The Mormon Belief of Deification

[proveallthings]

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.

I feel it is important to clarify that this debate is not about whether Joseph Smith is a true prophet or if the LDS church is true. It is simply about certain reasons you have given that you felt would disqualify Joseph Smith from being considered a true prophet. I haven’t been asking you to give in and admit you were wrong in leaving the church. I have not insisted that Joseph Smith was a true prophet or that the church he was instrumental in founding is the true church of Jesus Christ. I have only asked you to consider the possibility that some of the reasons you have used to disqualify Joseph Smith just don’t work in context with the Bible. If you don’t feel comfortable considering the possibility that you may have been misled about this one detail, I understand.

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.

Now this is another topic altogether. There is no truth at all in the assumption that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has in recent years, changed their doctrine and teachings to somehow “fit in†with mainstream Christianity. It is true, however that as the culture changes, the way the message is delivered needs to change in order to avoid misunderstanding. Areas of emphasis change based on the audience and what they already understand or assume. The way I present the gospel to a Baptist will obviously differ from how I present it to a Jew, Muslim or Buddhist. The same would be true when comparing a 19th century Baptist to a 21st century Baptist. If I don’t adjust the delivery of the message based on my audience, I am a very poor teacher indeed.

I understand very clearly the differences between the way you understand Jesus Christ and the way I believe. I could outline your beliefs to you and you would agree that I have accurately articulated your understanding of Christ. On the other hand, most of what you have said about what Mormons believe in Christ sounds completely foreign to any informed Mormon. That doesn’t mean Mormons want everyone to believe there are no differences. It just means that, for some reason, many Evangelicals can’t bring themselves to believe Mormons when they explain what they believe. Many Evangelicals will believe a Mormon critic on what Mormons believe before believing an informed practicing Mormon. Can you see why that would be frustrating to Mormons?

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 you really understand what Mormons believe about what the Terrestrial Kingdom is like and who will be there, you will realize it is almost exactly the description of the Evangelical heaven with Christ. So Mormons believe that you will end up exactly where you are expecting to if you continue on your current path.

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.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. We have not been debating whether Joseph’s doctrines are true or not. The discussion was about some of your grounds for disqualifying him as even being a possible true prophet. That is why I wonder about why you would back away from the discussion.

 

[Jamesone5]

I feel it is important to clarify that this debate is not about whether Joseph Smith is a true prophet or if the LDS church is true. It is simply about certain reasons you have given that you felt would disqualify Joseph Smith from being considered a true prophet. I haven’t been asking you to give in and admit you were wrong in leaving the church. I have not insisted that Joseph Smith was a true prophet or that the church he was instrumental in founding is the true church of Jesus Christ. I have only asked you to consider the possibility that some of the reasons you have used to disqualify Joseph Smith just don’t work in context with the Bible. If you don’t feel comfortable considering the possibility that you may have been misled about this one detail, I understand.

Have debated many Mormons over the years and "deflection" for them seems to be the rule rather than the exception--it's like we can't discuss the central question, bur instead they want to move elsewhere to create questions or establish some sort of validity--in this case you are triyng to establish some sort of validity for your prophet. This whole debate is about the Belief in Deification and whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God to have established that belief--it is the central question and to use a Moses or a John the Baptist in this discussion really should only be about whether they preached or taught this Belief.

When I left the Church, this Deification or Eternal Progression thing was pretty much the central thing I compared LDS teachings to the Bible on, because the belief in the Mormon Church also ties into the belief in Who Christ Is--a Created, exalted man in Mormonism. 1 Thess. 5:21 tells us to "Test all things; hold fast what is good" [NKJV] and by the very implication to that ideal, one should reject what is not good or true. Once I found it to be wrong the whole issue of Joseph Smith being a true prophet fell apart.

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. We have not been debating whether Joseph’s doctrines are true or not. The discussion was about some of your grounds for disqualifying him as even being a possible true prophet. That is why I wonder about why you would back away from the discussion.

You might not have not been debating this issue but instead deflected or steered the discussion away from it--and I simply allowed it. It all comes down to whether it be true or not which certainly ties into the Ultimate validity of Joseph Smith.

 

[By Grace]

Have debated many Mormons over the years and "deflection" for them seems to be the rule rather than the exception--it's like we can't discuss the central question, bur instead they want to move elsewhere to create questions or establish some sort of validity

It is a passive-aggressive tactic called "move the goal posts". I have also noticed this with many of the LDS people. I commend you on your patience because I can only endure so much dysfunctional games playing before I get justifiably annoyed

 

[Potluck]

It's called "Progressive Revelation". At least that's what it was called when I lived there.
Example:
Polygamy.
To attain statehood Utah had to give up polygamy in 1890.
Wouldn't you know shortly after a revelation from God directed them away from the practice, but not the belief.
We on earth don't practice polygamy but their God still does.

Advice to witnessing to a Mormon:
Stay with who Christ is.

Study who Christ is, know your references. Don't get led astray. Stick with who HE is.

 

[proveallthings]

Have debated many Mormons over the years and "deflection" for them seems to be the rule rather than the exception--it's like we can't discuss the central question, bur instead they want to move elsewhere to create questions or establish some sort of validity--in this case you are tryng to establish some sort of validity for your prophet.

Okay, so you think I am deflecting the discussion away from a topic that is difficult for me to defend and I think you are doing the same thing. This is interesting. Perhaps I could share my perspective of how we got where we are.

So, I opened this thread initially requesting a discussion about a statement from Mike which inferred that the Mormon belief that we can become like God only encourages one to be arrogant. I did not intend it to be about whether it is a true doctrine or if Joseph Smith was a true prophet. It was only addressing the possible results of such a belief. Basically it was more of a question about psychology than anything. My only real desire was to get some different perspectives on that question. I do appreciate those responses that have actually addressed my original question.

I naively forgot that many members of this forum just can’t resist trying to rescue a poor misguided Mormon from such evil beliefs. (I don’t mean to criticize your enthusiasm to do what you perceive to be a good thing and I appreciate your sincere concern for my welfare.) At first I resisted this insistence to shift the discussion and tried to get back on the original question, but finally decided to just go with the flow, because I saw an opportunity to possibly clear up some common misconceptions about what Mormons believe and why. I have to be very careful in this forum to not actively promote the Cause of Mormonism and I have honestly tried to do that. (This is why I have never tried to establish validity for my prophet as you have accused. I have only attempted to point out flaws in your reasoning for invalidating him as a prophet. I hope you can see the difference.)

In your sincere attempts to rescue me and anyone else who may tune in, the unavoidable accusation was presented of Joseph Smith being a false prophet and much worse. The primary evidence you have presented for this perspective is that he taught things that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. I then pointed out in different ways how I believe this argument is flawed.

This is how I see the progression of this discussion to where we are now. So, do you see it differently or would you agree that this is what has happened?

The whole debate is about the Belief in Deification and whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God to have established that belief--it is the central question and to use a Moses or a John the Baptist in this discussion really should only be about whether they preached or taught this Belief.
When I left the Church, this Deification or Eternal Progression thing was pretty much the central thing I compared LDS teachings to the Bible on, because the belief in the Mormon Church also ties into the belief in Who Christ Is--a Created, exalted man in Mormonism. 1 Thess. 5:21 tells us to "Test all things; hold fast what is good" [NKJV] and by the very implication to that ideal, one should reject what is not good or true. Once I found it to be wrong the whole issue of Joseph Smith being a true prophet fell apart.

So if you want the discussion to be about whether or not Joseph Smith is a true prophet or not, fine. I will go along with that. But before we can have a rational discussion on any subject like this, the first thing that needs to be discussed is what criteria is to be used to make that determination. The common way to start such a discussion is to discover areas of agreement or common ground. Our most obvious common ground is the Bible. We both believe it to be the word of God. The other thing that is vitally important is to define our terms. When I use the word prophet, for example, we have discovered that it means something different to you than it does to me. The discussion will just go in circles if we do not use terms that we both understand each other’s meaning on when used.

The reason I seem to have diverted the discussion away from what you have wanted it to be about is that I have disagreed with your criteria. I have attempted to point out that the criteria you have used to determine whether a person is a true spokesperson for God is not supported by the Bible. If we cannot agree on what criteria is valid in determining the answer to our question, it is senseless to try and go any further. The debate, therefore, must stay on what is the correct criteria until a consensus is reached. At least that is how I see it. If you can see a flaw in my reasoning, let me know.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Potluck]

"Our most obvious common ground is the Bible. "

Well, I think that's a matter of opinion. Gordon B Hinckley, the previous Mormon prophet, stated at a conference at the "new" conference center across the street from the Mormon temple (Watched it being built. Passed that place every day on the bus going to work) that Mormons and mainstream Christianity preach a different Christ. And in my opinion he was correct. The commonality of "The Bible" is in name only, not in who Christ is.
And yes, terms used by Mainstream Christianity and Mormonism differ quite a bit.

Are there "Christians" that don't believe the same things about Christ as other "Christians"? You bet. We've had discussion after discussion on those differences. But all agree Christ is the Son of God, not the Son of a god or the brother of Lucifer, or the son of Adam or the son of any other deity, person, idea you care to name but The Son of the one and only God, of all creation, of the heavenly realms and the physical universe, of all there is and ever will be.. not just a god of this earth, this particular planet. Christ IS the essence of The Father manifest in the flesh. When Christ died the Veil in the Holy of Holies was torn asunder, the price paid in full once and for all, no longer separating The Father from the people, the division gone forever.

That division stood for many years, the priest making peace with The Father for the people, the prophets conveying the will of The Father to the people. No man of flesh need assume the role of mediator to The Father or from The Father. The curtain is gone. The separation abolished. And that through the work Christ did on the Cross, the Lamb of God The Father.

 

[By Grace]

So if you want the discussion to be about whether or not Joseph Smith is a true prophet or not, fine. I will go along with that. But before we can have a rational discussion on any subject like this, the first thing that needs to be discussed is what criteria is to be used to make that determination. The common way to start such a discussion is to discover areas of agreement or common ground.

Actually, the way to approach the subject is to first agree to the meanings of the terms.

Such may be the nature of prophecy, and that is is evidence of knowledge that is beyond the time and space pf the one making the prophecy. That is the nature of true prophecy; it is supernatural.

Another criteria could be the authenticity of the original documents wherein the prophecy is stated. That is the issue of credibility

The third criteria should be that neither the one making the prophecy, nor the followers of the one making the prophecy can make something happen. That is the issue of independence

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Socratic Dictum[/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

"The unexamined life is not worth living"​

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Just as Important[/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

"The unexamined faith is not worth believing"​

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[proveallthings]

"Our most obvious common ground is the Bible. "

Well, I think that's a matter of opinion. Gordon B Hinckley, the previous Mormon prophet, stated at a conference at the "new" conference center across the street from the Mormon temple (Watched it being built. Passed that place every day on the bus going to work) that Mormons and mainstream Christianity preach a different Christ. And in my opinion he was correct. The commonality of "The Bible" is in name only, not in who Christ is.
And yes, terms used by Mainstream Christianity and Mormonism differ quite a bit.

When you say that our commonality of the Bible is in name only, I guess you mean that we interpret it in ways that are offensive to you, especially when defining who Christ is. So because our interpretation of the Bible is different in a way that is distasteful to you, you say “name onlyâ€. Is this what you are meaning?

In your next paragraph, you have used a lot of spin, which creates a false impression of what Mormons actually believe. Allow me to break out the specific claims of this paragraph and clarify what Mormons actually believe in comparison to this exaggerated characterization.

Are there "Christians" that don't believe the same things about Christ as other "Christians"? You bet. We've had discussion after discussion on those differences. But all agree Christ is the Son of God,

Mormons believe this. We believe He is the Son of God the Father of the Bible.

not the Son of a god

Mormons do not believe this either. It is your own spin on our beliefs that says we do. It only shows your lack of understanding of what Mormons believe.

or the brother of Lucifer,

So what does this mean to you? Why does it seem so demeaning?

or the son of Adam

The Bible teaches that Jesus is a son of Adam in that He was the son of Mary. I thought all Christians believed this.

or the son of any other deity,

This infers that Mormons believe that Jesus could be the son of one of the deities the Bible preaches against. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

person, idea you care to name,

The Bible also teaches that Jesus was the son of David. David is a person. That is the only context that Mormons believe Jesus could be a son of a mortal person.

but The Son of the one and only God, of all creation, of the heavenly realms and the physical universe, of all there is and ever will be.. not just a god of this earth, this particular planet.

For Mormons, this statement is true within the context of the subject matter of the Bible. Mormons believe that Jesus created worlds without number in addition to this one.

Christ IS the essence of The Father manifest in the flesh.

This is not Biblical terminology, so I need further clarification as to what you mean by “essenceâ€. But I can see some ways Mormons would agree with it and others where we would not.

When Christ died the Veil in the Holy of Holies was torn asunder, the price paid in full once and for all, no longer separating The Father from the people, the division gone forever.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is our only advocate with the Father. His is the only way back to the Father. Mormons believe that Christ gave us direct access to the Father in that we now can pray to Him directly in the name of Jesus. In this sense we agree with this statement.

That division stood for many years, the priest making peace with The Father for the people, the prophets conveying the will of The Father to the people. No man of flesh need assume the role of mediator to The Father or from The Father. The curtain is gone. The separation abolished. And that through the work Christ did on the Cross, the Lamb of God The Father.

I would not be surprised at all to find this same wording in an LDS Sunday School or Institute manual. Nothing here conflicts with LDS doctrine.

 

[Potluck]

Distasteful? Offensive?
Got over those things long ago.
I have little doubt Mormons don't believe all the things I mentioned. I seriously doubt any one religion does to tell the truth. But I am glad to see you attest to what you believe and don't believe.

When we speak of who Christ is its good to lay the ground work first. It also gives us the chance to come into discussion without being so defensive or overly sensitive. I did not declare what Mormons believe or don't believe. It's been a long time since I spoke to a Mormon and quite frankly it's been long enough that I no longer do know what Mormons believe. Things change over the years.

And no, you're not going to hear/read biblical terminology from me. We'd be debating the first one too long anyway to get any further into the topic at hand. So I'll say what I have to say in my own words.

 

[proveallthings]

Actually, the way to approach the subject is to first agree to the meanings of the terms.

I don’t disagree with this. We need to find common ground on the meaning of each major term and at least have understanding of what the other means when they use minor terms.

Such may be the nature of prophecy, and that is is evidence of knowledge that is beyond the time and space pf the one making the prophecy. That is the nature of true prophecy; it is supernatural.

No offense, but this seems too narrow, but vague at the same time for a definition of prophecy or prophet. From what I gather from the Bible, the definition for the word prophecy that would work in all cases would be “speaking for Godâ€. It does not only mean foretelling the future. Examples of this can be found in Exodus 7:1, 1Tim. 4:14, 2Pet. 1:19-21 and Rev. 19:10. So I think the best definition that would fit all uses of the word prophet would be “one who authoritatively speaks for Godâ€.

Another criteria could be the authenticity of the original documents wherein the prophecy is stated. That is the issue of credibility.

By this I assume you are referring to the source material we both agree to be authoritative, which I assume would include anything in the Bible.

The third criteria should be that neither the one making the prophecy, nor the followers of the one making the prophecy can make something happen. That is the issue of independence.

This would be true in instances where the term is used in reference to predicting the future, but with exceptions. I would say it could also include prophesies about people living and who know the prophet, who actually do fulfill the prophecy, but do not know about the prophecy until after the fact or ever. It would also work if the prophecy foretold of things a person would experience or do that at the time would seem impossible or the means to do so unknown.

 

[Potluck]

Proveallthings,
What does Jesus's statement, "I am the resurrection" mean to you?

 

[proveallthings]

Proveallthings,
What does Jesus's statement, "I am the resurrection" mean to you?

To me it means that because He has power over life and death, He is the father of the resurrection. By being the first to be resurrected, He brings resurrection the the rest of mankind.

 

[Potluck]

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

 

[Randy]

The common ground for the majority of all who proclaim faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ is the 66 books of the bible. The Lord and Apostles quoted the Holy Scriptures and their fulfillment such as a new covenant that God would write on the hearts of the people and God pouring out His Holy Spirit in these last days on all Gods sons and daughters. (Peter quoted Joel in acts 2 to the crowd of Israelites) as in those days there was no NT. (compiled testimony) John the baptist knew Jesus came from above and would baptize with the Holy Spirit even before the 12. John was a prophet. And in those days Jesus was revealed to Israel as the Christ. The very reason John came baptizing. The One on whom the Holy Spirit came down and remained on. He was Gods chosen One. Christ the Lord.

Who Jesus is has never changed. Jesus was revealed to mankind not God.

A little recap on common ground.


Randy

 

[proveallthings]

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Most of the verses addressing this say it was the Father who raised Him. But John 2:19 says Jesus would do it Himself. Critics of the Bible could call this a contradiction, but it can be explained very simply. Jesus said more than once that all He did was because of the Father. Jesus gave the Father credit for everything He accomplished. So if we say Jesus raised Himself from the dead, we are also saying that the Father raised Him. To me it really doesn't matter. What matters is that He was literally resurrected and that He lives today and forever as a resurrected being.

 

[By Grace]

No offense, but this seems too narrow, but vague at the same time for a definition of prophecy or prophet... So I think the best definition that would fit all uses of the word prophet would be “one who authoritatively speaks for God”.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. You want to expand the definition to be meaningless, and then as a Mormon apologist, the conclusion will suddenly contract to say in effect that your leader XYZ prophecized thus and such he is therefore on the level of Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. Doing that is akin to moving the goal posts in a football game as the kicker tries to put the ball between two moving uprights.

By this I assume you are referring to the source material we both agree to be authoritative, which I assume would include anything in the Bible.

I know where you are going here, and that is attacking inerrancy. Surely that can not be your pro-BoM argument because the Tanners documented 3900+ changes from the first publication in 1830.

This would be true in instances where the term is used in reference to predicting the future, but with exceptions

Those exceptions actually move the goal posts.

 

[proveallthings]

No offense, but this seems too narrow, but vague at the same time for a definition of prophecy or prophet... So I think the best definition that would fit all uses of the word prophet would be “one who authoritatively speaks for Godâ€.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. You want to expand the definition to be meaningless, and then as a Mormon apologist, the conclusion will suddenly contract to say in effect that your leader XYZ prophecized thus and such he is therefore on the level of Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. Doing that is akin to moving the goal posts in a football game as the kicker tries to put the ball between two moving uprights.

By Grace, do you realize what you are saying here? You did not deny that my expanded definition of prophecy and prophet is supported by several scriptures in the Bible, Exodus 7:1, 1Tim. 4:14, 2Pet. 1:19-21 and Rev. 19:10. But you say that this Biblical definition of a prophet or prophecy is like moving the goalposts in favor of Mormonism. You need to be careful with this blatant promotion of Mormonism or the moderators may come down on you.

By this I assume you are referring to the source material we both agree to be authoritative, which I assume would include anything in the Bible.

I know where you are going here, and that is attacking inerrancy. Surely that can not be your pro-BoM argument because the Tanners documented 3900+ changes from the first publication in 1830.

I am scratching my head about how you come up with this conclusion. I am actually saying and inferring the exact opposite. In order to use the Bible as our common ground, it would demand that we take it for what it is, assuming it is all correct. I have never brought up the idea that the Bible has errors in order to defend any doctrinal issue in this forum, so I don’t know why you would suddenly assume I would in the future.

This would be true in instances where the term is used in reference to predicting the future, but with exceptions

Those exceptions actually move the goal posts.

Please explain why this idea of mine would not work and how it would be like moving the goalposts.

 

[Potluck]

Proveallthings,
What does Jesus's statement, "I am the resurrection" mean to you?

To me it means that because He has power over life and death, He is the father of the resurrection. By being the first to be resurrected, He brings resurrection the the rest of mankind.

Jesus wasn't the first to be resurrected.
When He said that He was telling Martha the resurrection wasn't in the future. But now. The resurrection was standing there before Martha and Jesus said so. He said He is the resurrection. Martha believed the resurrection wouldn't come until the last day. But Jesus testified the resurrection was come. Jesus IS the resurrection when He made that statement.
He raised Lazarus from the dead. The resurrection had indeed come, not the day of His own resurrection.

The resurrection had come before Christ had risen because Jesus was and is the resurrection.
Nor had Jesus become the father of the resurrection. He declared Himself to be the resurrection. In the present, not in the future. Lazarus's resurrection demonstrated that without any doubt whatsoever. How could Christ raise Lazarus from the dead if the resurrection hadn't yet come?
Christ doesn't just possess the power to raise the dead. He IS the power, He IS the life and He IS the resurrection. And said so. There is no allusion to the future. He stated very clearly, "I am the resurrection", not that He would receive the power resurrection at a later date.

And yes, Jesus said He He himself would raise His body. And yes it was testified God would raise Him from the dead. You point out most scripture says God raised Christ but interpretation is not up to consensus. He said very clearly, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.




Did Jesus raise up His body as He said He would or didn't He?
Jesus did not lie. Or is there reason to believe He had?



I ask you point blank.
Do you believe Jesus raised His body from the dead or not? What does The LDS Church teach on this subject?

 

[proveallthings]

Proveallthings,
What does Jesus's statement, "I am the resurrection" mean to you?

To me it means that because He has power over life and death, He is the father of the resurrection. By being the first to be resurrected, He brings resurrection the the rest of mankind.

Jesus wasn't the first to be resurrected.
When He said that He was telling Martha the resurrection wasn't in the future. But now. The resurrection was standing there before Martha and Jesus said so. He said He is the resurrection. Martha believed the resurrection wouldn't come until the last day. But Jesus testified the resurrection was come. Jesus IS the resurrection when He made that statement.
He raised Lazarus from the dead. The resurrection had indeed come, not the day of His own resurrection.

Thank you for this interesting insight. And here I thought it was only the JWs who thought bringing Lazarus back to life was a resurrection. I am glad to know this is what you believe. Do all Evangelicals believe this?

I see one possible contradiction in your reasoning here, however. If Jesus saying that He IS the resurrection means that it was not in the future, that would mean He was referring to someone other than Lazarus as being the first to be resurrected, since, at the time of His saying this, Lazarus had not yet been raised. Who then was the first?

Your interpretation brings up some interesting questions. I have always assumed that resurrection is different from just being brought back to life in that it is permanent. I have always seen it as our final state of being in Heaven, after this life. Do you believe Lazarus was, from then on, an immortal being, or do you believe that the term resurrection applies to any situation where someone dies and comes back to life? If Lazarus did come back as a mortal, does this mean he is resurrected twice?

The resurrection had come before Christ had risen because Jesus was and is the resurrection.
Nor had Jesus become the father of the resurrection. He declared Himself to be the resurrection. In the present, not in the future. Lazarus's resurrection demonstrated that without any doubt whatsoever. How could Christ raise Lazarus from the dead if the resurrection hadn't yet come?

That just depends on what your definition of resurrection is.

If Christ was not the first to be resurrected, how do you explain these verses in 1Cor. 15?
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

Did Jesus raise up His body as He said He would or didn't He?
Jesus did not lie. Or is there reason to believe He had?
I ask you point blank.
Do you believe Jesus raised His body from the dead or not? What does The LDS Church teach on this subject?

I believe Jesus raised Himself from the dead. I have given my explanation to resolve the apparent conflict with the several verses that say it was the Father who raised Him (Rom. 10:9, 1 Pet. 1:21, Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:17,20). How do you explain this possible contradiction?

 

[By Grace]

Originally Posted by By Grace
Therein lies the crux of the matter. You want to expand the definition to be meaningless, and then as a Mormon apologist, the conclusion will suddenly contract to say in effect that your leader XYZ prophecized thus and such he is therefore on the level of Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. Doing that is akin to moving the goal posts in a football game as the kicker tries to put the ball between two moving uprights.

By Grace, do you realize what you are saying here? You did not deny that my expanded definition of prophecy and prophet is supported by several scriptures in the Bible, Exodus 7:1, 1Tim. 4:14, 2Pet. 1:19-21 and Rev. 19:10. But you say that this Biblical definition of a prophet or prophecy is like moving the goalposts in favor of Mormonism. You need to be careful with this blatant promotion of Mormonism or the moderators may come down on you.

Sometimes I wonder if you are doing this on purpose for the sake of my aggravation, or if you are being honest in stating that you do not know the results of what you are proposing. Whatever the case, permit me to discuss the nature of a peach as an example. We know that the peach is the fruit of the peach tree. We know that the skin has a color tone ranging from yellow to red, and that it is covered with a soft and fuzzy skin. The pulp of the fruit is a pale orange-like color, and has a hard wrinkly pod that covers the peach tree seed. they are also delicious.

If you change any of those properties, you no longer have a peach. For example the fruit called a nectarine is similar, but its skin is relatively hard and smooth with no fuzz on it. Therefore a nectarine =/= peach.

What you are proposing in your "expansion of the definition" is permitting a nectarine to be called a peach.

In using the Biblical definition, I am speaking about the peach (metaphorically) and I am including the penalties of those who are false prophets to be included in the definition. Therefore, I believe that I am using the higher standard of the Bible to define the nature of a prophet. Should you permit "one exception" to the definition, soon you can be calling a pumpkin a peach.

When someone tries to say that a pumpkin is the same as a peach, then that person has moved the goalposts. Is that clear, now?