A few questions for Mormons (LDS).

[Fatherof4]

Jimmy responds:
Mr. Layton; tsk, tks, tks,.... the truth is the truth. And the statements I made are true. And I did not even mention the" mornons teachings on Planet Kolob home world of heavenly father". My Present conviction are not based on emotion they are based on the word of God. You see God never changes, his word is true and sure. Your teachings, the statements of you prophets Change to fit the situation. Were as Gods word is that same yesterday today and forever. And when a true prophet of God speaks the words that God himself has put on his lips; it will not change down through time.
I pray that God would open your eyes to the truth of the shed blood of Christ Jesus who alone is able to wash away our sin.

Don responds:
This thread is degenerating fast. When I came here, I had hoped to be able to dialogue in some kind of meaningful debate, but then we branch out immediately into so many different areas, it would literally be a full time job to answer all of it.

Jimmy, you may have convinced yourself somehow that these things were taught in LDS classes...who am I to call you a liar. All I can say is that in all my years I have never heard them taught in the way that you describe them. In an arena where suspicion runs high on both sides, I believe that it is counterproductive to make allegations unless you are certain that they are true, and preferably have documentation as substantive evidence. As I pointed out, even other anti-Mormons would claim that the LDS are not taught these things. (That's why we are so very ignorant of our own teachings, you see.)

I have studied the restored gospel of Jesus Christ for some 35+ years now. I have studied the claims of Evangelicals in regard to the restored gospel. I have done so with an open mind and heart. The claims and criticisms have been answered in my mind to completion. So say I and so say many others, including a few honest Evangelical Christians. (Mosser and Owen come to mind...Mike Karosy comes to mind) They likewise have been answered to many millions of others. But the real situation is this. Truth is known by the Holy Ghost. No amount of reasoning and debate on it's own merits will suffice to teach anyone the truth. If you all have presupposed the answers to all of the questions, then you have closed your mind to the will of God.

I have asked for one topic upon which to begin debate. I have not received a reply to my request. It is impossible for me to continue to give any answers in depth when we are all over the place. If any of you would like to resume under the circumstances that I have outlined, please let me know. You may feel free to email me @ Riverdl@aol.com. I would be happy to return to the BB or to carry on a private debate. Your call. But this is not going anywhere.

I leave with my testimony that the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith by the Father and the Son. I KNOW by the power of the Holy Ghost. I KNOW my Savior...and that He lives and knows me. He is my redeemer. I KNOW that the Book of Mormon is the inspired word of God. In anticipation of the unbalanced responses that I see coming to this post, I would like to quote one Book of Mormon prophet.

Ether 12:26,27
"And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."

So do with it what you will. In the end, we are all accountable before God. I know that one day you all will know, as I know, that I have told you the truth. I leave these things in the name of the Savior, Jesus Christ, Amen.

 

[Multimom]

I am still waiting to hear from some of you regarding my last post. Is there one topic that we could start with?

And I am still waiting to see if you will take my challenge and read one book by an author who has come out of mormanism into Christianity.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by Multimom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am still waiting to hear from some of you regarding my last post. Is there one topic that we could start with?

And I am still waiting to see if you will take my challenge and read one book by an author who has come out of mormanism into Christianity.</font>[/QUOTE]HI!!

First, your last post was great! As for Mr. Layton, he has a big problem as he doesn't want to get involved with our Bible as the Mormon have cut and pasted parts into their book with some changes to make it look like it was from their prophets. He only has "their" doctrine and Book of Mormon to answer with. He can only "knock" us down by saying his church is the NEW vision from God and we are in what you may call...an ALL, OT version of sorts. He never responded to my request about his differences on my Jesus post.
Most Mormons will run when it gets hot and use the excuse of too many topics or simply because they are not CHANGING your Christian views. Strange we can handle the heat and they can't???? It will take Jesus Christ to open his heart. If he was a Christian before becoming a Mormon, he will make it to Heaven, but if not.........

God Bless............Alex

 

[Fatherof4]

Multimom writes:
And I am still waiting to see if you will take my challenge and read one book by an author who has come out of mormanism into Christianity.

Don:
Well, I will tell you that I have read several articles by the Tanners, as well as publications from ex Mormons for Jesus, and have read many testimonials from ex Mormons on several websites regarding how they were so deceived by the LDS church, have come out, and now have found the "real Jesus". To me it is every bit as compelling as when the ex Evangelical Christians that I have heard or read describe how Christianity deceived them, and now they know the real truth...be it atheism, agnosticism, humanism, or whatever. It tells of people rejecting truth for a lesser standard. I feel pity for them.

I have not read any books that deal with Mormons coming out of the religion. Have you read any literature at all from the LDS converts coming from a Protestant background? Try ldsconversion.com. Or I could forward a testimony coming from a former Evangelical Pastor that I know. He was baptized a couple of months ago, and has been exposed to every bit of anti LDS claim out there. He promoted it. He taught it...he debated the Mormons every chance that he got. It is a compelling testimony. There are literally thousands and thousands...perhaps millions of LDS who have come from Protestantism.

Then Alex continues:
HI!!
First, your last post was great! As for Mr. Layton, he has a big problem as he doesn't want to get involved with our Bible as the Mormon have cut and pasted parts into their book with some changes to make it look like it was from their prophets.

Don:
My friend, I have news for you. You don't own an exclusive on the Bible. It is not "our Bible". The Book of Mormon no more "cut and pasted parts" from the Bible than the New Testament did from the Old Testament.

Lehi carried the plates of brass with him. Within these plates were what we now have as the Old Testament. Is it a crime that Lehi, Nephi, and others would quote scripture in their teachings? The passages in question are even headlined with the corresponding Biblical references. How on earth can this be seen as some sort of plagiaristic sneak attack by the Mormons?

Alex:
He only has "their" doctrine and Book of Mormon to answer with. He can only "knock" us down by saying his church is the NEW vision from God and we are in what you may call...an ALL, OT version of sorts. He never responded to my request about his differences on my Jesus post.

Don:
I assume you are referring to your comment as follows:
"So, back to square one. Would you explain more clearly where we have a difference of opinion as to how the scriptures in the Christian Bible (under the Jesus post) are different in the Mormon's view. You and your church go both ways, meaning taking some of the bible as fact and the rest from the LDS's NEW, new meaning not the orginal Book of Mormon, as it has been "changed". Was this another revelation that now dis-credits Joseph Smith. Remember, our Bible is from the orginal writtings and does not need to be changed to create a "new vision" of God's divine plan but there are other religions who "change things" to make it please their appetite."

You see, even in this singular paragraph, you have managed to make not one, not two, not three, not four, not even five, but six arguments, all without any documentation. How on earth can I respond to that in a way that clarifies, without taking hours and hours to do so? This is precisely the dilemma that I have encountered since I have been here.

Since nothing else has been proposed as a debate topic, I suggest your comment regarding Jesus Christ. Who is Jesus Christ? What do the scriptures say about Him?

In my next post, I will address this. I expect that this topic will be satisfactory to all, since this is probably the most common criticism towards Mormons that I have heard from Evangelicals...that we worship another Jesus. It was also the one that Alex mentioned a couple of times.

Alex continues:
Most Mormons will run when it gets hot and use the excuse of too many topics or simply because they are not CHANGING your Christian views. Strange we can handle the heat and they can't???? It will take Jesus Christ to open his heart. If he was a Christian before becoming a Mormon, he will make it to Heaven, but if not.........

Don:
This is not true. Mormons have answered all of the usual senseless attacks from Evangelicals. Much of the Evangelical community simply is too blind to see it. I referred earlier to Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. They wrote a paper, from an Evangelical apologetic perspective, that makes this very point. In their paper, they come to 5 conclusions, that soundly refute the notion that the LDS do not defend themselves. Allow me to quote a bit.

"...much like testifying against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it...

It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex...

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibily interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number
of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in theissues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature
produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists."

By continuing the same criticisms that Mosser and Owen refer to, you are making their point for them. Are you even vaguely aware of the current status of apologetics between the Mormons and the Evangelicals? If not, I seriously suggest that you look a little further into it before continuing such baseless attacks. The Mosser and Owen article would be a good place for you to start. You may find it here. http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/cpoint10-2.html

Sometimes we (the LDS) leave a discussion when it is clear that people will not open their hearts to the truth. Christ Himself was silent at times when it became clear that the people would not listen. It does not mean that He did not have the truth.

BTW, since I accepted Jesus Christ from my earliest memories, and I was not baptized into the LDS faith until I was 8 years old, I appreciate your acceptance of me into your version of salvation. Now all you need to do is to convince the Lord that you, and not He, are to be the judge of all mankind. I hope you can do it...under your definition, I am in. (big grin)

Don

 

[Fatherof4]

I would like to now address the question from Alex...and I hope that I am not misinterpreting what you were looking for Alex. I would like to discuss Jesus Christ, purely from a Biblical and a historical perspective. I will not use the Book of Mormon in making my points.

This opening will be somewhat brief and concise. I fully expect that it will soon become lengthy and broad, as both sides seek to expand certain points.

I believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. I beleive that He is described as follows:

1. He is the Old Testament Jehovah.
2. He was pre-mortal. He was the Firstborn in the Spirit.
3. He is eternal in that He has always existed.
4. He was the promised Messiah and Savior as found in the Old Testament.
5. He is the Son of God, the Eternal Father. He is not the same being as the Father, but they are one God in the sense of will, perfection, and unity. They are not the same being in a literal sense.
6. He is the judge of all.
7. He is the second member of the Godhead.
8. He has a physical body of flesh and bones.
9. He was the only being to ever live that lived a perfect life.
10. He suffered and died for the sins of the world.
11. He was resurrected in a very literal sense.
12. He is the only way to salvation.
13. He will come again.
14. He is the source of all power, truth and light.

Feel free to expand on these points. I will look forward to your kind replies.

Don

 

[Multimom]

Don:

Using just the Bible were you ever able to find any illusion that would "teach" me that Jesus and Satan were brothers?

If you answered that one I missed it and I will go back and track down your response.

 

[Fatherof4]

Multimom:
Using just the Bible were you ever able to find any illusion that would "teach" me that Jesus and Satan were brothers?

Don:
Well, this is irritating. I just finished my reply and lost my Internet connection. Guess what, I get to do it all over!

First, to Multimom, thank you for your question. I would like to answer it by stating that in all my years of Seminary, Institute, Sunday School classes, etc., that I have never heard...or do not recall hearing taught that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Evangelical Christians teach that the LDS teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers. I think it would be more accurate to acknowledge that we accept that all creation is of the Father. Heaven and earth and the host of them were finished previously to the physical creation.(Gen. 1,2:1) This would include Jesus, all of us, and Satan. Before I go any further, it is important to lay some foundation. You cannot get to "B" before you understand "A".

LDS do not believe in the theory of ex-nihilo creation. Since ex-nihilo is another subject altogether, I will not go too far into it at this particular point and time, but suffice it to say that we believe that Jesus is eternal, and at the same time, was created by the Father. For Evangelicals, this would seem to be a contradiction, but for the LDS, who do not believe in the ex-nihilo theory, it presents absolutely no problem. It would be somewhat similar to a potter creating a clay pot. He makes the pot, but the elements are eternal. So it is in creation. We believe that all matter is eternal, but God uses matter in the creation of His works. But again, this is another topic for discussion. I realize that we have some doctrinal differences here also.

Now, having laid that foundation, let me begin with a Biblical definition of who Satan is. Lucifer (Satan) was the light bearer, the shining one, the morning star. He was not always the enemy to God. He was cut down to the nations. (Isaiah 14:12) At some point, before this world was created, he became evil. He became proud. (Isaiah 14:13,14) Satan initiated a great war in heaven and fought against Michael and his angels. (Rev. 12:7)

Because of his pride, he was cast out of heaven, and cut down, (Rev. 12:8,9) and began deceiving the whole world. The Biblical principle of reaping what we sow (Gal. 6:7-9) is exactly what occurred with Lucifer, only it was in the premortal realm.

Now that I have outlined my understanding of LDS doctrine regarding Lucifer, let me describe who I understand Jesus is and was. He is the complete antithesis of Lucifer. Where Satan is proud, He is meek and mild. Where Satan sought the glory of God, Jesus submitted to the Father's will.

Jesus was the firstborn in the premortal realm. The Bible acknowledges Him as the firstbegotten (Gk. prototokos...literally means fisrtborn whether of man or beast). This does not refer to Jesus in the flesh, for we know that Adam was the first man.) He was the firstbegotten even before He was brought into the world. (Heb. 1:6)

His choices further separated Him from Satan. He loved righteousness, hated iniquity, and God (the Father) anointed Him above His fellows (Gk. metochos...partners). (Heb. 1:9)

So what about the relationship? Let's recap.

1. The hosts of heaven (all of them) existed before the physical creation of this earth.
2. Lucifer (Satan) was the light bearer, the shining one, the morning star. (Isa. 14:12-14)
3. Because of pride and the war in heaven, he was cast out, and became Satan, deceiving the whole earth. (Rev. 12:7-9)
4. Jesus was also in the premortal realm, and was the firstborn. He was preeminent over all other of God's creations, inlcuding Lucifer. (Heb. 1:6)
5. Because He loved righteousness, He was anointed above His fellows. (Heb. 1:9)

I hope that this helps.

Don

[ June 28, 2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

[Will]

Multimom,

You are correct Mormons do teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers. They do it thus. They believe the Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother near the planet KOLOB have actual sex which results in Spirit Children. They also believe that Jesus was the firstborn of these children and that Satan was a later child.

Now most people think this means they are teaching Jesus and Satan are brothers. However as you can see from the above avoided questions and answers this is open to later revelations that prove this doctrine wrong. Answers seem to be slippery, don't they?

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by Don Layton:
Multimom:
(Gen. 1,2:1) This would include Jesus, all of us, and Satan. Before I go any further, it is important to lay some foundation. You cannot get to "B" before you understand "A".

but suffice it to say that we believe that Jesus is eternal, and at the same time, was created by the Father. For Evangelicals, this would seem to be a contradiction, but for the LDS, who do not believe in the ex-nihilo theory, it presents absolutely no problem. It would be somewhat similar to a potter creating a clay pot. He makes the pot, but the elements are eternal. So it is in creation. We believe that all matter is eternal, but God uses matter in the creation of His works. But again, this is another topic for discussion. I realize that we have some doctrinal differences here also.

Because of his pride, he was cast out of heaven, and cut down, (Rev. 12:8,9) and began deceiving the whole world. The Biblical principle of reaping what we sow (Gal. 6:7-9) is exactly what occurred with Lucifer, only it was in the premortal realm.

Jesus was the firstborn in the premortal realm. The Bible acknowledges Him as the firstbegotten (Gk. prototokos...literally means fisrtborn whether of man or beast). This does not refer to Jesus in the flesh, for we know that Adam was the first man.) He was the firstbegotten even before He was brought into the world. (Heb. 1:6)

His choices further separated Him from Satan. He loved righteousness, hated iniquity, and God (the Father) anointed Him above His fellows (Gk. metochos...partners). (Heb. 1:9)

So what about the relationship? Let's recap.

1. The hosts of heaven (all of them) existed before the physical creation of this earth.
2. Lucifer (Satan) was the light bearer, the shining one, the morning star. (Isa. 14:12-14)
3. Because of pride and the war in heaven, he was cast out, and became Satan, deceiving the whole earth. (Rev. 12:7-9)
4. Jesus was also in the premortal realm, and was the firstborn. He was preeminent over all other of God's creations, inlcuding Lucifer. (Heb. 1:6)
5. Because He loved righteousness, He was anointed above His fellows. (Heb. 1:9)

I hope that this helps.

Don

Don:&gt;&gt;&gt;This would include Jesus, all of us, and Satan. &gt;&gt;&gt;

Boy, now we are getting to some serious differences! If I understand you right, you are implying that even though Jesus is eternal, He is not GOD and that God just gave Him authority. To us, Jesus is God.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;it presents absolutely no problem. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;How can it not create a problem when most of the Bible, especially in the NT, to anyone who reads it, cannot help but to believe Jesus is God?&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;but the elements are eternal. &gt;&gt;&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;Where do you get this from. God eventually destroys all and creates a new heaven and Earth?&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and God (the Father) anointed Him above His fellows (Gk. metochos...partners). (Heb. 1:9)&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;Again Jesus is God? Are yo still saying that He isn't God? If, again, big problems with the Mormon doctrine!&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;The hosts of heaven (all of them)&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt; What do you mean by, all of them? All of them who?&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Same problem with 4 and 5.&lt;&lt;&lt;

We aren't to first base yet and you sound like you are reading a different Bible than me?? I would start with scriptures but I want to make sure I understand you.

Sorry for butting in, Multimom!!

God Bless.........Alex

 

[Fatherof4]

Will:
You are correct Mormons do teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers. They do it thus. They believe the Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother near the planet KOLOB have actual sex which results in Spirit Children.

Don:
Other than the first sentence, (which is true in the sense that I describe earlier...not in the sensationalistic manner that you present) I challenge you to provide evidence of your above statements from LDS sources. Specifically, where do the LDS teach anywhere that Heavenly Father and Mother near Kolob "have actual sex". Don't give me some vague thing that can be interpreted in several different ways that was expressed as opinion over 100 years ago. If you are correct, then you should be able to find at least one contemporary and authoritative quote that clearly teaches what you claim. We do not believe to know any such things.

I could just as easily say that Baptists believe that God is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world, because the believe in the ex-nihilo doctrine. Or that Baptists believe in a merciless God because He will damn all those who have lived and never heard His name. Or I could accuse you of a hundred other things. But I don't. I don't need to become accusatory or attempt to shock in order to rationally debate a topic.

Will:
They also believe that Jesus was the firstborn of these children and that Satan was a later child.

Don:
Child in the sense of a creation, yes...as I outlined in my last response.

Will:
Now most people think this means they are teaching Jesus and Satan are brothers.

Don:
Since when do you speak for "most people". I notice that you guys keep assuming that everyone else in the world agrees with you, and that is hardly the case. Earlier, someone referred to the Bible as if it were owned outright by Evangelical so called Christians. Your assumptions are astounding!

Will:
However as you can see from the above avoided questions and answers this is open to later revelations that prove this doctrine wrong.

Don:
Nothing was avoided on my part. I answered the question and provided scriptural documentation. You are the one that avoided any legitimate response to my post. Pot calling the kettle black, sir??? BTW, what in the world are you referring to about later revelations proving "this doctrine wrong". Are we still talking about the same topic?

As far as proving the doctrine wrong, your ignorance is showing again. Go back and read the post dealing with your own Mosser and Owen.

Will:
Answers seem to be slippery, don't they?

Don:
Since I answered the question directly per our doctrine as I understand it, although it was not the twisted perspective that you are accustomed to, documenting my beliefs with Biblical passages, I suggest that my answers were solid. Since you did not respond to any of it, again I suggest that you remove the beam from your own eye before looking for a mote in mine.

I absolutely hate when the attacks turn so personal. Why don't you respond to the substance? And without documentation, quit making claims that just are not true.

Don

 

[Will]

Will:
Don, If you noticed I addressed my post to Multimom, not you. You left our previous discussion in this thread unanswered, so I felt you really aren’t interested in discourse.

Don:
Other than the first sentence, (which is true in the sense that I describe earlier...not in the sensationalistic manner that you present) I challenge you to provide evidence of your above statements from LDS sources. Specifically, where do the LDS teach anywhere that Heavenly Father and Mother near Kolob "have actual sex". Don't give me some vague thing that can be interpreted in several different ways that was expressed as opinion over 100 years ago. If you are correct, then you should be able to find at least one contemporary and authoritative quote that clearly teaches what you claim. We do not believe to know any such things.

Will:
Do you believe in KOLOB?

Do you believe a heavenly father and mother live there?

Do you believe that all of us are offspring of the heavenly father and mother in pre-existence?

When Brigham Young stated, “[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be,” what was he talking about? If not actual sex, then what?

Don:
I could just as easily say that Baptists believe that God is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world, because the believe in the ex-nihilo doctrine. Or that Baptists believe in a merciless God because He will damn all those who have lived and never heard His name. Or I could accuse you of a hundred other things. But I don't. I don't need to become accusatory or attempt to shock in order to rationally debate a topic.

Will:
If you want to discuss these issues from a Baptist perspective then why not open threads to do that. I’m sure you’ll find lively discussions and also have to defend your own beliefs on these subjects. To claim that you’re holding back on these issues is silly.

Don:
Since when do you speak for "most people". I notice that you guys keep assuming that everyone else in the world agrees with you, and that is hardly the case. Earlier, someone referred to the Bible as if it were owned outright by Evangelical so called Christians. Your assumptions are astounding!

Will:
I just hate it when you become so personal like this.

Don:
Nothing was avoided on my part. I answered the question and provided scriptural documentation.

Will:
Your answer as in earlier in the thread, stating Blacks have always been able to be members of the Mormon Church, was incomplete and therefore misleading.

Don:
You are the one that avoided any legitimate response to my post. Pot calling the kettle black, sir???

Will:
Any observers, please read this entire thread and judge for yourself.

Don:
BTW, what in the world are you referring to about later revelations proving "this doctrine wrong". Are we still talking about the same topic?

Will:
I’m talking about our previous discussion in this thread and the ever changing doctrines of the Mormon Church. Again our belief in eternal unchanging truth.

Don:
As far as proving the doctrine wrong, your ignorance is showing again. Go back and read the post dealing with your own Mosser and Owen.

Will:
Thanks for telling me Mosser and Owen are my own as I don’t even know who they are. There you go getting personal again.

Don:
Since I answered the question directly per our doctrine as I understand it, although it was not the twisted perspective that you are accustomed to, documenting my beliefs with Biblical passages, I suggest that my answers were solid. Since you did not respond to any of it, again I suggest that you remove the beam from your own eye before looking for a mote in mine.

Will:
By calling attention to “the beam” in my eye you contradict the very verse you’re paraphrasing. Unbelievable.

Don:
I absolutely hate when the attacks turn so personal. Why don't you respond to the substance? And without documentation, quit making claims that just are not true.

Will:
Then don’t become so personal if you hate it so much and stop acting ignorant to inconvenient doctrines of your Church.

 

[Fatherof4]

Help me out here guys. I am trying to post a reply and the message just keeps coming back that I cannot post a HTML tag (parentheses).

Have I been blackballed? (Smile)

Don

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by Don Layton:
Help me out here guys. I am trying to post a reply and the message just keeps coming back that I cannot post a HTML tag (parentheses).

Have I been blackballed? (Smile)

Don

I think not Don. Maybe just a "glich" in the system, try again. While reading the above a thought came to my feeble mind;Why don't you reference to your Book of Mormon as we do the Bible? That would be better for those of us who don't have the book handy. I was the one who said, our Bible. That was meant in the Christian sense as we?/I can't call you a Christian, at least an acting one meaing that you were saved at eight which is a little young to know much about the Bible and for sure you are not acting like one now(again in the way I see one as a Christian).

Carry on......

God Bless..........Alex

 

[TaterTot]

I have to applaud Don for his "gutsiness" to leap into this den of hungry lions!!
Don requested that a topic be debated, one at a time, and several are being thrown at him in each post, it seems. I suggest we stick with the KOLOB issue. (Maybe we could start with who lives there and what goes on there.)If this is too broad (you know, the Father/Mother thing) we can narrow it. Just a thought!
Tater

 

[Fatherof4]

(I have continued trying. I am going to try again, this time sending it in small sections. Here goes the first.)

Alex writes:
Don:&gt;&gt;&gt;This would include Jesus, all of us, and Satan. &gt;&gt;&gt;

Boy, now we are getting to some serious differences! If I understand you right, you are implying that even though Jesus is eternal, He is not GOD and that God just gave Him authority. To us, Jesus is God.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Don:
I never said that Jesus is not GOD. The Father did give Him authority.

Alex:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;it presents absolutely no problem. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;How can it not create a problem when most of the Bible, especially in the NT, to anyone who reads it, cannot help but to believe Jesus is God?&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Don:
Jesus being God had nothing to do with my comment about not presenting a problem. I referred to the definition of creation. I am sorry if you misunderstood me, Alex.

Alex:
&gt;&gt;&gt;but the elements are eternal. &gt;&gt;&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;Where do you get this from. God eventually destroys all and creates a new heaven and Earth?&lt;&lt;&lt;

Don:
The Bible speaks of creation in several passages and uses several terms to describe it. Here is a cut and paste list from my Greek and Hebrew lexicon.

 

[Fatherof4]

(Well, the last one worked. Here goes part II.)

bara' (baw-raw')
Hebrew: verb
Possible Definitions:
1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
1b) (Niph) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiph) to make yourselves fat

'asah (aw-saw')
Hebrew: verb
Possible Definitions:
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
1a) (Qal)
1) to do, work, make, produce
a) to do
b) to work
c) to deal (with)
d) to act, act with effect, effect
2) to make
a) to make
b) to produce
c) to prepare
d) to make (an offering)
e) to attend to, put in order
f) to observe, celebrate
g) to acquire (property)
h) to appoint, ordain, institute
i) to bring about
j) to use
k) to spend, pass
1b) (Niph)
1) to be done
2) to be made
3) to be produced
4) to be offered
5) to be observed
6) to be used
1c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

nathan (naw-than')
Hebrew: verb
Possible Definitions:
1) to give, put, set
1a) (Qal)
1) to give, bestow, grant, permit, ascribe, employ, devote, consecrate, dedicate, pay wages, sell, exchange, lend, commit, entrust, give over, deliver up, yield produce, occasion, produce, requite to, report, mention, utter,
stretch out, extend
2) to put, set, put on, put upon, set, appoint, assign, designate
3) to make, constitute
1b) (Niph)
1) to be given, be bestowed, be provided, be entrusted to, be granted to, be permitted, be issued, be published, be uttered, be assigned
2) to be set, be put, be made, be inflicted
1c) (Hoph)
1) to be given, be bestowed, be given up, be delivered up
2) to be put upon

 

[Fatherof4]

(And here is the last part. I apologize to all for the broken up nature of this post.)

I base what I know on this subject on modern revelation. Truth is, modern science supports the claims of Joseph Smith on this to the letter. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. As you see, the Hebrew supports this position fully.

Alex:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;and God (the Father) anointed Him above His fellows (Gk. metochos...partners). (Heb. 1:9)&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;Again Jesus is God? Are yo still saying that He isn't God? If, again, big problems with the Mormon doctrine!&lt;&lt;&lt;

Don:
Nope! I didn't say that. Jesus is the second member of the Godhead. He is God, and one with the Father as I previously described. But He does not share the same essence with the Father.

Alex:
&gt;&gt;&gt;The hosts of heaven (all of them)&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt; What do you mean by, all of them? All of them who?&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Same problem with 4 and 5.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Don:
All of creation as previously outlined in chapter one of Genesis. Genesis chapter one describes the creation of the universe, this world, plants and animal life and man. Then chapter two verse one says " THUS, referring to the previous chapter, the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. All of creation, including you and I. Kol means literally "everything".

Alex:
We aren't to first base yet and you sound like you are reading a different Bible than me?? I would start with scriptures but I want to make sure I understand you.

Don:
I hope that I could help.

God Bless you too Alex!!!

Don

 

[Fatherof4]

Will:
Don, If you noticed I addressed my post to Multimom, not you. You left our previous discussion in this thread unanswered, so I felt you really aren’t interested in discourse.

Don:
Sorry Will, I thought this was open for me. The only reason I did not answer all of the comments earlier, was as I explained...it is getting way out of hand. Is there something specific that I can start you with related to the topic that Alex brought up, being the nature of Jesus Christ?

If I were not interested in discourse, I would not be here. I seek to clarify some of the misunderstandings that Baptists have regarding the LDS religion. Apparently I'm not doing a good enough job.

Don

 

[Fatherof4]

Will:
Do you believe in KOLOB?

Don:
I know very little of a place called Kolob. Much has been speculated, but all that I know is what is taught in the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.

Will:
Do you believe a heavenly father and mother live there?

Don:
No I do not. The Book of Abraham is clear that Kolob is nigh unto God, but as far as I read, they do not live there.

Will:
Do you believe that all of us are offspring of the heavenly father and mother in pre-existence?

Don:
Yes, but in a spiritual sense. I do not believe in some sort of physical relations. I will not say definitively that this could not be the case, but I very sincerely doubt it.

I believe that spirit beings are created spiritually, and physical beings are created physically. (Such would be the case with any parent/child relationship in this mortality.)

Will:
When Brigham Young stated, “[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be,” what was he talking about? If not actual sex, then what?

Don:
I do not see anything in this statement that would necessarily mean that Brigham Young taught the process was physical. To take your logic, we could extend it to mean that a bed was involved, and a whole host of other things that are not really anything I want to discuss in a PG rated setting. From other writings of Brigham Young, I believe that he had a clear understanding of the difference between physical and spiritual creation...and none of us believes that God is our literal Father in the flesh. That was one of the distinctions of the Savior. I cannot definitively speak on behalf of Brigham, and neither can you, but one thing IS for sure. Even IF (and it is a stretch) he did beleive such a thing, it is still not doctrine and never has been.

Will (quoting Don):
I could just as easily say that Baptists believe that God is responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world, because the believe in the ex-nihilo doctrine. Or that Baptists believe in a merciless God because He will damn all those who have lived and never heard His name. Or I could accuse you of a hundred other things. But I don't. I don't need to become accusatory or attempt to shock in order to rationally debate a topic.

Will:
If you want to discuss these issues from a Baptist perspective then why not open threads to do that. I’m sure you’ll find lively discussions and also have to defend your own beliefs on these subjects. To claim that you’re holding back on these issues is silly.

Don:
Because I DON'T believe that you DO believe in a merciless God. (I do believe that your doctrine implies that, but I stop short of calling it your doctrine.) My point was that anyone can read anything into any faith that they want, if they're looking for it. You only have to repeat the charge over and over again and some people begin to believe such things.

I have no interest in helping you to define your doctrine. If you tell me that Baptists believe something, I will not tirelessly look for obscure quotes of speculation, and then define it as your doctrine.

Will (quoting Don):
Since when do you speak for "most people". I notice that you guys keep assuming that everyone else in the world agrees with you, and that is hardly the case. Earlier, someone referred to the Bible as if it were owned outright by Evangelical so called Christians. Your assumptions are astounding!

Will:
I just hate it when you become so personal like this.

Don:
All I did was to quote you and Alex, my friend. (BTW, I still find Alex very interesting and honest. I don't always agree with him, but he is fair for the most part.)

Will:
Your answer as in earlier in the thread, stating Blacks have always been able to be members of the Mormon Church, was incomplete and therefore misleading.

Don:
I am sorry that you feel that way. I did not feel that I had been misleading. If you go back and actually read what was posted, I think that you will see that I tried to respond to something very specific. It was not meant to be all inclusive. In addition, I feel fairly confident that everyone here realizes that (most) Blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood in the LDS church until 1978. I would have nothing to gain by trying to be incomplete and misleading. Let's leave it with my apology if you felt that I was not complete enough.

Will (quoting Don):
You are the one that avoided any legitimate response to my post. Pot calling the kettle black, sir???

Will:
Any observers, please read this entire thread and judge for yourself.

Don:
Yeah, that'll be real fair and unbiased. Let's gather up all the Mormons here and see what they think. While we're at it, let's ask the Democratic National Committee who they think would have made a better President, Bush or Gore.

Will:
I’m talking about our previous discussion in this thread and the ever changing doctrines of the Mormon Church. Again our belief in eternal unchanging truth.

Don:
This is your original quote:
"Now most people think this means they are teaching Jesus and Satan are brothers. However as you can see from the above avoided questions and answers this is open to later revelations that prove this doctrine wrong."

Once again, I have attempted to answer all of the questions. Even now, after a plea to reduce the topics to one, here I go again. I am dealing with at least 7 or 8 at the present, and trying to respond to several different individuals. If I missed one or two items, I apologize. But go back and look at how many of my points have gone completely unanswered.

As far as the second part of your claim, you speak specifically of the Jesus and Satan relationship as being changed in the LDS church. I am asking you to provide any documentation that this has occurred.

Will:
By calling attention to “the beam” in my eye you contradict the very verse you’re paraphrasing. Unbelievable.

Don:
In that case, I would like to commend you on your vast intelligence, wit and your great intentions. You are a remarkable person and a true Christian. (grin)

Will:
Then don’t become so personal if you hate it so much and stop acting ignorant to inconvenient doctrines of your Church.

Don:
I am not the one who has thrown out a flurry of personal accusations while berating our beliefs here. If in response, I point out why your position is unreasonable, so be it.

I am hardly acting ignorant of my church doctrine. Will, you still don't have a clue what constitutes LDS doctrine, and I have attempted to explain it several times before on this thread. Just because I do not acknowledge the things that you have implied to be our doctrine as our doctrine, does not mean that I am ignorant to the things that we believe...or that I ignore "inconveinient doctrines" of the LDS church.

I absolutely guarantee you and promise you that I know more, much more about the LDS faith and doctrine than you do. This is not meant to boast. It is a statement of fact. And you know much more about Protestant doctrine than I do. So where do you get off imposing my doctrine on me? (Especially without any authoritative documentation.) This is nearly as egotistical and condescending as a person can get. I am sorry about getting personal here, but it's the truth. (I still pray for you and wish you the best.)

Will, have a nice day!

Don

[ June 29, 2002, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

[Fatherof4]

Tater writes:
I have to applaud Don for his "gutsiness" to leap into this den of hungry lions!!

Don replies:
Grrrrr

Tater:
Don requested that a topic be debated, one at a time, and several are being thrown at him in each post, it seems. I suggest we stick with the KOLOB issue. (Maybe we could start with who lives there and what goes on there.)If this is too broad (you know, the Father/Mother thing) we can narrow it. Just a thought!
Tater

Don:
I thought we were focusing on Jesus Christ (and 9 or 10 other issues) I don't really care if we discuss one thing or the other. You guys call it...all I know is that it is very late and I am very tired, and need to go to bed.

Tater, thank you for your kind remarks.

Don

[ June 29, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]