They were a bit defensive, but I fail to see how they lied. You seem to have an agenda.
The question was put to them, "Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?" They said, "The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary."
Yet they are very clear in their teachings that they believe God the Father had literal, physical sexual intercourse with Mary. That means that they lied about their beliefs.
Do I have an agenda? You could say that. I want people to see that the Mormon church is a false "church", that they do not worship the true God, and they are lost. But I do not make up stuff when I talk about their beliefs or practices. The things I point out are actual beliefs, history, and practices of the LDS.
Mr. Pointer,
You seem to be confusing two issues. One is the fact that the LDS believe God is the biological cause of the humanity of Jesus. That is a fact. The other is the question as to how that causation transpired. Though some LDS authorities have speculated that this happened through a physical encounter between God and Mary, whereby he impregnated her, that is NOT an official teaching of the Church. You are slandering good LDS people by accusing them of lying about this. Has it ever occured to you that they know what they teach and believe better than you do?
Yes, Paul Owen, you are right on the money. What say ye Mr. Pointer?
And this is the same drumbeat I keep going over with Mormons. That LDS prophets/presidents/apostles say the same thing over and over again, one right after another. But even though it is repeated by one LDS prophet right after another, somehow it isn't "official Mormon Doctine."
Brigham Young stating that "Jesus was not begotten of the Holy Ghost," (Journal of Discourses 1:50-51) that "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are 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." (JOD 8:115)
E.T. Benson said, "The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He Begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the Son of the Eternal Father." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 6-7)
McConkie, "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers...He was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about His paternity; He was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547 and p. 742)
Gospel Principles (1997 ed.), p. 380, "Jesus Christ, the only person who had God the Father as the father of his mortal body."
It is quite clear from these men's writings that they believed that God the Father sired Jesus' earthly body the same way that mortal men beget their mortal children. I am not making these quotes up. They come right from the lips of your own "prophets." From Young right up through McConkie. That's better than 100 years of LDS history.
But it was never "official" doctrine.
No, it was never official doctrine.
If you supposedly know more about "official doctrine" than us and therefore, feel a need to remind us that you didn't make the quotes up, doesn't that speak to whether what your putting forth is official church doctrine? In other words, if we've never heard about it, and yet it's so key to our belief (it's not) why doesn't the church teach it to us? Furthermore why would you expect some random church spokesman to get it right, when he was likely taught the same things we were? Could it be because it gave you just enough of an opportunity to accuse the Church of lying? Whether the Father and Mary had sex isn't that important. The fact that it was put forth as a sensational question is a sign of the false and vain tradition of mainstream Christian prudishness.
Actually, I meant to put a question mark after that last sentence in my previous comment.
So, what does become "official" Mormon doctrine? How does something get repeated by one Mormon "prophet" after another, but it's not what the church actually believes? Have these prophets/presidents/apostles had a different interpretation of these things? And if so, who was mistaken? The prophets/presidents/apostles, or the "official" church position?
If what comes from the mouth of the "prophet" is not true, is not "official", then how can you know for sure that ANYTHING they say is correct? How does one test the reliabilty of what the "prophet" says?
Things become official LDS doctrine when they are canonized/added to the standard works (LDS Scripture). We may believe more than that, but outside of canonization, it's not official doctrine. (There are two documents that are treated as official doctrine now that I expect will be canonized at some point: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" and "The Living Christ"). I would this issue to the doctrine of salvation through acceptance of Christ which qualifies many, many churches (little "c") to be part of the greater body of Christ or Church even though there are many doctrines outside of that core one, which may even conflict. The other doctrines matter less. What LDS prophets and apostles have said outside of the canon may be true, but LDS members aren't expected to believe them in the same way as core doctrines like faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, etc. I think you will find that while the official doctrines don't include everything a person in authority has said on a subject, they are unlikely to contradict. An example is whether or not God the Father and Mary had sexual intercourse. The published response was consistent with what I'm trying to relate. That is, it doesn't contradict, rather it just doesn't own that nugget as official doctrine. I happen to believe it however, and many others probably do, too. If I, or any other person (LDS or not), wanted to verify its truthfulness we could take it to the Lord in prayer. Honestly, it doesn't come up very often, in church, in conversation or anywhere else. Does this make sense?
What LDS prophets and apostles have said outside of the canon may be true, but LDS members aren't expected to believe them in the same way as core doctrines like faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, etc....The published response was consistent with what I'm trying to relate. That is, it doesn't contradict, rather it just doesn't own that nugget as official doctrine. I happen to believe it however, and many others probably do, too.
Then why doesn't the LDS church just come out and say this? Why doesn't the LDS church just own up to the quotes, say, "Yes, some prophets and apostles said these things," rather than try to make people believe that these things were never taught by any of these men? (Not to dig up old bones, but the doctrines concerning polygamy and Blacks are a couple examples. The LDS covered those up for years until they were forced to admit to them.) This is what makes so many people wary of the LDS church. After all, with just a simple search, these quotes can be found in Mormon publications of the past and present.
It would be tempting to say that this issue of the method of Jesus' conception isn't a core issue. But it is. It speaks to the greater issue of whether you and I know the same Christ. Comparing these men's (and others') teachings against what we have written in the Bible, we do not. There are just too many differences between the LDS ideas about Him and ours. The fact that the Bible says He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:35) while these men have taught that He was begotten by the Father through "natural" means is just one.
God is the only God that is truly a (big G) God. Isaiah wrote these words, "Thus saith the LORD (Jehovah) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD (Jehovah) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6). This is one of many verses that talk about the Oneness of the Father and Son.
The Christ we know and worship was eternally one with the Father. He has been "the same yesterday, today, and forever."--Hebrews 13:8
He did not have to become a God. He has always been God (see John 1:3, Genesis 1:1). He is indeed Jehovah of the Old Tetsament, but He is also Elohim. Many times in the Old Testament, we see the writers speaking about "The LORD (Jehovah) your God (Elohim)."
The Father is also referred to as Jehovah, and Jesus as Adonai. Psalm 110:1--"The LORD (Jehovah, the Father) said to my Lord (Adonai, Jesus), 'Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'"
I guess I just don't understand why, if a Mormon prophet says or teaches something, why would he would say it or teach it if he doesn't expect the people to believe it? After all, God Himself said, "My word does not return void." If that prophet is speaking something, I would expect he has a reason for doing so, just as (if not more than) anybody else who says something they expect people to read/hear. After all, God asys, "My word shall not return void."
And do not the words of the prophet carry quite a bit of weight with the followers? Do the people not believe his words should be heeded? And if he does say something that contradicts what has already been said and written, then how does one determine which word should be followed? Finally, why would he say something that he does not expect the people to believe?
Attempts to belittle, condemn and embarrass the church are so ubiquitous over these last 177 years, that I think certain Church representatives can get a bit defensive. I agree that they could take a more measured and congenial approach to answering some of these old questions and challenges. The polygamy issue and its doctrines are well documented in the Doctrine and Covenants, not to mention the history books. I don't think anyone representing the church has ever denied that it was practiced or commanded in our revelations. As for blacks and the priesthood, I don't believe it was ever a matter of church doctrine, only church policy. Sure, statements have been made attempting to give it a doctrine-like justification, but I simply don't believe them. Again, it's a similar case to "the did the Father have sex with Mary" question. Let me ask you something. If you believe in the trinity - that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in very substance - doesn't that nullify the argument that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost to the exclusion of the Father? It would certainly seem so. For the record we believe that the three members of the Godhead are one, but not in substance. The idea that they are one in substance is not to be found in the bible. I'm not even sure what "My word shall not return void" means. I don't know that there is anything in the Mary conception statements that need to be followed per se. Expecting someone to believe something is different than holding them accountable to believe it, just as teaching something is different from declaring that it is doctrine. That's the only way I know how to say it. This business of a different Jesus is rather tired. I know this won't prove anything to you, but here is a bit of LDS scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants, section 45. You can tell me if this is the Jesus of the bible or not: "Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—
4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;
5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life."
Yes, I know, the more convincing it seems, the more diabolical the deception must be. But it is what it is. We are what we are. There is no deception. In fact, the argument could be made that we believe the Bible as it is written much more than historical biblical Christians. Simply because we believe that Jesus is the son of his Father, just as the bible says. This may put us opposite most of Christianity, but squarely on the same side as the Bible.
From the Mormon Scriptures:
...wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (2 Nephi 5:21)
And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because at their transgression (Alma 3:6)
...for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us... (Mormon 5:15)
"...and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 7:8.)
The words of Mormon prophets:
"From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Letter from the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, July 17, 1947, as cited in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart, 1960, pages 46-47)
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. (Journal of Discourses, vol.10, page 110)
Cain slew his brother . . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin...How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 290-291)
But, finally, they gave in. The following letter was read to the General Conference on 9/30/1978:
Dear Brethren:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth…This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood…we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, . . . Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color…
Sincerely yours,
SPENCER W. KIMBALL
N. ELDON TANNER
MARION G. ROMNEY
It is a fact: until 1978, blacks were not allowed to receive the "Melchizadek priesthood." But, much like the polygamy issue, the Mormon church was forced to come up with a "new revelation"—not because it actually was a revelation, but because of outside pressure. (The only reason for the "new revelation" on polygamy was so Utah could become a state.)
As far as the conception of Jesus' earthly body: The Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary (Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18.) Thus, the Holy Spirit fertilized one of her eggs to produce an earthly tabernacle for our Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, why would Mary have been surprised by the angel's announcement? Why didn’t the angel tell her, "You will be taken away by Elohim, and He will conceive in you a child?"
If Jehovah and Elohim are not one in substance, then how do you explain Isaiah 44:6—"Thus says the LORD (Jehovah), the King of Israel, and His redeemer, the LORD (Jehovah) of Hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God." Psalm 97:9—"For thou, LORD (Jehovah), art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods." (Even Elohim?) Or go back and reread some of the other verses I listed in my previous comment from 12/22 which, according to the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity, would be utter contradictions.
As would Acts 5:3-4—"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost...Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." And Acts 20:28—"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
You are right about the Cane doctrine. I looked into it. My source was this rather enlightening website: http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/bla...n/
homepage.html Thank goodness I was born in 1972 and the revelation came when I was 6. I would have likely had a hard time with that. I am comforted to know that even doctrine can be changed when the Lord says it is time. Brigham Young himself spoke of a day when the curse would be lifted, so far from "giving in" it was prophesied close to a hundred years before. Pressure certainly would have peaked much earlier anyway. Truth is David O. McKay was praying for that revelation while he was the Prophet in the 50's and 60's. What do you make of southern Christian racism, including the KKK, particularly when Mormons were sitting in church each Sunday with blacks and hearing sermons from them throughout LDS history? Are the KKK and the denominations they belong to Christian in your view? You didn't answer my question about the impossibility of the Holy Ghost fertilizing Mary's egg without the Father in light of your belief in the Trinity doctrine of oneness in substance. The scriptures you cited fit perfectly with the biblical LDS doctrine of the Godhead. What we reject is the creeds which, adding to the bible, render biblical accounts of Jesus praying to the Father as actually praying to himself. I'd say this is laughable, but it's much more serious.
Brigham Young himself spoke of a day when the curse would be lifted, so far from "giving in" it was prophesied close to a hundred years before.
But look at what "God" told Young to prophesy. He said Blacks would not have the priesthood "until ALL the other descendants of Adam have received the promises…and blessings of the priesthood." Needless to say, that day hasn’t come yet. Not ALL of Adam's descendants have received the priesthood. The reason for this "revelation" could not have been anything other than the realization that they were not going to have as many converts if they did not change. LDS missionaries' failures in Nigeria (and that whole issue of the Brazilian priests with Black ancestors) is evidence of that. Besides, there is no biblical evidence for the whole "curse of Cain" thing. That was a totally man-made invention.
As far as the "impossibility" of the Holy Spirit creating an earthly body for Jesus from one of Mary's eggs—how can you say that's impossible? He's God! The Holy Spirit dwells within every single believer (1st Corinthians 6:19). Besides, God created a universe in 6 days—by speaking it into existence—yet you're gonna say He can't create an earthly body from a single egg? You think God has to use human means to do something miraculous? That's why they're called "miracles!"
And no, Jesus was not "praying to Himself" in the garden. He was indeed praying to His Father in Heaven. Colossians 1:15 says that Christ was "the image of the invisible God." Hebrews 1:5—"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Jesus was indeed fully God, yet separate from the Father. As you can see from Heb. 1:5, the relationship between Father and Son did not always exist in that form. "I will be to Him a Father, He will be to Me a Son." God became a Father to Christ. They have always existed, as God, yet in the fullness of time, Christ became a Son.
Also, go back and read Isaiah 44:6. There are two separate and distinct Persons claiming the name "Jehovah"—
* "Jehovah, King of Israel,"
and
* "His Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts."
Yet these TWO Persons tell Isaiah, "there is no God besides ME." Singular. These TWO are speaking in the SINGULAR. Yet they are BOTH Jehovah. How does this square with the Mormon belief that they are two separate Gods?
In Isaiah 44:8, these two who claim to be Jehovah say, "Is there a God besides ME [singular]? yea, there is no God, I know not any." Now, this presents a dilemma. Either (a) Jehovah does not know any other Gods (including Elohim), (b) there are other Gods He is not aware of, or (c) these two are one God.
The Brigham Young quote says that blacks would be the last and they were. Nowhere in LDS doctrine does it say that all people will receive the gospel/priesthood in the sense that they would embrace it. So the idea that everyone would be Mormon and then blacks would get the priesthood doesn't make sense. LDS leaders always knew that an entire continent was inelligible to receive the priesthood. It didn't suddenly dawn on them in 1978. Trust me. With regard to the conception, I wasn't arguing that God can't work miracles. I was questioning the logic of your argument that the Holy Ghost could be anywhere without the Father, considering the doctrine of the Trinity which states that they are one in substance. If you don't believe that, then that is great. You shouldn't, because it's not true. If you don't you should know that many, many people will consider you a deceived, unchristian cult member though. Even thought that is what the bible clearly teaches. To restate, LDS belief is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate, distinct beings, which together are one God. Thanks for the confirmation.
I never said the Holy Spirit couldn't be anywhere without the Father. And I never would. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father to do the work of conception. I guess I don't understand what you don't understand.
However, you also misstate the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead. The LDS teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three gods that make up one Godhead--not three Persons who make up one God--
---I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. (The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)
---GOD the Father is not one in substance with the Son or the Holy Spirit, but is a separate being. The Father existed prior to the Son and the Holy Ghost…They are His offspring.
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 548.)
There is one God in three Persons--not a "council" of three separate Gods.
According to Mormonism, God the Father had to learn how to become God. Then He and His wife had a child (in the pre-mortal world) called Jehovah (Jesus), who also had to learn how to become a God.
But in the Christian view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed since eternity past as one. They have always been--and always will be--God. They did not have to be born to parents, they did not have to progress to Godhood--they have always been One God. So, far from confirming your beliefs about the Trinity, I will indeed refute them.
I never argued that the members of the Godhead aren't Gods seperately. Since you don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity as found in the extra-biblical creeds then you have parted ways with mainstream Christianity. Congratulations. The Godhead is one in every sense but that of substance. We have been invited to become one with them as well, by following the pattern they followed. All of us existed eternally before our spirits were organized into individuals by the Father.
I don't think you're following me. I DO believe in the Godhead as found in the early creeds. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE ONE GOD! Not that each one is a separate God, but these three are one IN EVERY WAY--INCLUDING SUBSTANCE! How you figure I did not believe this is beyond me. This is exactly what I have been saying all along! I don't know if you just don't--or won't--get what I'm saying, or if you're deliberately trying to twist my words, but it ain't working. I believe the Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian Creed--all of them!
We did not exist prior to our birth in this life. God knew us, yes--but that is only because He knew EVERYTHING--before it ever happened. So to Him, the future has already occured. But we did not "know each other" before our births. Just like Lucifer did not exist until Jesus created him (Nehemiah 9:6--"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host..." Don't forget, Lucifer was one of the heavenly host before he rebelled. Therefore,Jesus created even him.)
Psalm 18:31--"Who is Elohim besides Jehovah?"
If you believe that the trinity are one in substance then you believe that the Father had to have concieved Jesus with the Holy Ghost and - in fact - that Jesus conceived himself with his mother because to be one in very substance means they are together in one substance at all times. The doctrine of the trinity as found in the creeds renders the bible quite ridiculous and fails miserably the mainstream Christian - and non-biblical - test that the Book of Mormon fails because it is an extra-biblical text which proves the bible to be insufficient.
From eternity past, God has existed as He is now. He did not have to learn how to become God, He has always been God. Likewise, there was never a time when He did not exist. He has always been—or, better yet, to quote God Himself—"I AM." This phrase denotes His eternality. He exists outside of time, for time does not restrain Him. Neither do the physical laws of nature. He stopped the sun in the sky for Joshua; He set the sundial backwards 15° for Hezekiah.
That said, the fact that he has always existed in three Persons—each of the same substance, but distinct from each other—is beyond dispute. In Malachi 3:6 He says "I am the LORD, I change not." Also, the book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus is the same “yesterday, today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8.) Yet that second person of the Trinity came to earth, veiled in a fleshly body (John 1:14) which was created by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18.) Thus, He became a Son to that first Person of the Trinity, and that first Person of that Trinity became a Father to Him (Hebrews 1:5). Yet they were still God. The prophet Isaiah records these words of Christ: “Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last…Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath [singular] sent me.” (Isaiah 48:12-16, emphases mine). Here we have TWO Persons doing the sending, but being referred to in the singular.
The early Christian philosopher Tertullian said it like this: “A ray of this power, this light, became man, in the womb of a virgin, and is Christ. For as a ray is projected from the sun but does not diminish the sun's light, and is of the same nature and substance as the sun's light, but an extension of it, so the Son of God has proceeded from God, and is One with Him, and not separated.” Jesus was fully God (Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; 2nd Corinthians 5:19), yet for our sakes was also fully human (John 11:35; Hebrews 2:14-15; Philippians 2:7-8.)
The idea of the Godhead being of one substance but physically distinct is an impossibility. This kind of gymnastics isn't necessary. The drafters of the creeds apparently sensed this problem when they also used the word "incomprehensible" in relation to the trinity, directly contradicting the bible at the same time. Christ prays to his Father (in heaven), in the bible, that we may be one with them as they are one. The creeds and their trinity render this idea ridiculous. I side with the savior against the miscreants who wrote the creeds. Even they admitted they weren't interpreting the bible, but were rather, attempting to settle political differences. It sounds like Tertullian was just as uncomfortable with the trinity doctrine as I am, only more poetic and imaginative. I believe what the bible says. That they are one in purpose, but physically distinct. Joseph Smith made the following comment, which is sadly, still often true"...the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."
The idea of the Godhead being of one substance but physically distinct is an impossibility.
I will not claim to know how it is possible. After all, at one time people though it was impossible to split atoms. I have done my best to explain it.
As far as those who wrote the creeds (which, by the way, were not written to invent Christianity, but rather to defend it from many of the heresies of the day such as Gonsticism, Arianism, Pellagianism, etc)--I would sooner trust those men, who did not claim to be perfect, than a false prophet who claimed to be writing the very words given to him by God Himself (in "the most correct book of any on earth"), but then had to go back and change half of what he wrote a mere 7 years later. Or another one who claimed for years that Adam was "Michael the archangel...our Father and God, and the only God with whom we have to do."
If you believed what the Bible says, you would believe in one God in three Persons, not a "council" of three separate gods. "For thus saith Jehovah, who created the heavens, who is Elohim..." (Isaiah 45:18.)
In the same way that Martin Luther never intended to start a new religion, the writers of the creeds may not have meant to invent Christianity, but invent it they did. To the point that those who don't believe in what they wrote, are condemned by those who do. They were not defending Christianity, but making something up to solve a temporary political problem - they said it themselves. Those that came after have, in effect, elevated them to the role of prophets. Even they pronounced curses on those who went against their edicts. If that isn't trying to be a prophet, what is? Joseph Smith didn't claim to be perfect and we don't regard him as such. What half of what he wrote did he change seven years later? Again, random quotes from Brigham Young don't help you. We already had that discussion. Only a distortion of the bible reveals anything close to the trinity doctrine. To look for proof there goes against the intent of the writers of the trinity doctrine and elevates the creeds above the bible.
What half of what he wrote did he change seven years later?
This half.
I'll say it again. The reasons for the creeds in the early church was to refute many heresies of the day. The main heresy faced at that time was
Arianism--The belief that Jesus was a created being (much like Jehovah's Witnesses today). The council proved, from the Bible, that God the Father, God that Son and God the Holy Spirit are three persons of one God (John 1:1, Acts 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, Colossians 1:16, Isaiah 44:24).
The creeds aren't from the bible say the writers of the creeds. Here are some quotes from the Book of Mormon in response to the assertion that Joseph Smith changed doctrines in the book. These are the doctrines that he was supposedly trying to scrub:
Mosiah 15: 2-3, 5, 7
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
• • •
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his cpeople.
• • •
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
Mosiah 3: 8
8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
Joseph,
Can you show me where you found your information regarding the writers of the early Christian creeds? Because the quote from Tertullian was from around the middle of the 2nd Century--about 130 or so years before Nicea.
As far as the passage from Mosiah, that describes one God of the three Gods of the Mormon Godhead coming to earth and being given the title of Father. However, in the Biblical Trinity, one Person of the One God of the orthodox Trinity came to Earth, being called the Son of God (Hebrews 1:5), but still being God and still being one in every way with His Father (who was still on His throne in Heaven).
Here I stand. I can do no other.
I'm looking in to your creeds question. In the mean time could you take the Book of Mormon quotes apart I referenced and tell me exactly how you interpret it the way you do? If Tertullian is needed to interpret the bible, than how can you believe the bible is sufficient? I can certainly see why you would feel a need to stretch to solve the schism between the bible and the creeds, however.
Joseph,
I don't necessarily "need" Tertullian to interpret the Bible. However, I do appreciate what men like him had to say. In much the same way I appreciate what my pastor says when he stands up to preach. After all, is that not the job of a preacher? To expound upon the word of God? Is that not, in fact, what your own preacher does? Does he not expound on the Mormon scriptures? And, in fact, tell you what he thinks they mean?
Likewise, I like to read what men of God have had to say about the Bible. For there are times when, yes, I do get stuck on a passage. And it helps to read the writings of men who have studied the Greek, and the Hebrew, and the history of the Bible to give me a better understanding of what it is saying. Do I consider Tertullian to be "authoritative"? No. Neither do I consider John MacArthur, Paul Washer, or John Piper to be "authoritative." But these are men who have studied the Bible greatly, and have a great depth of knowledge, and can help one understand what the Bible is telling us.
The verses from Mosiah 15. Verses 1-2 say that "God Himself shall come down…and shall redeem His people…And because He dwelleth in the flesh He shall be called the Son of God…" So far, so good. But, it starts to fall apart in the last part of verse 2 and going through verse 3. We see that Jesus would be called "both Father and Son." This differs from the orthodox view of the Trinity, in that we only refer to Jesus as "Son." Nowhere in the Bible, or the Early Church Fathers, or the Reformers, Puritans, etc., is Jesus referred to as "the Father." (This would also apply to the verse from Mosiah 3.)
Then in Mosiah 15:4, it says, "And they are one God, yea, even the Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." This does, indeed, sound like the orthodox Trinity. However, if you look more closely, you will see that the "they" in verse 4 does not refer to two beings, but two names that are applied to one God (Jehovah).
As for the Trinity, here is a quote from Hippolytus, nearly 100 years before Nicea—"God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world…He made it; and straightway it appeared…there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel. And all things were in Him, and He was the All… And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom cometh this Power, the Word…and was manifested as the Son of God…Who then adduces a multitude of gods brought in, time after time?" (Against Noetus, p. 227)
Commenting by HaloScan
