The Mormon Belief of Deification

[Potluck]

Do all Evangelicals believe this?

Do all Mormons believe as you do?

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?

"I believe Jesus raised Himself from the dead."

Absolutely.

Lazarus was not raised unto eternity. That's obvious. But he was indeed resurrected from the dead. What else would you called it if he wasn't resurrected?

Christ has power over death including his own. What other man could make such a claim?

John 11:44 And he that was dead came forth...




"...does this mean he is resurrected twice?"

He's definitely been resurrected once in bodily form. Will he be resurrected unto eternal life? And if resurrected unto judgment then in either case did Jesus make a mistake resurrecting him the first time?




How do you explain this possible contradiction?

Scripture calls Christ the Word of God. Without beginning, without end. From everlasting to everlasting.

 

[jasoncran]

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?

amongst preterist and well I believe an extension of the jewish belief on the torah. the resurrection life starts at the moment we pray for forgiveness.

 

[Potluck]

And you sir?
Is there anything else you care to add to this discussion?

 

[By Grace]

And you sir? Is there anything else you care to add to this discussion?

To whom do you reply?

 

[Potluck]

Jasoncran
And you too if you feel so inclined.

 

[Webb]

Hi Potluck
Do you believe Christ was and is God as well?

God bless

 

[Potluck]

Hi Potluck
Do you believe Christ was and is God as well?

God bless

Yes

 

[proveallthings]

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?

I have always understood very clearly what you mean by moving the goalposts. What I can’t figure out is why you ignore the verses of the Bible I referenced as part of the criteria for defining a prophet or prophecy. Why do you not address the evidence provided in Exodus 7:1, 1Tim. 4:14, 2Pet. 1:19-21 and Rev. 19:10 for a broader definition of these terms?

By the way, I’m really getting hungry for peaches now.

 

[Mountain Man]

Mormonism is a false religion leading people away from God....there,i said it.

 

[proveallthings]

Do all Evangelicals believe this?

Do all Mormons believe as you do?

Yes. All Mormons who understand the official teachings of the church.

Lazarus was not raised unto eternity. That's obvious. But he was indeed resurrected from the dead. What else would you called it if he wasn't resurrected?

I would call it raising from the dead, or bringing him back to life to continue his mortality a little longer. For Mormons, resurrected means re-uniting the spirit with the dead body into an immortal being.

Christ has power over death including his own. What other man could make such a claim?

None other. I agree with you.

"...does this mean he is resurrected twice?"

He's definitely been resurrected once in bodily form. Will he be resurrected unto eternal life? And if resurrected unto judgment then in either case did Jesus make a mistake resurrecting him the first time?

I don’t believe Jesus made a mistake. I am just wondering if you believe it is possible for a person to be resurrected twice. Do you believe it is possible that he was not really resurrected the first time, but only brought back to life?

Scripture calls Christ the Word of God. Without beginning, without end. From everlasting to everlasting.

I’m sorry, but I do not understand how this answers the question of how Rom. 10:9, 1 Pet. 1:21, Gal. 1:1 and Eph. 1:17,20 don’t contradict the idea that it was Jesus and not the Father who raised Him from the Dead. Could you please explain?

 

[Jamesone5]

I’m sorry, but I do not understand how this answers the question of how Rom. 10:9, 1 Pet. 1:21, Gal. 1:1 and Eph. 1:17,20 don’t contradict the idea that it was Jesus and not the Father who raised Him from the Dead. Could you please explain?

The whole issue of not understanding really starts with the differences of Who Christ is in Mormonism versus what many of us call the "Biblical Christ". Mormonism teaches of a separate and distinct Christ who is "One with the Father in Purpose", but still a separate Being, who through Obedience to the Father became exalted. The Biblical Christ Is God in the Flesh and God Who came down to earth, gave up His Divinity for a few years and lived as a mortal man to redeem all who Believe in Him. The verses you quoted speak of God "raising from the dead" the mortal Christ and how we are to place our Faith in His death and Resurrection.---they are not speaking of the Divine Christ,. because many other verses attest to that aspect.

I came across a verse this morning I have read many times before but a phrase in it suddenly came alive for me. John 17:3 which in my NKJV goes like this:
And this is et4ernal life, that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Knowing God the Father and then Jesus Christ is very vital and as Jesus tells us in Matthew, Chapter 24,[among other places] , there will be these false Christs to be wary of. This would include many wrong teachings of Who Christ Is and in Mormonism He is portrayed as a created, exalted man. It all starts with Knowing Christ and then verses, like the ones you quoted really are not a problem.

 

[proveallthings]

I have been working two jobs since just before this post and did not notice it. Here is my response.

The whole issue of not understanding really starts with the differences of Who Christ is in Mormonism versus what many of us call the "Biblical Christ". Mormonism teaches of a separate and distinct Christ who is "One with the Father in Purpose", but still a separate Being, who through Obedience to the Father became exalted. The Biblical Christ Is God in the Flesh and God Who came down to earth, gave up His Divinity for a few years and lived as a mortal man to redeem all who Believe in Him.

The Mormon Christ you describe here does not conflict in any way with the Biblical Christ you also describe. They are completely compatible as I see it.

I came across a verse this morning I have read many times before but a phrase in it suddenly came alive for me. John 17:3 which in my NKJV goes like this:
And this is et4ernal life, that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I have a hard time seeing how anyone could read this verse and still believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being. Please explain how this verse teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being.

 

[By Grace]

Jamesone5 said: ↑
The whole issue of not understanding really starts with the differences of Who Christ is in Mormonism versus what many of us call the "Biblical Christ". Mormonism teaches of a separate and distinct Christ who is "One with the Father in Purpose", but still a separate Being, who through Obedience to the Father became exalted. The Biblical Christ Is God in the Flesh and God Who came down to earth, gave up His Divinity for a few years and lived as a mortal man to redeem all who Believe in Him.

I have been working two jobs since just before this post and did not notice it. Here is my response.
The Mormon Christ you describe here does not conflict in any way with the Biblical Christ you also describe. They are completely compatible as I see it.

Then in light of Jesus stating, "Before Abraham was, I AM" could you explain how you believe that the Bible teaches that according to the BoM that Jesus was exalted into godhood as a reward of His obedience to God, the Father.

Then as another part of that LDS doctrine, please explain how, despite the Bible saying several times, "You are saved by grace, and not of works" that according to LDS beliefs, that heaven is earned by collecting heavenly "merit badges".

I have a hard time seeing how anyone could read this verse and still believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being. Please explain how this verse teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being.

The orthodox statement about Jesus is that is one divine Person having two natures. He is 100% human, and 100% God without mixture or confusion of parts. In His humanity, Jesus has felt every emotion and pain which we are subject to. The divinity He has is 100% God, and while he is co-equal to both God the Father, and God Holy Spirit, there is no co regency in heaven.

Simply put that verse does NOT teach " how this verse teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being" as you allege. As a matter of fact, there is no verse in the Bible that teaches that Jesus and God the Father are the same.

 

[Rick W]

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 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.



Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[proveallthings]

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 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.



Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

The quoting of these scriptures is admirable sentiment, but I’m not sure what point you are trying to make in reference to this discussion. All Mormons hold all these verses in very high esteem.

 

[By Grace]

The quoting of these scriptures is admirable sentiment, but I’m not sure what point you are trying to make in reference to this discussion. All Mormons hold all these verses in very high esteem.

IOW The Mormons "esteem" them, but they DO NOT BELIEVE them.

How [self edited] l! Never mind. Ain't worth it.

 

[proveallthings]

Then in light of Jesus stating, "Before Abraham was, I AM" could you explain how you believe that the Bible teaches that according to the BoM that Jesus was exalted into godhood as a reward of His obedience to God, the Father.

I would be glad to explain this. Thanks for asking. But I wish you would include references, for you are paraphrasing and I don’t think we believe that the Bible references anything in the Book of Mormon. It is true, however, that Mormons believe that Jesus became the great I AM because of obedience to His Father eons before the creation of this earth. It happened long before the context of the Bible. Does that answer your question?

Then as another part of that LDS doctrine, please explain how, despite the Bible saying several times, "You are saved by grace, and not of works" that according to LDS beliefs, that heaven is earned by collecting heavenly "merit badges".

I am not aware of anywhere in LDS literature that mentions earning merit badges in order to get to heaven. Your question exposes your lack of understanding of the LDS view of salvation. Mormons believe that it is only through the grace of Jesus Christ that anyone can be saved. The self-righteous works that Paul is referring to can never save anyone in the LDS view. We are in complete agreement with Paul on the subject of salvation.

The orthodox statement about Jesus is that is one divine Person having two natures. He is 100% human, and 100% God without mixture or confusion of parts. In His humanity, Jesus has felt every emotion and pain which we are subject to. The divinity He has is 100% God, and while he is co-equal to both God the Father, and God Holy Spirit, there is no co regency in heaven.

It is interesting that you do not just quote a Bible verse as the “orthodox” statement. I would like to know how you can say that Jesus is co-equal with the Father when throughout the NT He emphasizes that He is submissive to the Father. Even the titles Son and Father indicate that He cannot be equal in every way with the Father. It is true that in some ways He is equal to the Father, but John 5:19 says that the Son can do nothing of Himself and that He does nothing that the Father has not first done. So maybe I need to understand better what exactly you mean by “co-equal”.

Simply put that verse does NOT teach

how this verse teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being" as you allege. As a matter of fact, there is no verse in the Bible that teaches that Jesus and God the Father are the same.

I agree completely with your statement here. I do not allege this at all. It was Jamesone5 who criticized Mormons for believing they are not the same being. So ByGrace, I guess we have found a point of agreement between you and Mormonism.

 

[By Grace]

I would be glad to explain this. Thanks for asking. But I wish you would include references, for you are paraphrasing and I don’t think we believe that the Bible references anything in the Book of Mormon. It is true, however, that Mormons believe that Jesus became the great I AM because of obedience to His Father eons before the creation of this earth. It happened long before the context of the Bible. Does that answer your question?

Correctly, you stated the Mormon belief in exaltation.
HOWEVER "became" is not the same as the word "IS" There NEVER was a time that Jesus was NOT 100% God and 100% human with no division, nor mingling of parts. He is Ine Person having two natures.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
​

I am not aware of anywhere in LDS literature that mentions earning merit badges in order to get to heaven. Your question exposes your lack of understanding of the LDS view of salvation. Mormons believe that it is only through the grace of Jesus Christ that anyone can be saved. The self-righteous works that Paul is referring to can never save anyone in the LDS view. We are in complete agreement with Paul on the subject of salvation.

Are you aware of these?

• Alma 22:6
  6 And also, what is this that Ammon said—If ye will repent ye shall be saved, and if ye will not repent, ye shall be cast off at the last day?
• Moroni 8:13
  13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved
• Alma 42:24
  24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved
• Alma 5:31
• 31 Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved!
• 3 Nephi 23:5
  5 And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved. Search the prophets, for many there be that testify of these things.
• Nephi 25:2323
• For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

You must see that your Holy book CLEARLY teaches a works-centered "salvation", and that "salvation" is exaltation into god hood. therefore your church teaches POLYTHEISM and EVERY Mormon worthy of his baptism and his Temple Recommend knows that.

It is interesting that you do not just quote a Bible verse as the “orthodox” statement.

Because the Church includes true Believers (not Mormons) both the Bible and the church "grew up together". That changed around 96, when John wrote the Revelation. With the exception of Acts and the Gospels, and Revelation, the New Testament is NOT a history book

I would like to know how you can say that Jesus is co-equal with the Father when throughout the NT He emphasizes that He is submissive to the Father.

You are confusing submission of one a co-equal Divine Person to another as a statement of superior/inferior relationship. It ain't so:

Hence we read in the Second Helvetic Confession: “We acknowledge, therefore, that there be in one and the same Jesus our Lord two natures—the divine and the human nature; and we say that these are so conjoined or united that they are not swallowed up, confounded, or mingled together, but rather united or joined together in one person (the properties of each being safe and remaining still), so that we do worship one Christ, our Lord, and not two.… Therefore we do not think nor teach that the divine nature in Christ did suffer, or that Christ, according to His human nature, is yet in the world, and so in every place.”​

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 309). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

Notice how Berkoff explains that better than I can:

THE NAME SON OF GOD. The name “Son of God” was variously applied in the Old Testament:
(a) to the people of Israel, Ex. 4:22; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1;
(b) to officials among Israel, especially to the promised king of the house of David, 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:27;
(c) to angels, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6; and
(d) to pious people in general, Gen. 6:2; Ps. 73:15; Prov. 14:26. Among Israel the name acquired theocratic significance. In the New Testament we find Jesus appropriating the name, and others also ascribing it to Him. The name is applied to Jesus in four different senses, which are not always kept distinct in Scripture but are sometimes combined. The name is applied to Him:

a. In the official or Messianic sense, as a description of the office rather than of the nature of Christ.

b. In the trinitarian sense. The name is sometimes used to denote the essential deity of Christ. As such it points to a pre-existent sonship, which absolutely transcends the human life of Christ and His official calling as Messiah. Instances of this use are found in Matt. 11:27; 14:28–33; 16:16, and parallels; 21:33–46, and parallels; 22:41–46; 26:63, and parallels. In some of these cases the idea of the Messianic sonship also enters more or less

c. In the nativistic sense. Christ is also called the Son of God in virtue of His supernatural birth. The name is so applied to Him in the well known passage in the Gospel of Luke, in which the origin of His human nature is ascribed to the direct, supernatural paternity of God, namely, Luke 1:35.

5. THE NAME LORD (Kurios). The name “Lord” is applied to God in the Septuagint, (a) as the equivalent of Jehovah; (b) as the rendering of Adonai; and (c) as the translation of a human honorific title applied to God (chiefly Adon), Josh. 3:11; Ps. 97:5.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 315). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

​

Even the titles Son and Father indicate that He cannot be equal in every way with the Father.

The differences in the names reflect the work or the "office" that each Member of the Trinity does. They cannot be the same because that would create a redundancy.

It is true that in some ways He is equal to the Father, but John 5:19 says that the Son can do nothing of Himself

That means that he does nothing that God, the Father did not create in the order of Salvation and in the Atonement did not pre-ordain

and that He does nothing that the Father has not first done

.
That statement does not conform to what Jesus said; you are placing words and meanings into the words of Jesus which are not there.

So maybe I need to understand better what exactly you mean by “co-equal”.

It is simple, Each Member in the Trinity is no less of God than the other; they EACH have different jobs to do

YOU MIXED YOUR REPLY TO JAMISON WITH MINE

I agree completely with your statement here. I do not allege this at all. It was Jamesone5 who criticized Mormons for believing they are not the same being. So ByGrace, I guess we have found a point of agreement between you and Mormonism.

Not really

Jamesone5 said: ↑
I came across a verse this morning I have read many times before but a phrase in it suddenly came alive for me. John 17:3 which in my NKJV goes like this:
And this is et4ernal life, that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I have a hard time seeing how anyone could read this verse and still believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being. Please explain how this verse teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being.

You are confusing procession with subordination. God sent out Jesus to the world John 3:16 because that was HIS PLAN, not because Jesus was any way inferi. The fancy word for that is ordo salutus which is Latin for "order of salvation".

Jamesone5 said: ↑
The whole issue of not understanding really starts with the differences of Who Christ is in Mormonism versus what many of us call the "Biblical Christ". Mormonism teaches of a separate and distinct Christ who is "One with the Father in Purpose", but still a separate Being, who through Obedience to the Father became exalted. The Biblical Christ Is God in the Flesh and God Who came down to earth, gave up His Divinity for a few years and lived as a mortal man to redeem all who Believe in Him.
The Mormon Christ you describe here does not conflict in any way with the Biblical Christ you also describe. They are completely compatible as I see it.

 

[By Grace]

PART TWO OF MY REPLY somehow it was lost in cyberspace

YOU MIXED YOUR REPLY TO JAMISON WITH MINE

I agree completely with your statement here. I do not allege this at all. It was Jamesone5 who criticized Mormons for believing they are not the same being. So ByGrace, I guess we have found a point of agreement between you and Mormonism.

Not really

Jamesone5 said: ↑

I came across a verse this morning I have read many times before but a phrase in it suddenly came alive for me. John 17:3 which in my NKJV goes like this:
And this is et4ernal life, that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

I have a hard time seeing how anyone could read this verse and still believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being. Please explain how this verse teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being.

You are confusing procession with subordination. God sent out Jesus to the world John 3:16 because that was HIS PLAN, not because Jesus was any way inferior to The Father. The fancy word for that is ordo salutus which is Latin for "order of salvation".

NOW I AM MIXING YOUR REPLY TO JAMISON5 WITH MY REPLY TO YOU. Turn about is fair play, you know. 8-)

Jamesone5 said: ↑

The whole issue of not understanding really starts with the differences of Who Christ is in Mormonism versus what many of us call the "Biblical Christ". Mormonism teaches of a separate and distinct Christ who is "One with the Father in Purpose", but still a separate Being, who through Obedience to the Father became exalted. The Biblical Christ Is God in the Flesh and God Who came down to earth, gave up His Divinity for a few years and lived as a mortal man to redeem all who Believe in Him.

The Mormon Christ you describe here does not conflict in any way with the Biblical Christ you also describe. They are completely compatible as I see it.

I submit that you have been TAUGHT to say that statement, but you have NEVER EXAMINED if that statement to be true. That statement of mine is suppoeted by this exchange we had earlier:

proveallthings said: ↑

The quoting of these scriptures is admirable sentiment, but I’m not sure what point you are trying to make in reference to this discussion. All Mormons hold all these verses in very high esteem.

IOW The Mormons "esteem" them, but they DO NOT BELIEVE them.

If you really want to examine the TRUE nature of Jesus Christ, as found in the Bible alone, then compare it with what your Book of Mormon says about Him, I will be happy to do so. If we do this carefully, and we use our sources to state what is written, we MAY be able to do this without runnikng afoul of the tos.

 

[proveallthings]

Correctly, you stated the Mormon belief in exaltation.
HOWEVER "became" is not the same as the word "IS" There NEVER was a time that Jesus was NOT 100% God and 100% human with no division, nor mingling of parts. He is Ine Person having two natures.

When anything or person becomes something, it is usually just assumed that they still are the thing they became unless otherwise stated. Mormons believe that Jesus IS and was the great I Am from before the foundation of the world, which is exactly what the Bible teaches. Mormons also believe in the two natures, that Jesus was both God and Human during His earthly ministry.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Mormons believe everything stated in the Bible, including the fact that Jesus Christ IS and was the same yesterday, today and forever.

You stated that the salvation of Mormonism required earning merit badges to get to heaven. I answered by saying that I was unaware of any church doctrine that involved earning merit badges for that purpose. Then you said:

Are you aware of these?

• Alma 22:6
  6 And also, what is this that Ammon said—If ye will repent ye shall be saved, and if ye will not repent, ye shall be cast off at the last day?
• Moroni 8:13
  13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved
• Alma 42:24
  24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved
• Alma 5:31
• 31 Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved!
• 3 Nephi 23:5
  5 And whosoever will hearken unto my words and repenteth and is baptized, the same shall be saved. Search the prophets, for many there be that testify of these things.
• Nephi 25:2323
• For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Yes, I am very familiar with all of these verses and can find corresponding verses in the Bible teaching the same things. There is nothing in any of these verses that teaches the need for earning merit badges to be saved.

If you understood 2 Nephi 25:23 in context with the rest of the BofM you would know that it means that even after all we can do, it is still only the grace of Christ that saves. I don’t see how that make works more important than grace.

You must see that your Holy book CLEARLY teaches a works-centered "salvation"

There is nothing in any Mormon doctrine that teaches that works trump the grace of Christ in being saved. Notice what it says in 2 Nephi 2:8, “Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah”. As it says in Revelation 20:12-13, we will be judged according to our works, but works don’t save us. It is only the blood of Christ that saves according to Mormon doctrine.

​

YOU MIXED YOUR REPLY TO JAMISON WITH MINE
You are confusing procession with subordination. God sent out Jesus to the world John 3:16 because that was HIS PLAN, not because Jesus was any way inferi. The fancy word for that is ordo salutus which is Latin for "order of salvation".

This point is not about the equality of the Father and the Son. This is about the idea of whether Jesus and His Father are the same being or two separate beings. You appeared to agree with me that they are separate, which is counter to what Jamesone5 stated as his belief.