would no longer be completely separated from God.

A Biblical teaching that is clear about Jesus’ youth is Luke 2:52,
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

The words “increased in wisdom” do not mean He “had all wisdom” as a tiny baby or a youngster. He had something to do in order to “increase in wisdom”–it didn’t come automatically, without effort on His part. He made the effort to study, to observe, to learn–to “increase in wisdom” during His childhood.

See also Hebrews 2:9-18.

Here is verse 18:
“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”

So ultimately the question about “salvation”, looked at correctly, is “did he lower Himself (set aside His perfect wisdom that He already had before He came to earth, and let Himself be born as a baby and experience the growth of childhood) to increase in wisdom?” (answer, yes), and to suffer Himself to be tempted? (answer, yes),

Why did He do that and thus condescend in this way?

So that
“he is able to succour them that are tempted”. (meaning succour all of us)

See also Romans 8:14-32.

Verse 30 says, “whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Verse 14 says, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

By the way, being “led by the Spirit of God” is not “tripe”. It is something to seek for–a good thing, not a bad thing. It is one of the major focuses of all the epistles.

 

[Stephen168]

Before I go I have to ask, “SAY WHAT!?!?!?”

The blue arrows in the quote boxes will take you back to the place where the quote came from. If you follow the conversation back to post #46, you will see “what!?”

 

[Stephen168]

This is merely run of the mill, passive-aggressive Mormon-speak about those who try but fail to gain a witness that the Mormon church is true. Those who do not come to the same conclusion as Mormons on this or any doctrinal point did not really ‘desire to know’, did not ‘exercise the faith and prayer necessary to find it out through the Holy Spirit’; they are insincere and are unwilling to do what is required to gain a testimony. The proof is in their failure. They have been ‘sifted’.

What tripe.

I noticed that , too. If you can’t understand how 1+1=3, then that is your fault. Very strange but insightful.

 

[Darren10]

This is merely run of the mill, passive-aggressive Mormon-speak about those who try but fail to gain a witness that the Mormon church is true. Those who do not come to the same conclusion as Mormons on this or any doctrinal point did not really ‘desire to know’, did not ‘exercise the faith and prayer necessary to find it out through the Holy Spirit’; they are insincere and are unwilling to do what is required to gain a testimony. The proof is in their failure. They have been ‘sifted’.

What tripe.

As an LDS missionary, I was taught/trained that when one does not come to the same conclusion as to the truthfulness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, to sincerely thank the person for their time and to welcome them to church at any time. This, of course, is to be genuine, not contrived. I think this best represents the official LDS view for those who do not gain their own testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel. It is impossible to know all the variables in one’s life regarding spirituality and therefore if you experienced for yourself the reactionary reply “it’s your fault”, then know it is not part of official LDS standards. “Patience” and “long suffering”, both on Christ-like love, is not only part ofthe LDS standard but found withinin its doctrine. Who knows, maybe it was the “fault” of the LDS presenter. But, like I said before, who knows?

 

[Mormon_Defender]

God commanded everyone to be baptized. During the baptismal process, we are cleansed of our sins and we also make covenants with God. These covenants are two-way promises we make between ourselves and God.

This is a preparatory step towards becoming a member of the Savior’s church.

Some have wondered why Jesus Christ was baptized if He had no sins of which to repent, and of course, it was His own church. As we can see above, there are several additional reasons for baptism, beyond remission of sins.

Obedience to God’s commandments is critical. Jesus is God’s Son, and as a perfect mortal man, He kept every commandment of God. By necessity, this would include baptism.

I think this conclude the topic. :extrahappy:

 

[NewSeeker]

God commanded everyone to be baptized. During the baptismal process, we are cleansed of our sins and we also make covenants with God. These covenants are two-way promises we make between ourselves and God.

This is a preparatory step towards becoming a member of the Savior’s church.

Some have wondered why Jesus Christ was baptized if He had no sins of which to repent, and of course, it was His own church. As we can see above, there are several additional reasons for baptism, beyond remission of sins.

Obedience to God’s commandments is critical. Jesus is God’s Son, and as a perfect mortal man, He kept every commandment of God. By necessity, this would include baptism.

I think this conclude the topic. :extrahappy:

You’ve got it partially right, Mormon Defender (do you wear tights and a cape? ), but your focus is too narrowly legalistic. It’s not just sin that’s washed away, but Original Sin. It’s not just a necessary step in becoming a member of the true Church of Christ (aka the Catholic Church), it is a vehicle of grace, restoring in Christ what was lost through the Fall, bringing you back into God’s embrace after your alienation from Him; it grafts you onto the True Vine, and makes you a member of the Body of Christ, a son or daughter of God.

The complete, authentic doctrine of the significance of Jesus’s baptism is found in the CCC. Revise your view in accordance with the following and you’ll be one step closer to possessing the fullness of the Faith.

**The baptism of Jesus

535 Jesus’ public life begins with his baptism by John in the Jordan.J ohn preaches “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”. A crowd of sinners - tax collectors and soldiers, Pharisees and Sadducees, and prostitutes - come to be baptized by him. “Then Jesus appears.” the Baptist hesitates, but Jesus insists and receives baptism. Then the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, comes upon Jesus and a voice from heaven proclaims, “This is my beloved Son.” This is the manifestation (“Epiphany”) of Jesus as Messiah of Israel and Son of God.

536 The baptism of Jesus is on his part the acceptance and inauguration of his mission as God’s suffering Servant. He allows himself to be numbered among sinners; he is already “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. Already he is anticipating the “baptism” of his bloody death. Already he is coming to “fulfil all righteousness”, that is, he is submitting himself entirely to his Father’s will: out of love he consents to this baptism of death for the remission of our sins. The Father’s voice responds to the Son’s acceptance, proclaiming his entire delight in his Son. The Spirit whom Jesus possessed in fullness from his conception comes to “rest on him”. Jesus will be the source of the Spirit for all mankind. At his baptism “the heavens were opened” - the heavens that Adam’s sin had closed - and the waters were sanctified by the descent of Jesus and the Spirit, a prelude to the new creation.

537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. the Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father’s beloved son in the Son and “walk in newness of life”

Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him.

Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father’s voice, we become sons of God.**

 

[Stephen168]

… there certainly was a pre-mortal life. There were “angels which kept not their first estate,” (Jude 6) and there were angels which “kept their first estate”. There was “war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not;” (Revelation 12:7). The dragon was the “accuser of our brethren”. (v. 10) It is presented in the Bible, but is not “obvious”.

1. Angels are in Heaven
2. ?
3. Therefore there is a pre-existant

There is something missing in your explanation
South Park:

The Gnomes, claiming to be business experts, explain their business plan:

Gnomes’ three phase business plan

Collect Underpants
?
Profit

 

[Telstar]

First of all, welcome aboard to Darren and Mormon Defender. It’s nice to see that Parker has someone else to help him to try and answer our questions, since most of his other friends are no longer with us (though I’m sure some of them are still here ‘in spirit’, but can’t post under their old ID).

@Darren: Your first comment that I find problematic, is that you’ve jumped into the middle of this conversation without reading the entire thread. That immediately puts you at a disadvantage because you have no clue about all of what has already been said. You might want to remedy that problem so you’ll know where we stand at this point in the discussion, so we won’t have to keep repeating ourselves. It’s really not all that long… yet.

Also… Thank you for actually answering the question with a “yes”, even with the long explanation. It’s refreshing to get more than just a, “maybe yes… depending on what your definition of ‘yes’ is”.

One thing that goes along with that, unfortunately, is the next problem, which is your ‘definition’ of the word ‘sacrifice’. I’m sure you must have gotten that definition out of the Mormon dictionary, but out here in the rest of the world, we tend to define terms by more traditional dictionaries, like Merriam-Webster:
Definition of SACRIFICE
1: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2: something offered in sacrifice
3a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost
4: loss
In the context in which it’s being used, I’d have to go with the first definition as the most appropriate one for this particular situation, but I think all of them are somewhat relevant, except maybe the last one. (Although, technically, Jesus was ‘sold at a loss’ by Judas.)

@Mormon Defender: I'm sure you might ***wish*** that your statement would be the conclusion of this thread, but you have much to learn about these things, young Jedi.  :p :D

 

[Telstar]

Quote by Telstar:

A Biblical teaching that is clear about Jesus’ youth is Luke 2:52,
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

The words “increased in wisdom” do not mean He “had all wisdom” as a tiny baby or a youngster. He had something to do in order to “increase in wisdom”–it didn’t come automatically, without effort on His part. He made the effort to study, to observe, to learn–to “increase in wisdom” during His childhood.

See also Hebrews 2:9-18.

Here is verse 18:
“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.”

So ultimately the question about “salvation”, looked at correctly, is “did he lower Himself (set aside His perfect wisdom that He already had before He came to earth, and let Himself be born as a baby and experience the growth of childhood) to increase in wisdom?” (answer, yes), and to suffer Himself to be tempted? (answer, yes),

Why did He do that and thus condescend in this way?

So that
“he is able to succour them that are tempted”. (meaning succour all of us)

See also Romans 8:14-32.

Verse 30 says, “whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

Verse 14 says, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

That whole post is a very nice effort to explain that Jesus was just as human as the rest of us while He was living His life on earth, but that wasn’t really my main focus on the question that I was responding to, or trying to explain. I was trying to point out that I believe the main focus of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane was on His death and the effect it would have on all those who would follow after Him, especially those who were amongst His chosen Apostles and Disciples that would have to bear the brunt of the repercussions of His death. He was praying for their unity and perseverance in the face of persecution, after He returned to His Father.

He was certainly suffering at the thought of having to face the entire ordeal of His trial, the Scourging, and the Crucifixion, but, in the face of all of that, He was even more concerned about how all of that would affect His family and friends, that were there with Him. His prayer in the Garden was certainly not all about Him, or about His Glory, or ours. Far from it. He was much more concerned about all of us, and our salvation (which is NOT synonymous with ‘exaltation’). That was my main point in that entire paragraph, along with the fact that even while He was just as human as we are, He was always God. He could have easily used His power and taken Himself off of that Cross, at any time, and struck every Roman soldier there, dead. Instead, He chose to do His Father’s will and suffer it all in the fullness of its humiliation of Him, all the way to the very end, out of His infinite love for all of us, even for those that will reject Him. In fact, He loves us all so much, that He would do it all over again, for any one of us.

Why you waited so long to choose to respond to that small part of my post, long after you responded to the rest of it, I have no idea. At this point in the conversation, I have to wonder what all of that has to do with the price of apples in Poland. None of us are arguing that Jesus wasn’t fully human or didn’t live the same way as we all do while He was on earth, even though He was, always, still fully God.

By the way, being “led by the Spirit of God” is not “tripe”. It is something to seek for–a good thing, not a bad thing. It is one of the major focuses of all the epistles.

I’m certainly not the one that used the term “tripe” in this thread, but I think it was used in reference to the typical LDS response to anyone that doesn’t “get it”. That response is for them to infer that the only reason we don’t “get it” is because we’re not open to the “Spirit of God”, therefore, we are incapable of understanding the “secret code” that allows our “intelligence” to be open to the ‘truth’ of LDS stories. It’s, basically, the backhanded remarks of Mormons that she was referring to and not the “Spirit of God”. That was the meaning of her use of the word ‘tripe’, which I totally agree with it’s use in that instance. The phrase “Spirit of God”, also, depends solely upon your definition of “God”. In that case, I’m sure you are well aware and would agree, that we are certainly looking at two very different interpretations of the meaning of that entire phrase. Catholics tend to refer directly to the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, without all the ambiguity. And (contrary to LDS belief), as Catholics, we all have a direct line to Him through our Baptism and Confirmation in the Catholic Faith.

 

[NewSeeker]

By the way, being “led by the Spirit of God” is not “tripe”. It is something to seek for–a good thing, not a bad thing. It is one of the major focuses of all the epistles.

Telstar understood my intent. What I called tripe is the hidden assumption underlying Moroni’s Promise and comments such as yours. You said that sincere seekers will “exercise the faith and prayer necessary to find it [a testimony about the pre-earth life or, by extension, the truth of Mormonism generally]”. The hidden assumption is if they don’t, that proves they weren’t sincere and/or lacked faith. It is tripe.

 

[Darren10]

Stephen and Telstar;

First off, Stephen, thank you for pointing out the blue arrows. I did read what you said regarding the Plan of Salvation on the final thread and so I did had a fairly good idea as to why you said what you said. I did use the arrow and looked back directly at the origin of the dialogue.

Telstar, here’s what you said:

But, Parker, as I understand it, according to the BoM (or the PoGP… or wherever it is in LDS writings that the story is told), doesn’t it clearly say that Jesus offered the father his plan, then Lucifer offered his own plan, and the father had to pick between the two, which one he thought was best? How would it be called ‘the father’s plan’ if that were the case?

Stephen, here’s what you said;

It doesn’t seem to be the father’s plan

and

Which doesn’t change the fact that Joseph Smith taught the plan of salvation was not the fathers.

Here is the doctrine in and of itself:

"1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." (Moses 3)

That’s it. Nothing in the King Follet’s Discourse changes this doctrine. In fact, the King Follet’s Reports, as I previously said, has no bearing upon the LDS faith, nor worship. But the Pearl of Great Price does. So I find it futile to discuss the King Follett’s Discourse other than it being a historical account of what Joseph Smith personally believed. I do not mind talking about it as I will in a minute but I would like to point out that it is not LDS doctrine but Moses 3:1-2 is.

So, regarding the doctrine of Jesus and Satan presenting their plans to the Father. Read it and by al means, tell me whose plan was the Plan of Salvation? T

Telstar, I appreciate your inquiries. I (think I) understand your concerns.

Stephen, at first you presented your own perception regarding Joseph Smith teaching that the Plan of Salvation not being the Father’s. I’ve no problem with this. When you presented this as "fact, that’s when I asked, “SAY WHAT !?!?!?” Again, I presented to you the doctrine, whose plan was the Plan of Salvation?

Regarding the King Follett’s Discourse:

The content of the Discourse rests well with me. All of it as I recall its content in my own mind. My understanding is that the KFD (King Follett Discourse) expands in depth to then nature of God, the creation, and salvation. While declarations of a council being gathered “by the head God” and the plan set forth is fine with me, as I find it presenting the universe in a much more orderly and beautiful manner than does the LDS doctrine in and of itself, it is important that nothing in the KFD is part of my worship. Joseph Smith did not preach the content of the KFD authoritatively.

In LDS theology that means that a revelation is presented before the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles which his usually comprised of 15 men. The revelation must receive a unanimous sustaining vote at this point and only at this point. After this the revelation must be presented before the general priesthood leadership for a sustaining vote. After this, it is to be presented before the general membership of the Church for a sustaining vote. This process makes the revelation authoritative and thus official church doctrine. Nothing in the King Follett Discourse went through this process. in fact, the vast majority of words, speeches, declarations, etc. have never made it through this process. For the majority of speeches which have not made it through this process I find it much more prudent to view them as the specific viewpoint of a specific LDS church leader on a specific topic than as a source of “what Mormons believe”.

This process as described above is probably the most equivalent procedure the LDS employs to the standards Telstar mentioned the Catholic church uses regarding revelations received. What I really appreciate about the LDS process in establishing doctrine is that it invites not only the prophet and LDS leaders to open their hearts to the confirmation of the Holy Spirit regarding the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ but it invites all its members to open their hearts and receive the exact same witness as the prophet and church leaders. It is by following the Holy Spirit which hone learns of God’s purest truths.

With regards to God once being a man and now exalted, here’s the doctrine behind the creation and the “beginning”: Genisis chapters 1-2 and Moses chapters 1-3. There’s nothing in there which says “God [the Father] was once a man”. So the idea that “Mormons believe” that “God was once a man”, while it rests well with me, is not accurate. It is best viewed as Joseph Smith’s understanding; not LDS teaching.

 

[Darren10]

@Darren: Your first comment that I find problematic, is that you’ve jumped into the middle of this conversation without reading the entire thread. That immediately puts you at a disadvantage because you have no clue about all of what has already been said. You might want to remedy that problem so you’ll know where we stand at this point in the discussion, so we won’t have to keep repeating ourselves. It’s really not all that long… yet.

[snip]

Also… Thank you for actually answering the question with a “yes”, even with the long explanation. It’s refreshing to get more than just a, “maybe yes… depending on what your definition of ‘yes’ is”.

One thing that goes along with that, unfortunately, is the next problem, which is your ‘definition’ of the word ‘sacrifice’. I’m sure you must have gotten that definition out of the Mormon dictionary, but out here in the rest of the world, we tend to define terms by more traditional dictionaries, like Merriam-Webster:

Definition of SACRIFICE
1: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2: something offered in sacrifice
3a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost
4: loss
In the context in which it’s being used, I’d have to go with the first definition as the most appropriate one for this particular situation, but I think all of them are somewhat relevant, except maybe the last one. (Although, technically, Jesus was ‘sold at a loss’ by Judas.)

@Mormon Defender: I'm sure you might ***wish*** that your statement would be the conclusion of this thread, but you have much to learn about these things, young Jedi.  :p :D

(Bold red mine)

First, thank you. I don’t know how much time I’ll devote to this site as my regular blogging is time consuming enough but I do like to share my beliefs with others and learn of theirs as well. The irony is that on The Blaze, a website owned by a Mormon, I defended Catholicism from “the bor agains” (as I call them) and in my research I came to this site (recommended to me a a fellow blogger and devout Catholic herself) and decided to defend Mormonism on this site, owned by a Catholic. Oh, irony makes life fun, don’t it?

I jumped into the frey without reading the entire thread but I do plan on rectifying that. I only responded to that which I did read.

So, you’re so “sure” I got “sacrifice” from a “Mormon dictionary” (oh, presumptions, presumptions ). Right HERE is “sacrifices” from the official LDS Bible Dictionary. (They don’t have “scrifice”). How I defined “sacrifice” was by going to the Latin meaning of the word. I enjoy etymology and learn of many words through it, not by modern-day dictionaries. I like to learn of the root meaning of English words. (Knowing Spanish and Portuguese, I apply their words to the Latin meaning of English words as well) “Sacro” in Latin means “holy”. “Fice” is from the Latin verb facere which means “to do” or “to make”. (In Spanish the same verb is “hacer” and Portuguese it’s “fazer” the two respective verbs seem to be a blend of their Latin root). So, to “sacrifice” means literally “to make holy”. “Sacro” can also mean “condemn”. I think of sacrifices not done in accordance to God’s instruction only brining down God’s anger. The first upon Cain. But since we were talking about Christs sacrifice, it was the most pure and holy sacrifice ever and through it we can become cleansed (holy) before God. HERE and HERE may help but I often do not leave fully satisfied with that website.

I loved Star Wars as a child and even though I’m now 40 years old, I still hold a soft spot for Star Wars, so keep the references coming.

I’ve thought a little more about the dialogue (having read anotherp age of it) and i simply have to say that Jesus needed no salvation in the sense of being “saved”. As Steve’s original question directs the reader’s attention to, Jesus was not fallen of anything. He was a perfect being, the only perfect (and infallible as far as the LDS is concerned) being on earth. But he was subject tothe will of the Father and He subjected His own will to that of the Father’s in all things. He thus created the perfect example for all us to follow. i know “subordination” is frowned upon by modern-day Catholics and Christians at large when talking about Christ submitting to the will of the Father but I find it perfectly biblical with ample examples of Jesus submiting to the Father.

UPDATE: I fixed a link.

 

[Darren10]

My second etymology link should be found HERE.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen, at first you presented your own perception regarding Joseph Smith teaching that the Plan of Salvation not being the Father’s. I’ve no problem with this. When you presented this as "fact, that’s when I asked, “SAY WHAT !?!?!?” Again, I presented to you the doctrine, whose plan was the Plan of Salvation?

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century American work of fiction. The theology contained in it describes the Trinitarian God of Christianity and other beliefs held by the restoration movement of that day. Joseph Smith taught doctrine contrary to the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon; the rejection of the triune God for example.

When I said that Joseph Smith taught the plan of salvation was not the father’s, I was not referring to any current Mormon teaching or teaching of the Book of Mormon. I hope I was clear to say that it is a fact that Joseph Smith taught the plan of salvation was not the father’s. According to Joseph Smith, the Father did not have a plan; Christ had a plan, and Lucifer had a plan, and the council voted on them.

 

[Darren10]

I noticed that , too. If you can’t understand how 1+1=3, then that is your fault. Very strange but insightful.

Isn’t it?

 

[Darren10]

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century American work of fiction. The theology contained in it describes the Trinitarian God of Christianity and other beliefs held by the restoration movement of that day. Joseph Smith taught doctrine contrary to the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon; the rejection of the triune God for example.

When I said that Joseph Smith taught the plan of salvation was not the father’s, I was not referring to any current Mormon teaching or teaching of the Book of Mormon. I hope I was clear to say that it is a fact that Joseph Smith taught the plan of salvation was not the father’s. According to Joseph Smith, the Father did not have a plan; Christ had a plan, and Lucifer had a plan, and the council voted on them.

I showed you the precise doctrine of the Creation from a doctrinal source unique to LDS theology. This was complete with Jesus and Satan’s part in it. Please read it again and tell me whose plan it was.

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be dcast down;

Moses 4

What, exactly, did Joseph Smith teach that said God the Father had no plan to save His children?

And the Book of Mormon may use the same language which trinitarian Christians use to justify that view, it does not teach the Holy Trinity. The Trinitarian formula is an extra biblical decree which forces Christian doctrine to conform to Hellenistic philosophy. The father and the Son may be viewed as one in unity, not in physical essence. I think there’s ample biblical passages to support that view. There’s also ante-Nicene Christian fathers who most definitely taught the physical separation of the Father and the Son and that the Son was subordinate to the Father. This lead to Arianisn and the Council of Nicea. But interestinlgy enough, some points of theology which are considered almost exclusively Mormon are strikinlgy similar to what was taught among 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th century Christians.

 

[Darren10]

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century American work of fiction.

Sorry you think that way.

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

(2 Nephi 25)

The Book of Mormon is a powerful and pure testimony of Jesus Christ and why we need to come unto Him. Proportionally-speaking, there is no more powerful a written wtitness of Jesus Christ than the Book of Mormon.

 

[Stephen168]

I showed you the precise doctrine of the Creation from a doctrinal source unique to LDS theology. This was complete with Jesus and Satan’s part in it. Please read it again and tell me whose plan it was.

Moses 4

What, exactly, did Joseph Smith teach that said God the Father had no plan to save His children?

As I said, the teachings of Joseph Smith are not necessarily the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Repeating quotes from the Book of Mormon will not change that. I invite you to re-read post #46 for the teaching of Joseph Smith on the plan of salvation.

The Trinitarian formula is an extra biblical decree which forces Christian doctrine to conform to Hellenistic philosophy.

Describe the Hellenistic philosophy it conforms to and why Christianity was required to conform to it.

But interestinlgy enough, some points of theology which are considered almost exclusively Mormon are strikinlgy similar to what was taught among 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th century Christians.

You are not the first Mormon to make this claim but none have been able to prove it. They cannot prove it because it is not so.

Sorry you think that way.

It is not me thinking as much as it is a scientific fact. Science has shown the Book of Mormon not to be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.