The Mormon Belief of Deification

[Jamesone5]

Well, I have been the one who has been beating the “fruits” drum and now you feel you have me with my own criteria. But are these studies really about the fruits of Mormonism or are we jumping to conclusions here? Lets look a little deeper.

I too, do not live in a bubble and really with so many of my family members still in the Church with many doing Temple work and some havuing gone on Missions, I can look at the "fruits' of the LDS Religion from many vantage points. Also live in a smaller town and am acquainted with many Mormons. Don't get me wrong--- there are many good "fruits" with people practicing the Mormon Religion. Certainly the emphasis on family your Church has is really an aspect I have incorporated in my own family as I am remarried with 4 new children [2 still in the house].


As to suffering losses of loved ones though, I really have noticed a profound difference in how the Mormon church teaches one to deal with it with maybe a lack of Christ's Peace that should surround someone if they believe in the True Christ of the Bible. Had an opportunity to speak from the Bible at the funerals of my mother and my oldest sister last year and those funerals were both in LDS wards,. I did thank both bishops for accommodating me and assured both of the bishops beforehand that I would not speak on anything Doctrinally confrontational. I could tell in the reactions from the "LDS faithful" on my referring to John 14:27 and my words on that verse----that it was almost foreign to them. In fact, I had a couple of discussions about "my interpretations" 'with Church members after the funeral of my mother, in particular. The same goes with my siblings in a fairly large family, where all but two of us are LDS and the differences in just dealing with losses go far beyond individual personalities.

As to the rest of your post that supposedly refutes the statistics I first quoted,-I still have to take an overall view and think that Utah [with a population that is predominantly Mormon] would have statistics more-or-less solidly bearing out the fact that Mormons are being "fed" properly and the evidence of the One True Church would be firmly unquestioned by those statistics, Noticed you put one study there that was done by BYU, which disputes that fact that this is all data by non-Mormon researchers

 

[Jamesone5]

The testimony is only a prized asset if it is real. A testimony without realistic questioning is not real. Do really think we are so stupid that we don’t realize this? In saying you were mixed up, I was referring to the fact that your understanding of LDS teachings is inaccurate.

I too, had what i thought was a solid testimony at one time but then I found out it was mostly derived from deceptions. No, Mormons are not stupid but rather deceived as i once was. As to my "understandings" [which you say are innacurate] versus maybe yours, it all comes down to a matter of relative understandings. You believe in the Church while I do not and thus the understandings you think i do not have are based on the fact that I no longer believe that the Mormon Church is the One , True Church established by Joseph Smith in this Dispensation. Like I say, none of the prophets of the Church like Joseph smith spoke their prophesies or established new doctrines [that the God supposedly took away from the earth] in any sort of code that is only understandable to the faithful Mormons. It is all very clear and the question for me was "does the Doctrine of Eternal Progression show up anywhere else in the Bible?" or "is this the True Chirst the LDS Church presents?"

didn’t say anything about swaying. I was challenging this statement of yours, (”One question that came up a lot in this trial in my life was "Would the Mormon Jesus give me the same Peace, that has sustained me now for 18 years?" The answer is a resounding "No' because He is merely a Created Exalted man in Mormonism and by the very nature of their belief in Him, He cannot have this type of powers”). You are mixing past and present tenses here, but want to convey the idea that these feelings and ideas influenced your leaving the church. Yet all the persuasive ideas against the church are listed as present feelings. I still want to know if you can honestly say that you had no exposure to any critical material about the church or its doctrines before you decided to leave the church. If you cannot say this honestly, your argument about only being led by the spirit falls apart.

On the last page of this thread, you said something about the fact that maybe me in my distressed state might have let someone antagonistic to the Church alter my own beliefs. Here's the thing though---I really think that under your understandings in the Mormon Faith, we each absolutely need man to teach us everything. That we are all like "ships without rudders" and so dependent on man to teach us right doctrines and of course we supposedly need modern-day prophets to do that.Also, that each of us can be so easily swayed by the wrong person who might be antagonistic to the beliefs we once held dear. That the True Holy spirit is unable to get us on the right pathways, because that's really where it all stands--"Do we trust the True Holy Spirit to put us on solid ground?' i. As to past and present tenses and my understandings, I very well remember how hard it was when I knew I had to deny the LDS Church. I have grown in my Christian understandings over the last 18 years, but also I have realized more Blessings [ or am now realizing them in greater magnitude].

 

[proveallthings]

Now about the idea of using the writings of Paul to be the sole standard to judge all other scripture by. I have long suspected that Evangelicals generally unconsciously believed this, but would never openly admit it. To think that you would consciously and openly state that you hold the writings of an apostle, who was not even one of the original 12, above the words coming directly from the Lord himself is just amazing to me. I do admire your honesty, however.

Well the scriptures that point to this clear and evident fact have been posted over and over, I can post them again and many more if you will agree to accept the clear reading of Gods Word? Also the scriptures are very clear that we are not to allow heresy nor have fellowship with those we know teach heresy, I have posted some of those, but you seem to ignore them also? How about you give an answer to Jamesone5 and his latest post that relates to the "fruits" of your religion?

George, the scriptures you have used to show that Pauls writings are superior could have other very plausible interpretations. In my opinion, you have chosen the interpretation that contradicts most of the rest of the Bible. Show me the one scripture you feel is most explicit in proving your point and I will explain how I would interpret it differently.

 

[proveallthings]

I could tell in the reactions from the "LDS faithful" on my referring to John 14:27 and my words on that verse----that it was almost foreign to them. In fact, I had a couple of discussions about "my interpretations" 'with Church members after the funeral of my mother, in particular.[/B]

I would have loved to have heard your explanation of John 14:27. I actually expect that I would likely gain additional insights that would be beneficial. Brigham Young taught that Latter-day Saints do not have all the truth and if we want it, we will have to get some of it from other religions and perspectives.

As to the rest of your post that supposedly refutes the statistics I first quoted,-I still have to take an overall view and think that Utah [with a population that is predominantly Mormon] would have statistics more-or-less solidly bearing out the fact that Mormons are being "fed" properly and the evidence of the One True Church would be firmly unquestioned by those statistics, Noticed you put one study there that was done by BYU, which disputes that fact that this is all data by non-Mormon researchers

I actually did not say all were from non-Mormon sources, but most. And if you will look closer, you will find that the BYU statistic was using data from the non-Mormon study.

 

[proveallthings]

On the last page of this thread, you said something about the fact that maybe me in my distressed state might have let someone antagonistic to the Church alter my own beliefs. Here's the thing though---I really think that under your understandings in the Mormon Faith, we each absolutely need man to teach us everything. That we are all like "ships without rudders" and so dependent on man to teach us right doctrines and of course we supposedly need modern-day prophets to do that.Also, that each of us can be so easily swayed by the wrong person who might be antagonistic to the beliefs we once held dear. That the True Holy spirit is unable to get us on the right pathways, because that's really where it all stands--"Do we trust the True Holy Spirit to put us on solid ground?' i. As to past and present tenses and my understandings, I very well remember how hard it was when I knew I had to deny the LDS Church. I have grown in my Christian understandings over the last 18 years, but also I have realized more Blessings [ or am now realizing them in greater magnitude].

We each have our own unique set of circumstances that helps us learn what we need to learn. I am open to the idea that with your unique situation and personality, you were not able to learn certain truths at a particular time in your life from the LDS church. You may have needed to learn them through another medium. I believe God's spirit can teach you and probably is teaching you things you need to learn. In the process, however, you have mistakenly assumed that what the church was trying to teach you was what you were understanding. And then you have taken your misunderstood concepts and magnified them to an understanding of the Church's view of the Savior and the atonement and other things that in many ways is not even recognizable to informed Latter-day Saints. So far, nearly every statement you have made about church doctrine as a reason for not believing is not LDS church doctrine at all.

 

[Jamesone5]

On the last page of this thread, you said something about the fact that maybe me in my distressed state might have let someone antagonistic to the Church alter my own beliefs. Here's the thing though---I really think that under your understandings in the Mormon Faith, we each absolutely need man to teach us everything. That we are all like "ships without rudders" and so dependent on man to teach us right doctrines and of course we supposedly need modern-day prophets to do that.Also, that each of us can be so easily swayed by the wrong person who might be antagonistic to the beliefs we once held dear. That the True Holy spirit is unable to get us on the right pathways, because that's really where it all stands--"Do we trust the True Holy Spirit to put us on solid ground?' i. As to past and present tenses and my understandings, I very well remember how hard it was when I knew I had to deny the LDS Church. I have grown in my Christian understandings over the last 18 years, but also I have realized more Blessings [ or am now realizing them in greater magnitude].

We each have our own unique set of circumstances that helps us learn what we need to learn. I am open to the idea that with your unique situation and personality, you were not able to learn certain truths at a particular time in your life from the LDS church. You may have needed to learn them through another medium. I believe God's spirit can teach you and probably is teaching you things you need to learn. In the process, however, you have mistakenly assumed that what the church was trying to teach you was what you were understanding. And then you have taken your misunderstood concepts and magnified them to an understanding of the Church's view of the Savior and the atonement and other things that in many ways is not even recognizable to informed Latter-day Saints. So far, nearly every statement you have made about church doctrine as a reason for not believing is not LDS church doctrine at all.

Ir is true that we each have our own unique circumstances in life, and in all that we become conditioned in a sense to sometimes merely accept things we were previously taught as established truths. But when Christ seems to be calling us closer to Him [as I felt after the loss of my son], we find that we really have to examine and test all things , especially those things I personally was taught for many years growing up in the Church and for some of my adult years. With your own testimony in the LDS Church it seems hard for you to understand why I rejected the same supposed One, True Church but I did-- to you, I supposedly don't understand the True concepts or teachings or I was led by some who are antagonistic to the Church, or maybe at one time God might lead me back, etc..

In John 14:6 Christ solidly proclaims that He Is the WAY, the Truth and the Life and that no one can come to the Father , except throught Him. There is no adding to that WAY, as in "also through Joseph Smith" [and the supposed True Church he established] or maybe "also the Catholic Church" and the Pope who leads it, but Christ is the Complete and only WAY to the Father. Man, through his established Religions, tends to try to control that "Way to the Father" and really in that control is where the LDS Church is really not unlike the Catholic Religion or maybe some very Fundamentalist Christian Churches, like the JW's. Man tends to try to stifle the Holy Spirit and His ability to lead us to all Truth through earthly Religions and the control man exerts in His Religions. A good analysis of this is: "Religion is man's imperfect way to bring us supposedly closer to the God, while Jesus Christ is God's Perfect Way to draw each of us closer to Him".


Don't get me wrong- I do not abhor going to Church, because I am actually a member [and a Children's Sunday School teacher] of a 1st Baptist Congregation, but Church doctrine really isn't something that is taught. The Apostles Creed or any other established Creed coming out of the early Church is not something we recite or learn work-for word. The same Holy Spirit has led members of my Church to the same Truths and while their might be slight disagreements on minor items coming out in Bible Studies, pretty much all agree that Christ is the Way and we are all learning and certainly agree that we are "Sinners Saved by Grace". I strongly believe I am being "fed" in this Church as well as my family.

 

[Jamesone5]

I actually did not say all were from non-Mormon sources, but most. And if you will look closer, you will find that the BYU statistic was using data from the non-Mormon study.

You are right-- you did not make the claim that i accused you of. Still though, as to the "fruits" of your Church in teachings it's members to cope with not only losses, but also so many things that come up in our lives--I see so many signs that Christ really isn't taught in the LDS Church as the the One who can "bear our burdens". While you are taught to "work out your own Salvation", I think that also plays out in the area of coping with life's problems on one's own.

 

[By Grace]

My only purpose was to remind you that there are other perspectives other than yours which can just as easily be shown in the Bible. It was a reminder that Evangelicals are not the only people who can logically read the Bible. Other intelligent people are studying the Bible just as sincerely and diligently, but coming up with different understandings.

On May 23, you promised to discuss the doctrine AS FOUND IN THE BIBLE. That has not happened.

Instead, you thought I was calling Mormons stupid, which I wasn't. Therefore, I am still waiting you to fulfill your promise.

 

[proveallthings]

In John 14:6 Christ solidly proclaims that He Is the WAY, the Truth and the Life and that no one can come to the Father , except throught Him. There is no adding to that WAY, as in "also through Joseph Smith" [and the supposed True Church he established] or maybe "also the Catholic Church" and the Pope who leads it, but Christ is the Complete and only WAY to the Father. Man, through his established Religions, tends to try to control that "Way to the Father" and really in that control is where the LDS Church is really not unlike the Catholic Religion or maybe some very Fundamentalist Christian Churches, like the JW's. Man tends to try to stifle the Holy Spirit and His ability to lead us to all Truth through earthly Religions and the control man exerts in His Religions.

I agree that when man sets up a church without direct authority from Christ, there are going to be problems. If a person is looking for a church with the same authority as the church run by the original apostles of Christ, they would need to find one that at least claims the same authority. That of course, does not guarantee you have found His church, but it does guarantee that any church that does not claim the same authority is not His authorized church and is, therefore, a flawed church of man. If Joseph Smith was like any other reformer, who only claimed authority from the Bible like everyone else, you would have a good point. But that is not Joseph Smith’s claim. Joseph Smith made the same claim as Moses, Peter and Paul. If you don’t believe such a church is supposed to exist, I would like to know where you believe the Bible teaches this.

A good analysis of this is: "Religion is man's imperfect way to bring us supposedly closer to the God, while Jesus Christ is God's Perfect Way to draw each of us closer to Him".

So with this statement are you saying that the church Jesus and the apostles established is not a religion?

...pretty much all agree that Christ is the Way and we are all learning and certainly agree that we are "Sinners Saved by Grace". I strongly believe I am being "fed" in this Church as well as my family.
[/B]

Any Mormon I know would feel very comfortable with this general statement of Christ being the only Way and sinners being saved by grace. One of my favorite conference talks from 2008 is called, “The Way†by Elder Corbridge. You should check it out. I really think you would like it and even agree with most of it.

 

[Jamesone5]

In John 14:6 Christ solidly proclaims that He Is the WAY, the Truth and the Life and that no one can come to the Father , except throught Him. There is no adding to that WAY, as in "also through Joseph Smith" [and the supposed True Church he established] or maybe "also the Catholic Church" and the Pope who leads it, but Christ is the Complete and only WAY to the Father. Man, through his established Religions, tends to try to control that "Way to the Father" and really in that control is where the LDS Church is really not unlike the Catholic Religion or maybe some very Fundamentalist Christian Churches, like the JW's. Man tends to try to stifle the Holy Spirit and His ability to lead us to all Truth through earthly Religions and the control man exerts in His Religions.

I agree that when man sets up a church without direct authority from Christ, there are going to be problems. If a person is looking for a church with the same authority as the church run by the original apostles of Christ, they would need to find one that at least claims the same authority. That of course, does not guarantee you have found His church, but it does guarantee that any church that does not claim the same authority is not His authorized church and is, therefore, a flawed church of man. If Joseph Smith was like any other reformer, who only claimed authority from the Bible like everyone else, you would have a good point. But that is not Joseph Smith’s claim. Joseph Smith made the same claim as Moses, Peter and Paul. If you don’t believe such a church is supposed to exist, I would like to know where you believe the Bible teaches this.

A good analysis of this is: "Religion is man's imperfect way to bring us supposedly closer to the God, while Jesus Christ is God's Perfect Way to draw each of us closer to Him".

So with this statement are you saying that the church Jesus and the apostles established is not a religion?

...pretty much all agree that Christ is the Way and we are all learning and certainly agree that we are "Sinners Saved by Grace". I strongly believe I am being "fed" in this Church as well as my family.
[/B]

Any Mormon I know would feel very comfortable with this general statement of Christ being the only Way and sinners being saved by grace. One of my favorite conference talks from 2008 is called, “The Way” by Elder Corbridge. You should check it out. I really think you would like it and even agree with most of it.

Will try to respond here in one response. You sat Joseph Smith made the same claim as Moses, Peter and Paul. A "claim" is really not an established fact or really isn't God's established fact without some sort of proof that the claim can be supported elsewhere." Prophets are subject to the prophets" or another prophet simply has to establish a uniformity with God's already established Word. Moses in the Old Testament was a bit different than a Paul or Peter in the New Testament in many ways. Moses essentially established the Law through God and His Inspiration from God established the groundwork for the the Jewish Faith as God's Chosen people. Peter was told that he was "the rock" upon which Christ would establish His Church {Matthew 16:17-19}. Of course the Catholic Church tries to establish the unbroken succession from Peter through their Popes, but then almost immediately the Catholic Church put man in charge of the Religion of God, really instead of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Paul warns us of man taking charge of Religion in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 [including the context of the whole 1st Chapter] and he writes of a "Christ divided" in other Epistles. Paul was very humble of the fact that "he was not the church", but rather Christ was the head and he was merely a tool to preach the gospel. [1 Cor. :17 and supported elsewhere} Today, man's Religion is making a lot of the same mistakes the Church in Corith was making here in the fact that man wants to take control of doctrine--thus the Catechism in the Catholic Church, the D&C in the Mormon church and those Churches that solidly use the apostles Creed or some other early Church creed that tells man what they must believe. That all takes away the work of the Holy spirit and puts control into man's hands as to what the same Spirit should be guiding us to find--individually, to those who truly seek Wisdom from God.

As to Christ being "the Way", essentially in the Mormon Church that "way' really goes through Joseph Smith and his Doctrines he proclaimed in the supposed restored Church. Same with the Catholic Church which ultimately claims that the "Way" is through their priests and the Pope, along with the Catechism [which I have studied by the way]. Certainly there has been many atrocities in the Catholic Church over the centuries, really because "man becomes the authority". James 1:27 gives us one clue as to what Religion "before God" should look like, but like I say---man, through his need for Religious control has made it a lot different in many ways from what Christ intended. I now go to and am a member of a 1st Baptist congregation and Doctrine is not something that is taught and preached but rather the Bible and Christ through the Bible. That 1st Baptist thing is just a name on the sign outside and I think is listed in the phone directory that way. More i could write on all this, and might at a later post.

 

[proveallthings]

I would still like to know your answer to this question about your statement.

A good analysis of this is: "Religion is man's imperfect way to bring us supposedly closer to the God, while Jesus Christ is God's Perfect Way to draw each of us closer to Him".

So with this statement are you saying that the church Jesus and the apostles established is not a religion?

You sat Joseph Smith made the same claim as Moses, Peter and Paul. A "claim" is really not an established fact or really isn't God's established fact without some sort of proof that the claim can be supported elsewhere.[/B]" Prophets are subject to the prophets" or another prophet simply has to establish a uniformity with God's already established Word.

So let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the Israelites who had to choose Moses or not. Before the miracles, what proof from other prophets did they have to use to validate Moses as a true prophet? When John the Baptist arrived on the scene, what earlier prophetic proof was there that was so convincing to get the mainstream religious leaders to accept him?

Moses in the Old Testament was a bit different than a Paul or Peter in the New Testament in many ways.

Of course there are many differences. I was hoping you would see what was in common. Let’s try and find the apples to compare with apples here. The claim they all had in common was that their message was received directly from God and they used previous scripture to back up the fresh revelation. They did not become scholars of the scriptures and get their messages from their learning. They all had little education on what previous prophets said for the most part, except Paul, who was dead wrong until he got the direct revelation.

As to Christ being "the Way", essentially in the Mormon Church that "way' really goes through Joseph Smith and his Doctrines he proclaimed in the supposed restored Church.

Alright now, lets try and find the apples to compare to apples again. Didn’t “the Way†as accepted by the early Christians really go through a living prophet? How is that any different than modern Christians receiving “the Way†through a living prophet?

 

[Jamesone5]

I would still like to know your answer to this question about your statement. Quote Originally Posted by proveallthings View Post Quote Originally Posted by Jamnesone5 View Post A good analysis of this is: "Religion is man's imperfect way to bring us supposedly closer to the God, while Jesus Christ is God's Perfect Way to draw each of us closer to Him". So with this statement are you saying that the church Jesus and the apostles established is not a religion?

For many, Religion has become the means for Salvation--or at least many wrongly think that it is their individual Religion will save them. "Religion" in the Bible is essentially being misused-thus the proliferation of so many Religious identities with many claiming their Religion is the only true one. Certainly the LDS Church and their "Religion" fits into that mix. A simple study of the Christian Faith for the last 2000 years suggests how we got to a place that is far-removed from what "Religion" was like in the 1st and 2nd Centuries with Reformations of all sorts transpiring over the centuries. This is man's doing [not God] that has created a lot of confusion and placed a huge importance on being in the right Church which has the "Right Religion". As the statement I quoted says---man has tried vainly to get close to God through his Religions, when instead, it all should point to Christ, Only. That is, sometimes Religions take Christ out of the equation a lot or minimize Him by placing a higher imnportance on the right Religious Doctrines or Ordinances that members must follow.

So let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the Israelites who had to choose Moses or not. Before the miracles, what proof from other prophets did they have to use to validate Moses as a true prophet? When John the Baptist arrived on the scene, what earlier prophetic proof was there that was so convincing to get the mainstream religious leaders to accept him?

In the 4th Chapter of Exodus we see where Moses was worried about this when he talked to God through the burning bush. God told Moses of 3 signs he could perform to convince the Israelites he was speaking for God and of course, as the story in Exodus progresses with the plagues he performs through God against Pharaoh, I'm sure even the most doubting Israelite became convinced that Moses was who he said he was after witnessing so many Miracles. As to John the Baptist--he mostly called people to repent and I'm sure that his fame started small and got bigger. Also, as i remember there is reference to his coming in Isaiah, I believe. Also , he didn't introduce new doctrines except baptism and I have found in dome historical references that baptism was already a somewhat established practice--or at least it was not foreign to people at that time. Prophets before him in the Old Testament were preaching repentance as well and not introducing new [or supposedly restored] Doctrines, like Joseph Smith certainly did.

Alright now, lets try and find the apples to compare to apples again. Didn’t “the Way” as accepted by the early Christians really go through a living prophet? How is that any different than modern Christians receiving “the Way” through a living prophet?

The "living prophet" was Jesus Christ Himself. He is often referred to as Prophet, Priest and King. If the Bible is God's Word {which I believe}, why then should we need a "living prophet" now to explain it to us, or at least Christ's Messages in the Gospels? Isn't this the work of the Holy Spirit which Christ says will lead us into all Truth? The LDS Church always refer to the fact that "many plain and precious truths were omitted in the Bible" but then they fall back on that to legitimize the supposed need for the restored Priesthood and other LDS Doctrines.

 

[proveallthings]

For many, Religion has become the means for Salvation--or at least many wrongly think that it is their individual Religion will save them. "Religion" in the Bible is essentially being misused-thus the proliferation of so many Religious identities with many claiming their Religion is the only true one. Certainly the LDS Church and their "Religion" fits into that mix. A simple study of the Christian Faith for the last 2000 years suggests how we got to a place that is far-removed from what "Religion" was like in the 1st and 2nd Centuries with Reformations of all sorts transpiring over the centuries. This is man's doing [not God] that has created a lot of confusion and placed a huge importance on being in the right Church which has the "Right Religion". As the statement I quoted says---man has tried vainly to get close to God through his Religions, when instead, it all should point to Christ, Only. That is, sometimes Religions take Christ out of the equation a lot or minimize Him by placing a higher imnportance on the right Religious Doctrines or Ordinances that members must follow.

I think you are saying that the original New Testament church can be referred to as a religion, which seems to contradict the earlier statement you quoted, since it did not differentiate between true and false religion. We both agree that man has abused the meaning of the word religion from its original use by apostles. But if that earlier organization was indeed a religion, wouldn’t it be accurate to call it “the only true one� If that is the case, why wouldn't God want us to have an "only true religion" in our time?

So let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the Israelites who had to choose Moses or not. Before the miracles, what proof from other prophets did they have to use to validate Moses as a true prophet? When John the Baptist arrived on the scene, what earlier prophetic proof was there that was so convincing to get the mainstream religious leaders to accept him?

In the 4th Chapter of Exodus we see where Moses was worried about this when he talked to God through the burning bush. God told Moses of 3 signs he could perform to convince the Israelites he was speaking for God and of course, as the story in Exodus progresses with the plagues he performs through God against Pharaoh, I'm sure even the most doubting Israelite became convinced that Moses was who he said he was after witnessing so many Miracles.

If I am understanding you correctly, your point in post #170 was that a valid claim to be a true prophet of God requires proof of support from previous prophets. Evidently Moses did not meet that criteria.

As to John the Baptist--he mostly called people to repent and I'm sure that his fame started small and got bigger. Also, as i remember there is reference to his coming in Isaiah, I believe. Also , he didn't introduce new doctrines except baptism and I have found in dome historical references that baptism was already a somewhat established practice--or at least it was not foreign to people at that time. Prophets before him in the Old Testament were preaching repentance as well and not introducing new [or supposedly restored] Doctrines, like Joseph Smith certainly did.

John the Baptist was not accepted by the scriptural authorities of his day as being in agreement with the writings of the prophets they were the experts of either. To them, John was indeed introducing ideas that differed from their interpretation of the previous prophets, as was Jesus. So why does Joseph Smith have to meet qualifications that other prophets obviously did not have to meet?

Alright now, lets try and find the apples to compare to apples again. Didn’t “the Way†as accepted by the early Christians really go through a living prophet? How is that any different than modern Christians receiving “the Way†through a living prophet?

The "living prophet" was Jesus Christ Himself. He is often referred to as Prophet, Priest and King. If the Bible is God's Word {which I believe}, why then should we need a "living prophet" now to explain it to us, or at least Christ's Messages in the Gospels? Isn't this the work of the Holy Spirit which Christ says will lead us into all Truth?

Please explain how your argument here doesn’t completely eliminate the need for any writings of the apostles other than the Gospels and completely eliminate the need for the mission of the apostle Paul.

 

[Jamesone5]

I think you are saying that the original New Testament church can be referred to as a religion, which seems to contradict the earlier statement you quoted, since it did not differentiate between true and false religion. We both agree that man has abused the meaning of the word religion from its original use by apostles. But if that earlier organization was indeed a religion, wouldn’t it be accurate to call it “the only true one”? If that is the case, why wouldn't God want us to have an "only true religion" in our time?

I think you are looking a Religion as to what it has become rather that what it was intended to be--One Faith, one baptism, etc. with Christ as the head of the Church. The early Churches in the different cities Paul wrote his Epistles to where house churches--no sign out front proclaiming their particualr brand of Religion. Man has confused the matter of Religion and just like the Mormons do--so many claim that their church and brand of Religion is the One True Church. Part of that division has resulted from the different Ordinances that have come out in the many different Religions and devotions to the leaders of their Religions. Just like Paul said in his time--people were devoting themselves to individual men as they are now. Your own testimony indicates a devotion to Joseph Smith and the succeeding prophets of the LDS Church.

If I am understanding you correctly, your point in post #170 was that a valid claim to be a true prophet of God requires proof of support from previous prophets. Evidently Moses did not meet that criteria.

Prophets can be tested forward and backwards, certainly with us now. As to the Israelites in the time of Moses, they had their oral traditions, going back to Abraham,because before the writing of Scripture, that was what they relied upon. The three signs [or Miracles] that Moses performed to convince the people he was speaking for God--I know I would at least listen to him, if I were living back then.

John the Baptist was not accepted by the scriptural authorities of his day as being in agreement with the writings of the prophets they were the experts of either. To them, John was indeed introducing ideas that differed from their interpretation of the previous prophets, as was Jesus. So why does Joseph Smith have to meet qualifications that other prophets obviously did not have to meet?

It's very simple as Joseph Smith an his qualifications now. Does his prophesies and do his doctrines he supposedly restored match up with any of the prophets in the Bible? John the Baptist was foretold of, as well as definitly the Coming Messiah in the Old Testament. One really can't say the same for Joseph Smith, except in a very subjective reading of the Bible .

Please explain how your argument here doesn’t completely eliminate the need for any writings of the apostles other than the Gospels and completely eliminate the need for the mission of the apostle Paul.

If I understand your question correctly, I think you are confusing "apostles" and "prophets" here and the function of each. Certainly Paul claims in most of his Epistles that he is indeed an apostle, and really none of the other early church writers claim that they are some kind of prophet. God [Who certainly controls all things] can certainly use the words of Christ's apostles to help us understand how to apply Christ;s Words, which is essentially what the Epistles do.

 

[proveallthings]

I think you are looking a Religion as to what it has become rather that what it was intended to be--One Faith, one baptism, etc. with Christ as the head of the Church. The early Churches in the different cities Paul wrote his Epistles to where house churches--no sign out front proclaiming their particualr brand of Religion. Man has confused the matter of Religion and just like the Mormons do--so many claim that their church and brand of Religion is the One True Church. Part of that division has resulted from the different Ordinances that have come out in the many different Religions and devotions to the leaders of their Religions. Just like Paul said in his time--people were devoting themselves to individual men as they are now. Your own testimony indicates a devotion to Joseph Smith and the succeeding prophets of the LDS Church.

So let me try and explain what I think you mean. What I think you are saying is that the church Jesus and the apostles established was true religion. After the apostles died, the traditions and doctrines of men started taking hold. Then they had disagreements as to which traditions and doctrines were correct, which created division. Then we find the efforts of men to unify the body of Christ by creating creeds enforced by the state, which allowed only one set of legal doctrines and traditions for several centuries. During the reformation there was an effort to rely on the scriptures more than man-made traditions and doctrines. We saw differing opinions about which traditions and doctrines to keep and which to discard. As the influence of state over religion diminished, many diverse traditions and doctrines were interpreted from history and scripture because of freedom from oppression, creating an increasing number of churches or religions, each feeling they were the right one or the more correct one. This continued through the 19th century and Mormonism was one of the extreme examples of this phenomenon. Today, the church and religion created by Christ and His apostles does not exist on the earth. Even though there is not an organized church that would be considered the true religion, individuals may practice true religion by carefully searching the scriptures in the Bible with the influence of the Holy Spirit. They can practice this true religion in or out of any number of the churches established by men. Does this accurately articulate your belief on this subject?

Prophets can be tested forward and backwards, certainly with us now. As to the Israelites in the time of Moses, they had their oral traditions, going back to Abraham,because before the writing of Scripture, that was what they relied upon. The three signs [or Miracles] that Moses performed to convince the people he was speaking for God--I know I would at least listen to him, if I were living back then.

So the true test for Moses really was different than the one you stated in post 170. He was judged by his fruits only, since oral traditions can vary and are not nearly as reliable as written scripture. Wouldn’t you agree?

It's very simple as Joseph Smith an his qualifications now. Does his prophesies and do his doctrines he supposedly restored match up with any of the prophets in the Bible? John the Baptist was foretold of, as well as definitly the Coming Messiah in the Old Testament. One really can't say the same for Joseph Smith, except in a very subjective reading of the Bible .

So, do you believe that you, and those who agree with you, are the only ones who do not read the Bible subjectively? Do you really believe that any objective person who was familiar with the scriptures at the time of John the Baptist, would see that he was the obvious one the scriptures were talking about before they heard anything spoken by Jesus? If you were to point out the scriptures which you believed to foretell of John to a Pharasee, wouldn't he say that your interpretation was very subjective? Which OT scriptures make it obvious that John the Baptist would be recognizable as a true prophet? Can you show any example from Bible that indicates that he was recognized as a true prophet because he was fulfilling prophecy, by those who were reputed as having enough knowledge of the scriptures? Show me where in the Bible we can learn that the mainstream scriptural experts of his day believed that what John the Baptist taught was in harmony with their scriptures. I know of one sincere man, very learned in the scriptures, who would have disagreed with you vigorously. His name was Saul.

If I understand your question correctly, I think you are confusing "apostles" and "prophets" here and the function of each. Certainly Paul claims in most of his Epistles that he is indeed an apostle, and really none of the other early church writers claim that they are some kind of prophet. God [Who certainly controls all things] can certainly use the words of Christ's apostles to help us understand how to apply Christ;s Words, which is essentially what the Epistles do.

First of all, just to clarify, when I use the term prophet, I am referring to any person that God chooses to be His spokesperson. That is all. An apostle then, would be a prophet. So anything considered to be scripture would have to be considered to have been written by a prophet of God.

The "living prophet" was Jesus Christ Himself. He is often referred to as Prophet, Priest and King. If the Bible is God's Word {which I believe}, why then should we need a "living prophet" now to explain it to us, or at least Christ's Messages in the Gospels? Isn't this the work of the Holy Spirit which Christ says will lead us into all Truth?

This statement says that no living apostle or prophet was needed after Christ delivered His message. Yet most of the New Testament, which you claim to be the word of God, was created by people claiming to be living prophets after the death of Christ. Why is this not a blatant contradiction?

 

[Jamesone5]

So let me try and explain what I think you mean. What I think you are saying is that the church Jesus and the apostles established was true religion. After the apostles died, the traditions and doctrines of men started taking hold. Then they had disagreements as to which traditions and doctrines were correct, which created division. Then we find the efforts of men to unify the body of Christ by creating creeds enforced by the state, which allowed only one set of legal doctrines and traditions for several centuries. During the reformation there was an effort to rely on the scriptures more than man-made traditions and doctrines. We saw differing opinions about which traditions and doctrines to keep and which to discard. As the influence of state over religion diminished, many diverse traditions and doctrines were interpreted from history and scripture because of freedom from oppression, creating an increasing number of churches or religions, each feeling they were the right one or the more correct one. This continued through the 19th century and Mormonism was one of the extreme examples of this phenomenon. Today, the church and religion created by Christ and His apostles does not exist on the earth. Even though there is not an organized church that would be considered the true religion, individuals may practice true religion by carefully searching the scriptures in the Bible with the influence of the Holy Spirit. They can practice this true religion in or out of any number of the churches established by men. Does this accurately articulate your belief on this subject?

Christ's True Church is a Body of Believers Who have all found a True Faith in Him via the Holy Spirit. Part of that "Body" can be in many different man-made Church affiliations. and yes, even some Mormons could conceivably be in that Body of Christ when their True Faith is focused rightly. Just yesterday, I had a long conversation with a man who is LDS and with the fact that I lost a son to suicide, he told me some things fro his childhood that he said he had never told anyone. Prayed with him and basically we talked about the forgiveness of Christ and how it can all be complete, if we realize that Gift of forgiveness from God and then through that, forgive ourselves. Every time Have talked to this man over the years, it mostly has been about Christ and I never try to get into Doctrinal differences, which I am very aware of.

So, do you believe that you, and those who agree with you, are the only ones who do not read the Bible subjectively? Do you really believe that any objective person who was familiar with the scriptures at the time of John the Baptist, would see that he was the obvious one the scriptures were talking about before they heard anything spoken by Jesus? If you were to point out the scriptures which you believed to foretell of John to a Pharasee, wouldn't he say that your interpretation was very subjective? Which OT scriptures make it obvious that John the Baptist would be recognizable as a true prophet? Can you show any example from Bible that indicates that he was recognized as a true prophet because he was fulfilling prophecy, by those who were reputed as having enough knowledge of the scriptures? Show me where in the Bible we can learn that the mainstream scriptural experts of his day believed that what John the Baptist taught was in harmony with their scriptures. I know of one sincere man, very learned in the scriptures, who would have disagreed with you vigorously. His name was Saul.

There are two distinct way of reading the Bible. Subjectively [and really this is a private interpretation] versus "drawing out meanings" or allowing the Holy Spirit to guide one into the Truths. Part of focusing on the latter is to realize in our sin nature, we don't always want to hear the Whole Truth, or at least those Truths that are about our own personal sinfulness. As to John the Baptist, the main thing is that we know now that He was the forerunner to Jesus and it matters little who did or did not believe in him 2000 years ago, I know you are tying to establish some sort of legitimacy for Joseph smith and the supposed need for a prophet in these latter days, but using the example of John the Baptist really won't establish that "legitimacy".

First of all, just to clarify, when I use the term prophet, I am referring to any person that God chooses to be His spokesperson. That is all. An apostle then, would be a prophet. So anything considered to be scripture would have to be considered to have been written by a prophet of God.

You really are at odds here with your own Church, which at least in it's formation made clear distinctions as to the functions of a prophet or and apostle.

This statement says that no living apostle or prophet was needed after Christ delivered His message. Yet most of the New Testament, which you claim to be the word of God, was created by people claiming to be living prophets after the death of Christ. Why is this not a blatant contradiction?

I looked at the many times in Paul's Epistles as to his claims--it was usually "an Apostle to Jesus Christ", a "slave to Jesus Christ", etc. You are using your own loose definitions as to prophet and apostle to try to establish this "blatent contradiction".

 

[proveallthings]

Christ's True Church is a Body of Believers Who have all found a True Faith in Him via the Holy Spirit. Part of that "Body" can be in many different man-made Church affiliations. and yes, even some Mormons could conceivably be in that Body of Christ when their True Faith is focused rightly.

You say Christ’s True Church “is†a body of believers.... I realize that is what you see it as today, but don’t you agree that in New Testament times it was quite different? The body of Christ in that time met together in the same congregation. They had a structured organization with officers with specific stewardships. They were a unified body, easily identified by each other, worshiping together, not with other groups. Eph. 4:11-14 says this structured organization is essential “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.†So please explain why Eph. 4: 11-14 should not apply to Christ's true church or body of believers today.

Just yesterday, I had a long conversation with a man who is LDS and with the fact that I lost a son to suicide, he told me some things fro his childhood that he said he had never told anyone. Prayed with him and basically we talked about the forgiveness of Christ and how it can all be complete, if we realize that Gift of forgiveness from God and then through that, forgive ourselves. Every time Have talked to this man over the years, it mostly has been about Christ and I never try to get into Doctrinal differences, which I am very aware of.

I really like what is happening with you and your Mormon friend. I wish that could happen more in this forum. It happens, but not nearly enough in my opinion. I will try harder to facilitate such relationships. To me it is more important to focus on what we have in common than on our differences.

There are two distinct way of reading the Bible. Subjectively [and really this is a private interpretation] versus "drawing out meanings" or allowing the Holy Spirit to guide one into the Truths. Part of focusing on the latter is to realize in our sin nature, we don't always want to hear the Whole Truth, or at least those Truths that are about our own personal sinfulness.

I totally agree with this statement, but it completely avoids my question and even the entire subject. The subject of my question was the idea that only a subjective reading of the OT prophecies would reveal anything about Joseph Smith. But you avoid the reality that a person in NT times would be accused of the same thing in supporting the idea of John the Baptist being a fulfillment of OT prophecy.

As to John the Baptist, the main thing is that we know now that He was the forerunner to Jesus and it matters little who did or did not believe in him 2000 years ago, I know you are tying to establish some sort of legitimacy for Joseph smith and the supposed need for a prophet in these latter days, but using the example of John the Baptist really won't establish that "legitimacy".

Actually, it is just the opposite. It is you who are trying to establish the illegitimacy of Joseph Smith. I am just pointing out the contradictions in your premise. You have given my point a lot of legitimacy by dodging my questions. You claimed that the way to test a true prophet was to match his teachings with the prophets that preceded him. I presented evidence which showed that your test has no Biblical precedent. You have not offered a counter to my argument. I do not in any way believe that what I have presented proves that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I only want to make it clear that you have not presented any logical reason why he couldn’t have been.

You really are at odds here with your own Church, which at least in it's formation made clear distinctions as to the functions of a prophet or and apostle.

All I was doing was trying to define terms. I wanted you to understand what I mean when I use the term prophet. Please show me in any Mormon literature or even in the Bible where my definition would be inaccurate. If you don’t like the term prophet to identify people who have the authority to speak or write for God, you name the term and I will use it. It is the meaning that matters here, not the actual word.

This statement says that no living apostle or prophet was needed after Christ delivered His message. Yet most of the New Testament, which you claim to be the word of God, was created by people claiming to be living prophets after the death of Christ. Why is this not a blatant contradiction?

I looked at the many times in Paul's Epistles as to his claims--it was usually "an Apostle to Jesus Christ", a "slave to Jesus Christ", etc. You are using your own loose definitions as to prophet and apostle to try to establish this "blatent contradiction".

Okay. Use another term then. The term isn’t important. What you claimed means that no spokesperson for God was needed after Christ delivered His message. By shifting the discussion to semantics, you are avoiding facing up to your blatant contradiction.

 

[Jamesone5]

Let's get off of this rabbit trail we have been on and get back to the subject of this thread--- The Mormon Belief in Deification and really if Joseph Smith was a True prophet of God, claiming he restored this Beliefs in the Church in the Church he founded. This was one of the major items that I "tested" through the bible when I finally came to the decision to leave the church, because this belief really permeates in a lot of other beliefs in the Mormon church. Certainly in the LDS definition of Who Christ Is, he is an exalted man who Obeyed the Father and supposedly it was His Plan that the Father chose over his brother satan's plan before the world was formed or people were set upon the earth. This "sonship" of Jesus Christ has been described by your early prophets as Christ being a son like any of us are to our own fathers here on earth.

So very much in the Bible is contrary to this "exalted man" belief and how we can supposedly be exaulted ourselves just by obeying and learning ourselves and supposedly progressing to a state where we are given exaltation ourselves.. We Are the Creation which cannot be like the Creator, at least in totality, but yet LDS doctrine defies that . The Mormon church really uses the lie [or really the temptation] that he used in Genesis to Eve--"you can be like God". Man has always wrongly tried to either diminish God or exault himself since that time and LDS Doctrine makes the deception a reality, just by their bleifs in this Deification belief or Eternal Progression thing.

In short, I found Joseph Smith to be one of those False prophets we are warned about, at least by Christ in Matthew because certainly this Docrtrine or belief is very contrary to what the other prophets in the Bible say about it all and really the whole of the Message of the Bible. I ddin't have to go to the examples of Moses or John the Baptist or supposedly validate what sort of Authority Paul or Peter had, but simply Joseph Smith to me is very clearly a false prophet and I will not waver on that which I found 18 years ago. Simply, does his proclamations and the beliefs he supposedly said he restored match up with the rest of the Bible?

 

[proveallthings]

Let's get off of this rabbit trail we have been on and get back to the subject of this thread--- The Mormon Belief in Deification...

This is indeed the title of the thread for sure. The actual subject is actually more narrow than the title. But I am willing to discuss whatever you want on this general topic.

...and really if Joseph Smith was a True prophet of God, claiming he restored this Beliefs in the Church in the Church he founded. This was one of the major items that I "tested" through the bible...

And this will likely get us right back on the rabbit trail you keep wanting to go down. Yes, the rabbit trail, which you started, that led to questions you could not answer starts with the assumption that a new prophet (or spokesperson for God) must be judged by the popular interpretation of existing scripture. It seems like an enticing trail to go down until you get to where it led us and then you forget how it got started. You could save the time of going through all the same arguments again just to end up in the same spot, by simply going back and acknowledging that in considering my questions one could conclude that some of your reasons for disqualifying Joseph Smith are not valid.

So very much in the Bible is contrary to this "exalted man" belief...

Actually, as I read the Bible, I find nothing that contradicts this belief and much that supports it.

...and how we can supposedly be exaulted ourselves just by obeying and learning ourselves and supposedly progressing to a state where we are given exaltation ourselves...

It is interesting how you keep emphasizing “ourselvesâ€, as if to infer that Mormons believe we do all this without Christ. Is that what you are getting at or am I just reading too much into this?
You are also forgetting the Mormon doctrine that says it is impossible to be exalted alone, without a companion. So the "ourselves" part is invented by you and completely foreign to LDS teachings.

We Are the Creation which cannot be like the Creator, at least in totality, but yet LDS doctrine defies that.

Which Bible verse are you quoting here? I do not recognize it.

The Mormon church really uses the lie [or really the temptation] that he used in Genesis to Eve--"you can be like God". Man has always wrongly tried to either diminish God or exault himself since that time and LDS Doctrine makes the deception a reality, just by their bleifs in this Deification belief or Eternal Progression thing.

It is true that Satan tempted Eve with an evil motive to become like God. There are many worthy aspirations which can become unworthy or even evil if motivated by an evil desire. But the idea that made Satan’s temptation evil was that God was keeping something back because of some distorted scarcity mentality, that He didn’t want Adam and Eve to be like Him. It was casting doubt on God’s motives that made it evil. God attests to the fact that becoming like Him was not a lie at all and indeed, very possible. He says in verse 22 that Satan’s prophecy was actually true. It was doubting God’s intentions that was the sin.

...Joseph Smith to me is very clearly a false prophet and I will not waver on that which I found 18 years ago. Simply, does his proclamations and the beliefs he supposedly said he restored match up with the rest of the Bible?

So are you saying that you are not open to ideas you have not yet considered on this topic?

 

[Jamesone5]

And this will likely get us right back on the rabbit trail you keep wanting to go down. Yes, the rabbit trail, which you started, that led to questions you could not answer starts with the assumption that a new prophet (or spokesperson for God) must be judged by the popular interpretation of existing scripture. It seems like an enticing trail to go down until you get to where it led us and then you forget how it got started. You could save the time of going through all the same arguments again just to end up in the same spot, by simply going back and acknowledging that in considering my questions one could conclude that some of your reasons for disqualifying Joseph Smith are not valid.

This whole debate has become tedious and if you falsely want to believe you won--I certainly cannot change that.

It is however, abundantly clear that one of us will be very disappointed in the End becaus we've been led on the wrong pathway and basically worshiped the Wrong Christ. Of course you do not see the difference because you Chruch is now trying to fit in with mainline Christianity and I've had these debates before with Mormons before who clearly do not see the differences in the two Christs. I have considered that I walked away from a Church that claims the "Fullness of the Gospel" or really claiming to have "The Only True Gospel of Christ". I understand clearly the implications of that decision and going by some LDS prophets, I would likely be relegated to the outer darkness or at best, the lowest level of Heaven or the terrestial kingdom--if the LDS Church be true. If we find out in the End the LDS Church is not True, you will find you have wasted your life trying to get close to the wrong Christ and there is no pathway to exultation which you were taught in a false Church and the sins you commited in this life are the ones you have to face Judgement on.

As to Joseph smith and the Church he restored [or said he did]--he is either a True of False prophet and some of these questions you posed really have little to do with debating the Doctrines or Beliefs he ordained in the LDS Church and whether they be true.