You guys are exactly right. So right that you just proved Joel's point.

You guys were taking choice parts of the Mormon texts and taking them out of context. That's exactly what Joel did for the Bible.

Nabster, I did do some research right after I read that. My friend (KTG) has many religious texts at home where he found (most of) them.

I think what Joel is trying to say is that we all need to stop worrying so much about what was said, and focus more on its message.

"For as much as I laugh about its origins, I find its message and its people quite devout and friendly" -KTG about the Mormons-

Whenever you take someone's text like that, you can stretch it to make it sound silly and ignorant. Focus on the message. If the Mormons say that they love Jesus and are following his message, why bother worrying about how they do it?

"Devout and friendly" do not necessarily get you into heaven.

You're still missing the previous 58 pages of discussion mouse - we've discussed macro and micro issues with mormon theology - a great number do not line up with Biblical theology. They aren't following Jesus' message.

i GEUSS i feel that MOrmon theology is not Christian due to everything around it that just muddies up the main point. the symbolism, the ritualism, the open canon, hence changing canon, polygamy yes then no, Joseph Smith questionable history, masonic stuff, God was a man thing, We will become gods thing have our own planet thing, all this messes with me, even though centrally, it is Jesus Christ we claim to have salvation through.
scriptural debate always pulls us further apart rather than closer together because our end result is trying to prove things that do not jive with one another.
nabster

nabster,

with all due respect - God of Gods - I know you trashed Joshua and Psalms, but you didn't touch Deuteronomy, this leaves the debate open, not shut. The possibility remains valid.

I think you and I actually agree with regard to the nature of the trinity. Let me ask you a question for the sake of clarity. If you were to see God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, what would you see, would you see, one being/entity or would you see three beings/entities?

Is it like this

God = God
Jesus = God
Holy Spirit = God
and they are one in purpose

or is it

God + Jesus + Holy Spirit = God
and they are one in purpose and being.

My debate after that point was intended to be farcical, because I find the position that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit being one being, completely farcical.

Just for complete clarity, here, do you agree with me, nabster, on my interpretation of what Jesus is saying in John 17?

Everlasting to Everlasting: It is not clear what this means. To last forever, does not indicate an infinite starting point. Something can start whenever and continue forever, making it everlasting.

Different translations of the bible even say different things.

In one translation it is translated "eternity to eternity" strengthening your position. IN another translation it is translated "age to age" strengthening my position.

Moreover, everlasting is also used in Leviticus 16:34
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">clearly, this ends with the advent of Christ and his fulfilling the law of Moses, how then is it everlasting?

Also in Genesis 49:26
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here, the "everlasting hills" have an "utmost bound" meaning that they either "end" or "begin" somewhere. So we see a scriptural usage of "everlasting" that does not mean eternal.

again in Habbakuk 3:6
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We know this much, there are no "everlasting mountains" or "perpetual hills" on this earth, and yet we have the word used twice in this verse once to figuratively describe mountains and the second time to describe God's ways. Everlasting, does not mean without beginning or end.

with regard to Jesus and Satan as brothers, You continually point to Satan having been an angel as scriptural grounds for this not being feasible. But I repeat, the Bible is not clear on the nature of angels. You wrote: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The last of the nine orders of angels. From the highest to the lowest in rank, the orders are: seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominations or dominions, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, and angels.
literally they are in ranks -
malakh - meaning messengers.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">and implied that this was taken directly from the Bible. It is nowhere in the Bible. Some man somewhere came up with this system - the Bible does not give this order of ranking. As such, the point about the nature of angels is still open for debate and interpretation.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mormonism teaches the same intolerance and the same "you are in a cult " kind of thing.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree, we simply say we are right and you are wrong. From what I can tell, none of you want to be considered Mormon, you just want to go around and say who is and who isn't a Christian. I don't think any of you belong to a cult.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Book of Mormon says, "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10).</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This verse of scripture is interpreted to mean that there are people who are serving Jesus and people who are serving the devil. It is explicitly stated that "the church of the lamb of God" does not refer expressly to the LDS church, but refers to good people everywhere who are earnestly working for the cause of Christ. the church of the devil consists of all those who are working against the cause of Christ. Interpretation of this scripture by Mormon leaders is clear on the fact that these two churches are manifest on the earth in merely a metaphysical sense and not as actual institutions.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take for example in Mormonism they teach that all souls preexisted as angels that incarnate on earth (much like Hinduism but more cosmic) It is these that have an opportunity to progress to become Gods over their own planets. They believe that Michael the arch-angel is the ancient of days became Adam, the first man on earth. Michael the archangel is Adam. Yet in their writings Adam was a God.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Much of this is misinterpretation of facts and taken out of context. Adam was not a God, he has the potential to become a God as do we all according to Jesus in John 10:34 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess that makes Jesus not a Christian because he says to all that "they are gods."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If Michael is Adam then when he fell into sin, he became like all the angels that followed the devil and is actually an enemy of God.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">completely inaccurate characterization of Mormon doctrine - When Adam fell, he became Mortal and knew the difference between good and evil. Satans angels are not mortal and Adam is not like them. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> To the Mormons Adam fell upward not backward, it was a blessing not a curse. He was able to be like God, who happens to be man.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God is not a man, he is a God. He is in fact, the God of gods and will always be our God. Adam is only able to be like God to the extent that he attains salvation.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They believe Noah is the arch-angel Gabriel (Joseph Smith taught this) he is next to Adam in the priesthood. (church news mar. 12 1994) Luke says it was Gabriel that appeared to Mary and Zecharias. (Doctrine and Covenants 27:7). Did Noah come back from the dead and visit him? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess no one ever came back from the dead in the Bible, like Moses on the mount of transfiguration or Elijah and Elias. moot point.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They also believe that we all were spirit children of Elohim, angels in our pre-existent life in heaven.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, I believe I am the spiritual child of my Heavenly Father or God. Elohim is simply a Hebrew word that means Omnipotent and is used to refer to God.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mormons worship a God who was a man who previously before that was an angel (Spirit child as they like to put it). In either case it is idolatry. Since they are not worshipping the eternal creator but an angel who incarnated becomes a god from formerly being an exalted man.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">this is a distortion of fact. Why do people have a problem with God becoming incarnate, when that's what you believe about Jesus Christ anyway? Jesus was a spirit, who became incarnate and now he's a God. Seriously, there's evidence I've cited it above about God having done something other than just sit around and be god.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only one I can think of if Jesus affirmation that he is only doing what he has seen God do. If Jesus is solely following his father's example, then God must at one time have physically done what Jesus was doing. I know it's confusing, but it does indicate that at one point God was not what he is today, but walked among mortals and did works similar to Jesus' works. Not on this earth and not in this time, but somewhere, sometime. Here read the verse for yourself John 5:19 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So Jesus only does what he sees the father doing. To me that means that God once did what Jesus is now doing and Jesus is following his example.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Allen,
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">it's the taking one scripture, or even one part of one scripture and running with it to the exclusion of the context of the events that led to the scripture and the context of the entirety of the verse/ chapter/ book/ Bible/ Jesus.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, this isn't what Mormons do, because we believe in an open canon of scripture we have a lot more to draw on. Many of these doctrines are clarified by modern revelation to living prophets or found in the Book of Mormon or Doctrine & Covenants. We merely appeal to various verses from the Bible to satisfy the critics. Personally, because I've recieved an answer through prayer and personal revelation, I don't really find it necessary to create this appeal to the Bible for any other reason than I enjoy the discussion. In short, these doctrines did not necessarily find their origin in the Bible. Many found their origin in direct revelation, the Bible is only used to appeal to folks like you.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Devout and friendly" do not necessarily get you into heaven.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">maybe not, but I'll "show my faith by my works" like the apostle James, thank you very much. The fact remains that Mormons are so clearly, and vastly ahead of the rest of the Christian world when it comes to living a Christian life, that if we are to be "judged by our fruits" then there is no other conclusion to come to than that we are Christian.

Christianity should be determined by what people do, how they act, and how their lives are impacted for good by what they believe. Not by some archaic set of definitions and doctrines. The minimal standard of belief in Christ as Savior should really be all that applies.

Nabster, again, the historical record backs me up here, but 1st and 2nd century Christian fathers also believed that man would attain salvation through deification.

ON to the last few points I haven't addressed from Juss' post, this is a good transition since we were on the topic of....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Salvation


Christians... Salvation is the forgiveness of sin and deliverance of the sinner from damnation. It is a free gift received by God's grace (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:23) and cannot be earned (Rom. 11:6).


Mormons... Salvation has a double meaning in Mormonism: universal resurrection and . . .
"The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79.

Christians... Salvation (forgiveness of sins) is not by works (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:21)

Mormons... "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.'" (Articles of Faith p. 79)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bible is pretty clear on the fact that All mankind will be resurrected if you don't believe that then read 1 cor 15:21-23 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">(emphasis added)

So far I don't see a problem. moving on.

As for the last bit, "salvation being predicated on obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" we'll have to agree to disagree, but the Bible is certainly not clear on that subject. This debate is not exclusively Mormon v. Christian. it is also Christian v. Christian. What is required for salvation? Mainly, faith in Christ and repentence. Mormonism would also require baptism, but I have explained ad nauseum, with biblical scripture as backup, that baptism in this life is not essential. So what's the problem?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Topic Bile

Christians...The inspired inerrant word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). It is authoritative in all subjects it addresses.

Mormons... "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.Topic Bile

Christians...The inspired inerrant word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). It is authoritative in all subjects it addresses.

Mormons... "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't know much about Bile except that it tastes badly and sometimes when you're really sick and you've thrown up everything else, you finally throw up some Bile.

But as for the Bible. again we'll have to agree to disagree. I would point to the fact that there are no original texts available and that multiple translations that exist today can have minute differences in them. This would indicate that it has not been preserved in pristine clarity.

As I've said before, I believe the Bible to be mostly correct, I think I said around 98% when pushed on the question. I stand by that. As an example - no time to look up the reference - When Moses is working to free the Children of Israel, God tells him what to do, he does it, and then the scripture read that "the Lord harden's Pharaoh's heart." Does that make any sense to anyone? Why would God fight against himself and only inflict more misery on the Egyptians who were also his children.

That is inconsistent with everything I know and believe about God.

It's also not only about the Bible being in error on certain points, it's also about how it was assembled. I've said before, that most Christians don't view Catholicism as a viable form of Christianity, yet it was Catholic priests that assembled the Bible we have today. They're good enough to assemble the Bible you accept, but they aren't good enough for Christians to accept. Again, that doesn't make any sense.

Personally, I don't believe that the men who assembled the Bible were without an agenda. For decades there were competing versions of the Bible that included different books that were promoted by Priests and Kings that had differing political goals.

What is it they say about Karl Rove these days "where there's smoke there's fire." I feel the same way about how the Bible was assembled.

So it's not so much that the Bible is in error, but more that we believe there is more out there. More that could be included. The Bible specifically speaks of many sacred writings mentioned in the scriptures that we do not have today, among which are these books and writers:

Exodus 24:7
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Numbers 21:14
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joshua 10:13
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is not this written in the book of Jasher? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I won't bother to quote them all, but I'll give you all the names and references.

The acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41), Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29), Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9: 29), Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12: 15), Iddo the prophet (2 Chr. 13: 22), Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34), the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19), Enoch (Jude 1: 14), and epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9), to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3), and from Laodicea (Col. 4: 16).

Wouldn't you like to read the Book of Enoch? I would, after all, he walked with God(Genesis 5:22) don't you think he'd have some interesting things to say.

Moreover, the doctrine that the Bible is perfect is not supported by any scripture from the Bible that I know of. Find one and we can talk. It is a doctrine of man created after the Bible as an inaccurate measuring stick for the heart of a man.

If it's truly about relationship and not rules, then why is there so many rules about what it takes to be defined as a Christian. You can't believe this and you can't believe that. If I understand correctly, it is merely your relationship with Christ that determines whether or not a person is Christian.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your Jesus is different than my Jesus. From the core of it's theology. WHen you define in detail who Jesus is and then i define it as well. We differ in concept.period. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">My Jesus, is the Son of God and ruler over the whole earth, he is my savior, my redeemer, and the lover of my soul. I love him as I love no one else for he has saved me from the depths of hell and damnation. Because of my great faith in him and love for him I try to do all that he has asked of me. I hope that those who know me personally, because of my example, will want to know the Savior.

Is my Jesus really not your Jesus?

quick note, with regards to nabsters dismissal of Joshua 22:22 reference to God of Gods and Psalms 136 reference to the same, I need to add...

With respect to the verse in Joshua, since the Bible's perfect wouldn't that have been stricken from the record? I disagree with you that it doesn't count. Especially if they were speaking with one voice (verse 16)on this account. Rarely does that happen in scripture and when it does it is usually inspired by the Holy Spirit or used when entering into a covenant. If that's the case, and you're right then they are entering into a false covenant with the God of Gods and it should not be in the Bible.

As for Psalms 136, it's pretty independent of Psalms 135. Moreover, Psalms 135 discusses God being greater than other Gods and God being greater than any idols, independently of one another. Psalms 135 actually, when read, strengthens my position.

quick note, with regards to nabsters dismissal of Joshua 22:22 reference to God of Gods and Psalms 136 reference to the same, I need to add...

With respect to the verse in Joshua, since the Bible's perfect wouldn't that have been stricken from the record? I disagree with you that it doesn't count. Especially if they were speaking with one voice (verse 16)on this account. Rarely does that happen in scripture and when it does it is usually inspired by the Holy Spirit or used when entering into a covenant. If that's the case, and you're right then they are entering into a false covenant with the God of Gods and it should not be in the Bible. Or the Holy Spirit is inspiring a group of people to speak with one voice and utter a falsehood. seems out of character.

As for Psalms 136, it's pretty independent of Psalms 135. Moreover, Psalms 135 discusses God being greater than other Gods and God being greater than any idols, independently of one another. Psalms 135 actually, when read, strengthens my position.

Edited to add:

I hate when this happens, I just posted this and it started a new page please go back and read the last post on page 59. I think I've responded to all of Juss's issues with it as well as everything nabster raised. As always, if I've not addressed anything, please let me know.

JOEL QUOTE
and implied that this was taken directly from the Bible. It is nowhere in the Bible. Some man somewhere came up with this system - the Bible does not give this order of ranking. As such, the point about the nature of angels is still open for debate and interpretation
END QUOTE

these are the ranks, and they are not made up. multiple scripture validate the ranks.
important? probably not. but we were discussing angels, no?

trinity
God is God
Jesus is God in the flesh as man(for salvationof mankind) now a resurrected man and the throne in Heaven.
Holy Spirit is God and ministers here on earth.
All three are God in unity and in purpose. ALL reveal to Jesus Christ as saviour.
As I type , i see it difficult to understand. yet i understand it completely.


QUOTE JOEL
Moreover, everlasting is also used in Leviticus 16:34

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

clearly, this ends with the advent of Christ and his fulfilling the law of Moses, how then is it everlasting?

THE COVENENANT is everlasting....until the new covenant was brought forth.
what does everlasting TO everlasting mean Joel?
come on now. begininning to end, does that mean something else too? how about start to finish?
they mean the same thing. everlasting- from the beginning- to everlasting -the very end (if infact there is).

with respect to Deutoronomy 10:17...
what does lord of lords mean or king of kings, or most worthy, or anyother definition that defines God wwith respect as being the MOST ANYTHING of sovereignty.? People had other Gods and saying it this way places God above mythological gods or thge sun gods or any other man-made gods. It does not mean they in fact are gods, but man has called them so.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mormonism teaches the same intolerance and the same "you are in a cult " kind of thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree, we simply say we are right and you are wrong. From what I can tell, none of you want to be considered Mormon, you just want to go around and say who is and who isn't a Christian. I don't think any of you belong to a cult.

of course you dont because christianity is the object against which cults are measured.

Much of this is misinterpretation of facts and taken out of context. Adam was not a God, he has the potential to become a God as do we all according to Jesus in John 10:34
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that makes Jesus not a Christian because he says to all that "they are gods."

THIS IS GROSS MISINTERPRETATION AND I AM GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
this verse references psalm 82:6 of the old test and is in reference to an eightfold indictment of earthly judges, who then acted as supreme judge.
(1-they judge unjustly,2- accept wicked people,3-dont know God's law,4- dont want ot understand,5- walk in darkness,6-perverted civil institutions,7- die like men,8- fall like princes.)

elohim- gods. same used in verse in John
what does it start by saying? is it not written IN YOUR LAW, i said Ye are gods....stop! this is clearly about earthly judges calling and acting as gods when they judge man by the laws of the land.iF ordinary judges were called gods, then wy would it be blasphemy for Jesus to say he was deity because he was the SON of God? Jesus is defending calling himself the son of God and the example is , you dont call it blasphemy when you call judges gods so why do you call me blasphemous?
o-u-t- o-f c-o-n-t-e-x-t BIG TIME.

with regards to Adam and the "be like God thing".
God is ominpotent can adam attain that?
ominpresent can adam attain that?
omniscient- can adam attain that?
GOd is perfect can adam be perfect?
god knows end from beginning can adam?
Man will never be god or a god. Man is man.
You will not be a GOd on your own planet...where does that come from BTW?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They believe Noah is the arch-angel Gabriel (Joseph Smith taught this) he is next to Adam in the priesthood. (church news mar. 12 1994) Luke says it was Gabriel that appeared to Mary and Zecharias. (Doctrine and Covenants 27:7). Did Noah come back from the dead and visit him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess no one ever came back from the dead in the Bible, like Moses on the mount of transfiguration or Elijah and Elias. moot point.

THE POINT IS NOAH IS NOT GABRIEL. NOAH WAS A MAN. GABRIEL AND ANGEL. DIFFRERENT CREATIVE BEINGS.what is next reincarnation into some other person ?
The Bible is pretty clear on the fact that All mankind will be resurrected if you don't believe that then read 1 cor 15:21-23
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joel, all will be made alive PHYSICALLY not spiritually. Daniel 12:2 and John 5:28-29 some life and some damnation.


the book of the covenant is not a literal book. it is an account that the covenant Moses recvd and gave orally to tnhe people was the same after he wrote it down in "the book".
exodus 19:3-8, ex 20:1-23:33 and ex.24:3-4

nothing more is recorded regarding the books of the war of the Lord, although it refers to Israels entrance into MOab.
historical primarily in reference.

the book of Jasher again is historical odes, written believed by many men not one...noting and documenting the victories of each. such occurence of the sun and moon as victories of spiritual nature were documented as well.

Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29), Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9: 29),

refering to 1 Samuel 1-24 and refers to part 1 Samuel and 2 samuel. the book of Gad also refers to samuel as they had part in 1 samuel25 through 2 samuel 24. however it could be a missing book. i dont believe God would allow it to be missing if it were needed.

I am tired and weary...it is clear we differ in scriptural application and interpretation.
the part i do agree upon is Jesus Christ is my saviour lover of my soul, and through salvation in Him i will see heaven and eternity(i hope it is eternal in this application)

later,
nabster

Main point.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the part i do agree upon is Jesus Christ is my saviour lover of my soul, and through salvation in Him i will see heaven and eternity</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then what's the big deal really?

If it's about relationship and not rules, then why have traditional Christians imposed all these rules regarding "what it takes to be a Christian." If there are any rules there should only be one and that is accepting Jesus as Savior, Lord and King. Allen, I'd like it if you'd weigh in on this point as well.

On to the rest my friend.

just a tip, if you want to quote something you write the word "quote" surrounded by brackets [] and then at the end of the quote you write "/quote" again surrounded by brackets. Without that, it gets a little confusing to figure out who's saying what. I understand it because I wrote it, but others who may read the thread are certain to be confused.

With regard to angels:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">these are the ranks, and they are not made up. multiple scripture validate the ranks.
important? probably not. but we were discussing angels, no?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Which scriptures? I'd really like to know for my own edification. Plus it gets back to the fact that I'm required to back up everything with scripture and the rest of y'all get a free pass.

Trinity?

Again, for clarity's sake, when you die and you get to behold God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost all at once, what will you see? Three beings/entities or one being/entity?

I ask only because I think we agree.

Everlasting?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE COVENENANT is everlasting....until the new covenant was brought forth.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well then clearly, everlasting can mean something other than "forever and always" because in this case it had an end.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">begininning to end, does that mean something else too? how about start to finish?
they mean the same thing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Begining of what? end of what? Start of what? Finish of what?

If you say that God was there at the beginning of the earth, that's different than saying he hasn't ever not been there.

My point is simply that in some places the Bible says one thing and in others it says something else.

God of gods?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">what does lord of lords mean or king of kings, or most worthy, or anyother definition that defines God wwith respect as being the MOST ANYTHING of sovereignty.? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with you that your interpretation is a valid option, I just feel that the scripture is unclear and leaves the option open for there to be other interpretations.

Psalms 135 actually is the best argument for my case, the first half of the psalm refers solely to other gods. The second half of the psalm refers to idols. The two things are treated and discussed separately.

I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying that the scripture leaves open the possibility of interpretation and that we may both be right.

John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6

Your interpretation of Psalm 82 is wrong - let's read it verse by verse:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Psalmist Asaph is introducing here the Psalm, It is God who is standing in the congregation and it is intended to be God speaking.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy: rid [them] out of the hand of the wicked.
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here comes the verse in contention, remember it is God speaking.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In other words, "God has said, Ye are gods, and all of you are my children."
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The last verse drops out of the voice of the Lord and returns to the voice of the Psalmist Asaph.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now on to John 10:34 - Jesus was fairly crafty with words. In John 10:34 he says. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, "I said, Ye are gods?"</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why didn't Jesus simply say, "Is it not written in your law, 'Ye are gods?'"? He threw in the words "I said."

Why? well, it's because it was Jesus who spoke the words. What he's saying is this, "In your law you have quoted me as having said, Ye are gods."

Jesus is God in the doctrine of the trinity, (in the LDS doctrine Jehovah of the OT is Jesus in the pre-mortal existence and the God of the OT) so if God said in the OT "Ye are gods" then it was actually Jesus, so he's not only refuting the accusations that the saducees or pharisees are making against him for blasphemy but he's also claiming the statement in the OT as his own.

I could go on and I will. In various versions and translations of the Bible you get differing opinions as to whether God is speaking amongst judges or speaking amongst gods in the very first verse of Psalm 82.

Here we go:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God presides over heaven's court; he pronounces judgment on the judges: (New Living Translation

A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. (New King James Version)

God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. (New American Standard Bible)

A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:(Revised Standard Version)

A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.(Webster)

-- A Psalm of Asaph. God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge.(Robert Young Literal Translation)

{A Psalm of Asaph.} God standeth in the assembly of God, he judgeth among the gods.(Darby)

A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods.(American Standard Version)

A Psalm by Asaf. God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods. (Hebrew Names Version)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Using the KJV as my guide let's look at the translation from original languages (not texts, mind you - they remain hidden)

Psalm 82 with translation to Hebrew root form of the word

God = 'elohiym
standeth = natsab
in the congregation = 'edah
of the mighty = 'el
he judgeth = shaphat
among = qereb
the gods = 'elohiym

Okay, here we go, both the word God and the phrase "the gods" are from the same root.

the key however is "the mighty" coming from the word "el"

your claim is that this is about earthly judges.

However, the use of the word "el" in the scriptures is never used to refer explicitly to judges. The following are it's biblical uses.

1) god, god-like one, mighty one
a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
b) angels
c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power

Now, the word "elohiym" is also key and is translated both as "God" with a capital "G" and as "god" with a small "g"

it's meanings are as follows.

1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God

So there you may have a point however, the word "elohiym" is translated 2606 times in the Bible and only five times is it used to refer to the word "judge". This isn't one of them. The most common usage of "elohiym" is "God" 2,346 times and the second most common usage is "god" used 244 times.

The above discussion is courtesy of blueletterbible.org.

My point is, all we really know about Psalm 82:6 is that God said to some group of people, "Ye are gods." and the original language seems to indicate that he meant it literally. It's strengthened even further when he adds "and all of you are children of the most High."

I take the simple version. God said we are gods and strengthened that claim by reminding us of our relationship to him.

The Mormon position is just that, we are children of God. Just as we can become like our own mortal fathers, we can become like our spiritual father. My dad will always be my dad, even though I am a father myself. My God will always be my God, no matter how like him I am able to become.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">with regards to Adam and the "be like God thing".
God is ominpotent can adam attain that?
ominpresent can adam attain that?
omniscient- can adam attain that?
GOd is perfect can adam be perfect?
god knows end from beginning can adam?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Through Christ's atonement Adam or any man can attain all of those things.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You will not be a GOd on your own planet...where does that come from BTW?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't pretend to know what it means to become like God. Maybe it means doing everything he does maybe it simply means continuing to be a part of his work. Some Mormons believe you get your own planet, some are more conservative (like me) and won't commit one way or the other.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE POINT IS NOAH IS NOT GABRIEL. NOAH WAS A MAN. GABRIEL AND ANGEL. DIFFRERENT CREATIVE BEINGS.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">actually the point was regarding "What did Noah do, come back from the dead?" and yes he did exactly that as have many others.

You have yet to produce a scripture that proves that angels and men are different creative beings. I can't remember the reference, but you've paraphrased the "God made man a little higher than the angels." and this I agree with, however, I interpret it as a progressive development. We were spirit children of god or angels, and when we progressed to point where we were sent to earth to recieve a body and learn, we were men - and we had progressed thereby becoming higher than the angels.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Joel, all will be made alive PHYSICALLY not spiritually</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We are actually in agreement here. Mormons just tend to look at salvation in parts. There is resurrection - i.e. the restoration of the body - and all mankind will be resurrected regardless of their belief in Christ. And then there is Salvation, not everyone gets saved, that depends on your relationship with Christ.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">however it could be a missing book. i dont believe God would allow it to be missing if it were needed.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a nice thought, but again I ask, don't you think we could have learned something from Enoch - I mean, he walked with God.

Personally, I want it all, I want everything that God has ever inspired any man to write. And no I don't trust 3rd and 4th century Catholic Priests who were embroiled in political and religious controversy and power struggles to give me everything. In fact, I expect them to purposely leave things out to their gain and advantage.

Hello everyone, I thought I would join this conversation. Do I have to read all 65 pages? or could someone give me a quick index of what has been discussed here?

Can someone explain why I have "Pharisee" under my title?

The topic right now echo is mormonism...and why/why not its a cult.here some info...what do you think..

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jusselin:
Mormon Doctrine and Practices:

The Bible: Mormons believe that the old testaments have been corrupted through the ages by humanity and contains several errors. JOSEPH SMITH RE-translated the Bibleand its considered on of the four LDS scriptures, though it is not considered fully authoritative while containing errors (Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are the last 2 LDS scriptures). "The Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible" ("We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." 8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church.)


God: God the father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mankind. There are many Gods.
..."And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3)

...."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22. Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10)
"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).


Jesus: He was the first spirit born in Heaven. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to both of them. Jesus' sacrifice is not able to cleanse us from all of our sins. He was born as a result of a naturalunion between God the father and Mary. (not of the Holy Spirit).
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115)

Bizarre Temple Practices and Ceremonies: Highly Based on freemasonry ceremonies.

And here you go ...it will tell you every thing you need to know and more...Mormonism is NOT christianity

CLICK HERE

or Visit http://www.mrm.org/

Oh Joel there is one thing I wanted to ask you because I am curious...Is it true that if a mormon kills some one is their only hope for salvation to have their blood shed? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Juss neglected to add that you should probably read about the last four pages or so.

Like most anti-Mormons, Juss only wants you to know half of the story and only posted half to keep newcomers in the dark about the fact that all of these questions have been answered and addressed.

All of the issues in his last post have been addressed.

You are listed as a pharisee because you are new and that is the term Allen has chosen to use. I think he should switch to to leper, because Jesus didn't ever call the lepers hypocrites and actually seemed to like them.

Thanks!

I have a question for Joel.

You believe in premortality.

In Job, God chastises Job and says:
Job 38:4 : "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

In other words, Job was not there when God created the foundations of the earth!

Man was created in Eden and not prior to that.
How do you conclude from the Bible your case for premortality?

.

not so joel i simply pointed out to the man what your text VS. our text says...

I'll just ignore Juss

Echo,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In Job, God chastises Job and says:
Job 38:4 : "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

In other words, Job was not there when God created the foundations of the earth!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That hardly means he didn't exist. In fact, God even asking where he was implies that he "was", that he existed.

Ecclesiastes 12:7
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can a spirit "return" to a place where it has never been?

Jeremiah 1:5
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">God says here that he not only knew Jeremiah before he was born, but he "sanctified" him and "ordained" him - all of this was before he was born.

Ephesians 1:4
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Paul says that God chose us from before the foundation of the world. If we didn't exist, How did he choose us?

Romans 8:29
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Those who god "foreknew" which means knew before they were born. were Predestined - which also indicates some sort of pre-existance.

Is that enough.

I can see where you are confused though, I think the Bible is way too unclear on many points and this is just one of them.

Do you want to know why I think there is a lack of clarity? Even if you don't I'll just tell you anyway.

I think the Bible was written by a bunch of men. God inspired them to be sure, but sometimes it is difficult to translate the message God inspires you to carry.

What is important is the centrality of Christ's saving grace through the atonement. The rest of this is just details. Some men who were authors in the Bible thought certain details were more important than others, so they emphasized them. Apparently the author of Job, thought it was only important to point out that Job wasn't there when God created the earth, he didn't think it was important to say where Job was.

Apparently Jeremiah was fairly touched when God told him that he had known him prior to his birth. So he decided to write it down.

Paul also thought it was important and twice talks about foreknowledge and predestination.

I believe it was all inspired but to Paul and Jeremiah, it was apparently more important to record some information about the pre-existance. To others it might not appear to be that important - like the author of Job.

i am gettin a headache...debate is tiring,no?
scriptural interpretation, in many aspects ,Joel, you are causing me to dig deeper. and some confirm you are doing some spin doctoring, to me anyway. some things that are clear and no interpreting is necessary gets done so anyway and meaning that is clear is muddied. ie alpha and omega stuff.BTW sorry bout the lack of html knowledge.
quote unquote joel wrote end quote. yadayadayada...
lets move this thing to predestination for sake of discussion. Biblical christians differ on this one.
free will,... choice? or no?
Mormon stance. CAtholic stance? Texan stance?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
quote:
--------
In Job, God chastises Job and says:
Job 38:4 : "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."

In other words, Job was not there when God created the foundations of the earth!

-------------------
That hardly means he didn't exist. In fact, God even asking where he was implies that he "was", that he existed.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">An excellent example of how taking scripture out of context can lead you down many rabbit trails of no meaning, no understanding, and no use whatsoever

It's called a "rhetorical question" and Job 38 is full of them. A rhetorical question seeks to encourage reflection within the listener as to what the answer to the question (at least, the answer implied by the questioner) must be. When a speaker declaims, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?" or "Will our company grow or shrink?", no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.

The answer to the *many* rhetorical questions in Job 38 are: You weren't there (obviously), you aren't god (obviously), so how can you know what I thought, meant, or knew?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Ecclesiastes 12:7

quote:
-----------------------------------------------
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

-------------------------------------------

How can a spirit "return" to a place where it has never been?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Creator created it and sent it to/put it into the creation - doesn't mean that it always "was", just that it was in a place before it was in another place, before it goes back to the original place.

You are taking a statement, adding your own leap of faith, and then posting it back as fact - could very well be the 'spin doctoring' nabster was talking about

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Ephesians 1:4

quote:
-------------------------------------
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

-------------------------------------------

Paul says that God chose us from before the foundation of the world. If we didn't exist, How did he choose us?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">pre-destination, free will, etc etc etc. You're skipping the second part of the scripture because it's not fitting your theology, I do that sometimes when it hurts too

He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless - obviously we aren't, so what is He actually saying here? Is Paul saying God's desire for us has always been righteousness (His perfect will for our lives)? Our free will keeps that from happening, but His grace gives us the ability to move towards it.

When scripture says that the spirit returns to God who gave it, that does not mean that he gave it before the world was created. That is assuming somthing the word does not say.
Not every spirit returns back to God, for some have an evil spirit and they go to Hell. The Believers spirit returns to God. The believer is given God's spirit here on earth.

Predestined means that God knew in advance what we would be, Like making up a plan for building a house, just because the plan is made does not mean the house is built.

The word "Predestination" does not mean we where already created.

On choosing, God can choose to make a way for people to know him and love him, so your argument there does not stand up either.

Joel, I have a question for you, was the earth in premortality according to your beliefs?


.

This is what always happens in this thread, people try to refute a few of the things I say, but not all.

Allen, The question was, (and I'm paraphrasing) "Did man exist in a spiritual form before he came to this earth."

My answer: Yes

Your answer: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">it was in a place before it was in another place, before it goes back to the original place</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To me that sounds like we agree.

I also agree with you about Job, my point was merely that using the verse Echo used to prove that man didn't exist was inadequate to prove that point.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're skipping the second part of the scripture because it's not fitting your theology, I do that sometimes when it hurts too</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I left out the part of the scripture that wasn't relevant to the initial question.

Look, these debates get fairly large and complex every now and again - Since I'm the only one on the Mormon side, I try to be very direct in answering the question at hand. On a quick re-read of Ephesians 1:4, I see no issues that I would leave out because they are sticky for Mormon doctrine.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless - obviously we aren't, so what is He actually saying here? Is Paul saying God's desire for us has always been righteousness (His perfect will for our lives)? Our free will keeps that from happening, but His grace gives us the ability to move towards it.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldn't agree more. But the question was about whether or not we existed in a spiritual form prior to our lives on this earth. My answer was, Paul said god knew us and chose us before this world was - so yes, we existed.

nabster, again for clarity's sake Again, for clarity's sake, when you die and you get to behold God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost all at once, what will you see? Three beings/entities or one being/entity? I'm genuinely curious because I'm fairly positive we are in agreement. So please answer

A) three beings/entities
B) one being/entity

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">scriptural interpretation, in many aspects ,Joel, you are causing me to dig deeper. and some confirm you are doing some spin doctoring, to me anyway. some things that are clear and no interpreting is necessary gets done so anyway and meaning that is clear is muddied. ie alpha and omega stuff.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with you, but I see the same thing happening on the Christian side as well.

The point I would make is simply that if there is confusion and contention over doctrinal issues that matter, then God still needs a mouthpiece on the earth, a prophet, apostles. Someone who can speak authoritatively to settle the debate.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When scripture says that the spirit returns to God who gave it, that does not mean that he gave it before the world was created. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Echo, what does "return" mean to you?

To me it means to go back to a place you've been before. Is that spin?

Echo, you've done something that I'm getting used to, you respond to a few of the scriptures I bring up because they are easy for you to craft a response to but ignore those that you can't craft a simple response to - ie Jeremiah 1:5

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When scripture says that the spirit returns to God who gave it, that does not mean that he gave it before the world was created. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">good question.

I believe that everything was created spiritually before it was created physically. What that means, I have no idea. In the case of man, I believe our spirits were created first and came to inhabit our bodies later. What the spirit of the earth looks like, I don't know. Does it simply mean "blueprint" for lack of a better word?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On choosing, God can choose to make a way for people to know him and love him, so your argument there does not stand up either.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What argument? What are you talking about? If your talking about Ephesians 1:4, then I don't get your point, the scripture says that he chose us before the foundation of the world. If we didn't exist before the foundation of the world, what exactly was he "choosing"? Allen, this doesn't change the fact that I agree with you.

nabster,

while I would still like to know where the bible clearly explains the ranking and order of angels, I'll move on. Pre-destination, Free choice.

Mormons are free choice all the way. Actually, the trend in the church used to be referring this as "Free-Agency" recently people have moved over to calling it "Moral Agency". The point being that nothing is really free. I mean, if we make bad choices, then we lose to some degree our ability to choose because our options are limited. However, as long as we make Moral choices, are agency (ability to choose) is not restricted.

someone please tell me how to copy/paste or quote someone.

When I am putting in my response, how do I access the thread to get the quotes I want?

I will generally just open up a second browser so that I can copy (highlight then hit ctrl-c) and then past (ctrl-v) To quote something you have to surround it in html code or something.

at the outset of the quote simply type quote, but it has to be encased in brackets [] and when you are finished with the quote type /quote and again it must be encased in brackets []

Hope that helps