Mormonism: Making gods out of sinners since 1830.

The following quote comes from the blog Lehi’s Library:

“So in our view it doesn’t matter one bit that a person sinned at some point in their existence prior to becoming a god. It doesn’t preclude the possibility of being divine, because atonement can be made and the sin can be totally eradicated. In this sense I think we have a much more robust doctrine of atonement than mainstream Christianity. Our view of atonement is powerful enough to make gods out of sinners, theirs isn’t. . . . It doesn’t frustrate our sense of existence to speculate that God the Father was once like us.”

I wish all Mormons were that candid.

50 thoughts on “Mormonism: Making gods out of sinners since 1830.

  1. Thank you for posting this Pilgrim.

    For those reading this who do not go check out the context of that quote, I do not suggest that God was ever actually a sinner. Instead, I merely point out that within the framework of Mormonism it seems possible and unproblematic. We (Mormons), in my view, don’t have a definitive answer as to the nature of God’s past mortality.


  2. Interesting timing on this post. I just came across Aaron Shafovaloff’s video a week ago in which he asked Mormons if they believe God sinned during a previous mortal life. It seemed that the consensus of opinion was “uhhh”. (Link provided at the bottom.)

    Based on the info I have to date, it seems to me it’s ultimately irrelevant whether or not Mormons believe God the Father sinned during a prior mortal life, since they expect to reach godhood themselves (exaltation) and will admit to having sinned in their own life. So they must believe that the overwhelming majority of their gods, including themselves, sin during their mortal life. I’ve never heard the LDS Mormon Church teach that anyone born on this planet lived a sinless life but Jesus, and maybe Joseph Smith.

    So I wonder how they would answer the following:

    1) How do you define holiness?
    2) Would the condemnation for sin and the subsequent denial into the highest heaven be considered hypocrisy if the condemning judge were guilty of sin themselves?
    3) If God the Father sinned in a previous mortal life, but Jesus Christ didn’t sin in His mortal life, wouldn’t that make the Son greater and/or holier than the Father?

    YouTube: God Never Sinned – Do Mormons Agree?


  3. Solatude

    Personally, I think that Joseph Smith and Christ both gave convincing arguments for our Father never having sinned.
    In the King Follett discourse Joseph Smith states “The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power —to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”

    Christ, in John 5: 19, says “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, 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.”

    Both of these would indicate that our Heavenly Father filled the same role on his world that Christ did on ours. As that was the roll of perfect and blameless sacrifice as atonement for sin, it seems obvious that our Heavenly Father was perfect in mortality, just like Christ was perfect.

    As to your questions:
    1. From the Bible Dictionary-Holiness. According to the O.T. things or places were holy that were set apart for a sacred purpose; the opposite of holy is therefore common or profane (1 Sam. 21:5; Ezek. 22:26; 42:20; 44:23; 48:13–15). Similarly a holy person meant one who held a sacred office. The Israelites were a holy people because they stood in a special relationship to Jehovah. Under the guidance of the Prophets it was seen that what distinguished Jehovah from the gods of the heathen was his personal character. The word holy therefore came to refer to moral character (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 21:8; Isa. 6:3–8). Israel must be holy in character because the God of Israel was holy (Jer. 7:4–7; cf. Matt. 5:48).

    2. No. As long as he does not require anything of us that he did not have to do himself. It is not hypocrisy for a man who once committed a crime to become a police officer or judge, as long as that person has submitted himself to the demands of the law, paid the price for his actions, and then did what was required to gain that position.

    3. I think that it would, which is why I do not believed the Father ever sinned.


  4. shematwater,

    Thank you for your reply.

    John 5:19 is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees desiring to kill Him because of His healing on the Sabbath, and that’s the context: healing on the Sabbath. The Greek verbs, translated into the words “do” and “doeth” in the King James, are in the present active tense denoting action taking place in the present, not in the past. Nothing in the text would suggest a successive Messianic history from a race on another planet with the Father as the savior. I understand that may be the Mormon interpretation of that passage, but it is eisegetical.

    So from your perspective, Christ and the Father were morally perfect in their mortal lives, unlike everyone else who has lived on the earth, with the possible exception of Joseph Smith, depending on your perspective regarding him. So:

    1a) Since living a sinless life is possible by mortal beings as evidenced by Christ and the Father, does Mormonism claim anyone else to have accomplished this on the earth?
    1b) If not, why not?
    2) What of the sinful Mormons, such as those living today, who expect to achieve godhood? According to your answer to question #3 of my original post, I would deduce that they must become something less than the Father and Christ. So, what is that? Is there a greater/lesser state for deities in Mormonism of which I’m unaware?


  5. Solatude

    Regarding John 5: 19, I would still argue its support for what I have said. Yes, it was in response to to a specific criticism, but it was not said in a specific manner, but in a broad, all encompassing manner. Thus when it came time for the atonement this law would still apply.
    D&C 130: 7 states “But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.”
    Thus, while it happened in the past, it was still placed for the viewing of the Lord in the Present. So the present tense verbs don’t cause a problem. Christ saw in the present what his Father had done in the past, and so, in the present, did likewise.
    Much like watching and following an exercise video. The make of the video created it in the past, but while you watch it you speak about it the actions on the screen in the present tense. So too does Christ speak of the actions of his Father in the present tense, for it was in the present that he viewed them.

    As to your other questions: first of all, anyone who claims that Joseph Smith was perfect in the same way as Christ is teaching Blasphemy, and I really don’t care who they are. No one but Christ lived a perfect life on this Earth.
    Now, Q 1: I did not say it was possible for all mortal beings, and in some sense Christ was not mortal, for his literal Father is our Heavenly Father. He was born half divine and half mortal, which is why he had the power over life and death, and why he had power in himself to be perfect. The rest of us are fully mortal. Though our spirits are the children of gods, our bodies are not, and as such we do not have the same power or strength that Christ did. No man other than Christ can truly be perfect.
    However, it is possible to reach a kind of perfect. Noah was said to be perfect, as was Job. This does not mean that they never committed sin, like Christ. What it means is that they had reached a point in their lives in which they would never sin again. This is attainable by all people, and what all faithful saints strive for.

    Q 2: You are completely correct. We know that the Father is referred to the Head of the Gods, signifying his status among the gods of his generation. We also know that Christ and the Holy Ghost are referred to with our Father as the Godhead, signifying that all three of them have a higher rank than other gods of their generation (or ours in the case of Christ). The great Elohim will always be our Father, and the Head of the Gods of his generation, and Christ will be the Head of the Gods of our generation, with all the prophets and other gods being placed in various positions of authority. Adam, for instance, is stands as the great head of this Earth, with Noah as the second in authority to him. They are the great Patriarchs; one began the human race and the other preserved it. Christ will be over all his Father’s creations, which is worlds without number, and so Adam will preside over this Earth under the direction of Christ. Under the direction of Adam all the prophets of this Earth will preside on this Earth over the rest of us who become gods, and we will in turn preside over our children.
    While all gods will enjoy the same power, knowledge, and glory, they will not have the same authority.


  6. Shematwater,
    I’m going to start with the premise of the citation opening this post and just say that it is an unbiblical position to say that anyone can become gods. You will not find this teaching in true Christianity (you know, the those whom Smith said were an abomination to the Lord – all of us).

    And rather than counter all your specific LDS beliefs as you expound them here, I am again going to start with your basic premise that the LDS is a true Christian faith. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith was a false prophet who started out with pretty orthodox theology but then developed it as he went along, and as his arrogance led him. Since he was a false prophet, nothing he said could be genuine Christian teaching, and the D&C themselves are full of false prophecies.

    in fact, the section of D&C you cite, 130, is quite interesting.
    Look at the Book of Mormon Alma 34:36 and it says, “And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell…” This pretty much agrees with the Bible at 1 Cor 3:16; 1 Cor. 6:19 and Rom. 8:9. Now look at D&C 130:3: “…the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.” Does this not contradict the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Was the Mormon god confused?

    D&C130:15 makes me wonder if the Mormon God had no idea when Joseph Smith would die: “Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man.” And I wonder why the Mormon god always speaks in obsolete KJV English?

    Ah, but let’s get to the end of D&C 130 at vs 22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”
    But if I look at the BOM, at Alma 18:24-28, we learn that God is “a Great Spirit.” We learn the same thing at Alma 22:9-11. And, lo and behold, if I pick up the Bible and read John 4:24, Luke 24:39; 1 John 4:12; Col. 1:15; and 1 Cor. 15:50, we learn that God is a spirit and a spirit does not have flesh and bones, and that no one has seen the Father because He is invisible. Not only that, but flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

    So, since D&C 130 contradicts both the BOM and the Bible, it obviously is an erroneous teaching. Regardless of whether it contradicts the BOM, if it contradicts the Bible then it is NOT from God.

    So your explanation about John 5:19 to counter solatude has no basis in truth.

    Oh, and by the way, your idea of “perfect” is also very, very unbiblical. Nowhere does Scripture say we can reach a point where we would never sin except after the resurrection.

    Finally, God is not the head of any “gods,” because there are no other gods except false gods – things that people worship but aren’t really gods at all – they just treat them as such. That is what the Bible teaches. And nowhere in the BIble will you find anything about Adam being any sort of special person in the afterlife as the head of the earth. That is made up out of whole cloth by a false prophet. Joseph Smith developed that Godhead of multiple gods, etc completely apart from anything found in the Bible, and not even found in the BOM!

    Sorry, but your whole defense is based on a false belief system and is therefore invalid.


  7. GLENN

    It is rather ridiculous to join a discussion that has nothing to do with proving either side right or wrong with a lengthy and provably false post that is geared not only to prove one side wrong (counter to the discussion at hand) but to do so in a rather demeaning and arrogant way.

    Joseph Smith was and is a Prophet, and he stands at the head of this dispensation. Your so-called proof is nothing more than your opinion and interpretation of texts and is thus worthless as proof to anyone except yourself. Me, on the other hand, acknowledge that such things will always be subjective and so I will simply continue to teach what the doctrine of the LDS church is and hope that the spirit of God leads their hearts to the truth, rather than build up weak arguments in an attempt to attack and destroy that which I have no real power to destroy anyway.

    And just to give the readers an example of your weak interpretations, let us consider your comment on D&C130: 15. Your inability to understand the intent of this shows that you lack sufficient strength of mind to comprehend things of God.
    Let us understand that Joseph Smith was asking about an exact time frame for the Second Coming, and event that the Bible tells us that no man knows, not even the angels. However, the Bible also tells us (through the parable of the unjust judge) that if we continually ask for something God will give us some answer just to get us to leave him alone.
    So, with Joseph Smith bugging God about something that he had no intention of revealing God gives the answer as recorded, not because he doesn’t know that Joseph Smith will never live to that age, but simply to satisfy Joseph’s continual questioning.

    Another weak, and truly unsupportable, claim you make is that the Bible never teaches that we will become gods. The problem is that John tells us we will be like Christ (1 John 3: 2); Paul tells us we will inherit jointly (and thus equally) with Christ (Romans 8: 17) and that we will be changed in the same image and glory as Christ (2 Corinthians 3: 18); and the Psalmist states directly that we are gods (Psalms 82: 6), which is confirmed by Christ (John 10: 38). All of these teach very clearly that we will be exactly as Christ and the Father, and the only way that is possible is for us to be gods, for they are gods.
    Now, I understand that you can give different interpretations, but that will only prove my point further. All you have is just as subjective as all I have, and so a contest of proof is senseless.

    (By the way, I would love to know how Luke 24: 39 proves God is a spirit, when he directly states that he has a physical body, while a spirit doesn’t. Just another example of poor arguments.)


  8. Sheatwater,

    I joined the discussion because you stated that John 5:19 supported your claims, and then you used D&C 130 to buttress your defense. There is nothing “provably false” about my comment. Nor was it “arrogant and demeaning” although this tends to be one of the usual claims from Mormons when they are taken to task for their false belief system. You neglected to claim that I am also a bigot and hateful. Now rather than the ad hominem attacks, how about getting back to my challenge, which of course is to prove your side wrong. After all, you are here to defend your side as being right, but I guess that isn’t arrogant and demeaning.

    Joseph Smith was (not is – he’s dead) a false prophet. My proof of his being one is the fact that posted on my blog are almost 50 prophecies he made that failed to come to pass. It isn’t just my interpretation – it is the interpretation of everyone outside the LDS church who hasn’t been told these things really don’t mean what they say!

    Your defense of D&C 130 is quite amusing. If you want to claim that God really DID know when Smith would die, you still have the problem that God told Smith that if he lived until he was 85 he would see Jesus – the meaning being Jesus’ return. But since Jesus didn’t return when Joseph would have been 85, that makes it another false prophecy. Now, if that wasn’t what it meant, and you are saying God was just giving Joseph an answer just to get Smith to leave him alone, then you have a lying God.

    The fact that Scripture – real Scripture – says that we are to be like Christ, and will become like Christ, does not mean we will be like him in his position of one of the trinity. To stretch these passages completely out of context to make them say we will become gods demonstrates your complete lacking of understanding the Word of God.

    I did not say Luke 24:39 proved God is spirit – look at what I said after citing the passages: “we learn that God is a spirit and a spirit does not have flesh and bones, and that no one has seen the Father because He is invisible. Not only that, but flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” Luke 24:39 was the proof that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, which means if God is a spirit, he can not have flesh and bones as does a man.

    You didn’t even address the fact that D&C 130 contradicts both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which is why I stated that your use of that section to buttress your defense was invalid. D&C 130 is a false prophecy from a false prophet.

    Again, getting to the root of the debate is to prove that the LDS is a false belief system started by a necromancer false prophet who came up with a scheme to make money and ended up turning it into a religious belief system whose doctrine changed on almost a daily basis.


  9. Wow.

    All I can is wow.

    I thought I’ve seen (heard / read) it all in relation to the length Mormon apologists will go to not only subvert the plain Word of God, but defend the indefensible doctrines of LDS.

    Shem, you actually said:

    “Let us understand that Joseph Smith was asking about an exact time frame for the Second Coming, and event that the Bible tells us that no man knows, not even the angels. However, the Bible also tells us (through the parable of the unjust judge) that if we continually ask for something God will give us some answer just to get us to leave him alone.
    So, with Joseph Smith bugging God about something that he had no intention of revealing God gives the answer as recorded, not because he doesn’t know that Joseph Smith will never live to that age, but simply to satisfy Joseph’s continual questioning.”

    Wow. Simply unbelievable.

    So to defend the plain and obvious false prophecy of Joseph Smith, you have no reservations or shame about demeaning God’s nature while performing acrobatic scriptural gymnastics to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

    Instead of just admitting that this was a false prophecy uttered by Smith, you actually want us to believe that since Smith was such a prolific praying man that God was annoyed by Smith’s persistent prayers and lied to him just to get him to stop bugging him. (What a shallow, fickle god Mormonism has.)

    So God lied to Joseph Smith, who He knew would then repeat this lie (which God knew would not come to pass) to the people, which would ultimately disqualify Joseph Smith as a true prophet and make him a false prophet as per Deuteronomy 18, all to get Joseph Smith to shut up?



  10. Let us use a little sense, just for once, please. The continual idiocy of this topic is ridiculous.
    Let us look at the entire passage, just for once, and not assume anything before we actually studied the meaning.

    D&C 130: 14-17
    “I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
    Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
    I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
    I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.”

    Let us examine a few specifics.
    Joseph Smith tells us the earnestness of his prayers, which fits perfectly with what I said. This is again supported by God’s closing statement of “trouble me no more” indicating that Joseph was wearying God with his prayers.
    Now, it is claimed that God lied, but such a claim ignores the very text. God does not say “when you are 85” but “If.” In other words, there was no guarantee granted for living that long. God said if, which means that he could die at any age and the statement would still be true.
    Second, the claim that this is obviously talking about the second coming only shows the lack of intelligent thought that goes into your analysis. Joseph Smith gives at least three possible meanings to the phrase, all of which fulfill the meaning. To see the face of the Son of Man does not necessitate the Second coming, only some appearance to Joseph Smith, and that not even in this life. Even Joseph Smith when writing this admitted that the meaning was not clear, and thus to claim such is a gross misrepresentation of the text.

    Now, sure, if you want to take just verse 15 you can twist it into meaning what you want it to mean, which is the common tactic of those wishing to “prove” the LDS church false. Of course, a little deception doesn’t hurt, does it.


    Whether you want to admit it or not, you are arrogant, and your comments prove you to be such. I don’t think you have any real hatred or bigotry, but arrogance you have in plenty, and from every time you have ever commented to me it seems to grow.

    No, I did not answer every single point you brought up, because they were all just as weak and stupid as the ones I did address.
    Like your attempt to use Luke 24: 39. IN this very verse Christ states that he has flesh and bones, and is thus not a spirit.
    “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, AS YE SEE ME HAVE.”
    But, according to you Flesh and bones cannot inherit the Kingdom, and thus we must conclude that Christ does not inherit.
    However, as you are using 1 Corinthians 15: 50 to make this claim, allow me to point out your rather blatant error.
    “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
    You will notice that it is not Flesh and Bones, but Flesh and Blood that cannot inherit. We read in Leviticus 17: 14 that blood is the life of the flesh, or what makes it mortal and living on this Earth. We see this same use of the term in Matthew 16: 17 when Christ says that it wasn’t flesh and blood that revealed truth to Peter.

    So, since Luke 24: 39 clearly teaches that Christ had flesh and bones, we know that flesh and bones will in fact inherit the Kingdom. We also know from Paul in his letter to the Corinthians that Flesh and blood will not. Putting it all together we get the fact that Christ indeed has a physical body, and that we will also, but that they will not be mortal bodies, for they cannot inherit the kingdom (as they are flesh and blood).

    I find it funny that you would lecture me on the Bible when you clearly don’t really know it yourself.


  11. Shemmy,

    Since there are other prophecies of Smith’s which say the Lord would be coming back in that same time period, I’d say the context would be NOT that Smith would be seeing him face to face after death, but that Smith was prophesying when the Lord would return.

    Look at Smith’s diary/journal for 1838 which said that “the Son of Man” would come in THAT generation. I think we can all agree that the generation of 1838 has long since passed.

    History of the church Vol.5, p.336 record’s Smith again prophesying in 1842 that “there are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.” He then obviously refers to D&C 130 when he reports about the talk with God telling him the “If” story, and then Smith says, based on THAT conversation with God, “I prophecy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written – the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old.” (Which would be 1890). So Smith himself defined what he meant in D&C 130, and it wasn’t that Smith would die and see him that way. Nevertheless, again it was a false prophecy because that “rising generation” has also all passed away.

    Smith’s journal has the following entry for April 6, 1843: “I [Joseph Smith] prophecy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written, that the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years old, 48 years hence or about 1890.”

    Are you still going to stand by your claim that that it is my lack of intelligence which takes D&C 130 to mean the second coming? And are you going to stand by your false charge that I am guilty of deception?

    And your lame excuse for God’s use of “if” is quite amusing. God was saying “if” Smith would live – why would He not say, “you won’t live to be 85” rather than “if you live to be 85” if God knew when he would die? The god of D&C 130 is the same one of the other 50 or so false prophecies by Smith.

    Would you explain how my comments prove I am arrogant? I give the data, I provide the truth exposing the fraudulent nature of the LDS faith and therefore that makes me arrogant?!

    So my arguments were “weak and stupid”? Sounds to me like you are the arrogant one condescending me.

    Christ did not inherit the kingdom – he is the KING of the kingdom. So your whole theology is off immediately. You continue to distort my use of Luke 24:39. My point, as noted previously, was that Christ said a spirit does not have flesh and bones. God has been proven by both the Bible and the BOM to be spirit. THEREFORE, if God is spirit, and Christ stated a spirit does not have flesh and bones, then God cannot have flesh and bones, which is totally contrary to LDS theology which says God has flesh and bones! And you again misrepresent what I said (most likely because you didn’t really read it well) – I did NOT say “flesh and bones can not inherit the kingdom,” as you would know if you actually read my comment above where I specifically stated, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” Yet you claim I stated otherwise and by that false charge you then jumped to the conclusion that I therefore don’t know the Bible.

    I would contend that I know the Bible better than any Mormon, because a Mormon’s understanding of Scripture is filtered through LDS teachings about what it means rather than letting the Scripture speak for itself.

    Now, let’s get back to the subject. You used D&C 130 to buttress your defense and I proved D&C 130 to be a false prophecy which even contradicts the BOM and the Bible, and therefore is an invalid tool to buttress your argument. You didn’t address my examples of the contradictions because you can’t – there is no explanation except that Smith changed his theology as he went along.


  12. Shem:

    This matter is gravely serious as souls are at stake. I dare not consider any matter in which a person follows a false Christ (at the leading of a false prophet) to the eternal destruction and physical conscious torment of his soul, to be a matter of idiocy.

    Your vehement defense of the false prophecies of Joseph Smith are a testament to your total depravity and rejection of the truth. I urge you, beg you even, on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ to repent and be reconciled to God.



    Your continual refusal to actually consider what Joseph Smith said shows your willing ignorance, which is more depraved than anything I have ever said. This is not a false prophecy, for never did Joseph Smith say that Christ would return when he was 85. The very scripture you claim is false only speaks to Joseph Smith seeing the face of the Son of Man, not to the Son of Man coming in his glory, or to the entire world seeing him. Only Joseph Smith.

    I agree that it is a very serious matter, but it is you who are deceived, and it would appear to be willingly deceived, as the text that you claim is false is obviously not what you claim that only one who desires it to be so would ever claim such.


    First, I will apologize. I misread your comment. I have gone back and see that you did indeed say flesh and blood. That was my mistake, and I am sorry.

    However, you are still wrong on the whole prophecy of the second coming. Read again all your quotes.

    “I prophecy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written – the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old.”
    Great. So as long as the second coming did not happen before 1890 we are good. Notice that he does not say the second coming will be when he is 85, but that it will not be before this time. You are once again giving definite time-lines to something that does not have one.

    “I [Joseph Smith] prophecy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written, that the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years old, 48 years hence or about 1890.”
    Again, he never says that Christ would come in 1890, but that he would not come before 1890. So, once again you have tried to place a false meaning on the words of Joseph Smith.

    Now comes the wonderful quote of “there are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.”
    What does this mean. Well, he states in the previous sentence “Were I going to
    prophesy, I would say the end [of the world] would not come in 1844, 5, or
    6, or in forty years.”
    So, is this an actual prophecy, or is it just Joseph Smith giving his opinion. Considering that after this he goes into considerable detail on all the signs that must be fulfilled before the second coming can occur it is not all that unlikely that he speaking his opinion with no real intent to have it taken as doctrine.
    However, if we assume he is speaking prophecy we then must determine what he means by the term generation, as it is this term on which hinges your interpretation of the prophecy. The term generation can have several different meaning. The most common is the separation, or distinction between parents and children, each being from a different generation. However, it is also used to describe a time period in which the majority of people are similar are and habits (such as the lost generation of the Twenties; or the Baby Boomers of the fifties). Using this understanding I am of a different generation than my older brothers, for they were born in the 60’s while I was born in the mid 80’s.
    However, there has been a third use of the term. This describes the time it takes for one group of people to die. This use is used in the Book of Mormon after the coming of Christ. The second generation did not start until all those who had been alive at the time of Christ were dead. They were the first generation, and the second generation were those who were born and grew up not knowing any person who had seen Christ coming.
    So, in the United States we could say that the first generation of the United States did not end until all the founding father, and all those who had lived through the revolution were dead (sometime in the late 1800’s).
    Going from the perspective of the church, the rising generation could refer to those who were born after the last of the original members had died, which would have been well into the 1900’s.

    Now, I understand that you will simply laugh this away as a silly attempt to explain what is so obvious to you, and that is fine. As I have said, it is all a matter of interpretation, and all you have is your interpretation against mine, which truly cannot prove anything. It may convince some, and it will not convince others, but it still not proof. Anyway, I don’t really think this particular reference is a prophecy, for the reason I gave.

    Now, to clarify one thing, the Book of Mormon does not teach that God is a spirit. You are again taking selected passages and failing to actually think through them. You give as your example the story of Ammon (and later Aaron) teaching the Lamanites the gospel. What does he do? He finds a common ground from which to begin so that what he is saying will actually make sense.
    He asks King Lamoni “Believest thou that there is a God?”
    To which King Lamoni responds “I do not know what that meaneth.”
    So, to help the King understand Ammon then asks “Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?”
    King Lamoni says yes, to which Ammon tells him “This is God.”
    Now, is Ammon saying that God is a spirit, or is he just a good teacher who is taking the previous knowledge of the King and using it to instruct him in the truth of the gospel? Considering the rest of the conversation that is recorded (and having studied education) it sounds more like a good teacher.
    Ammon continues “Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?”
    The King responds “Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.”
    So again we see that the King did not have a sufficient understanding of even the vocabulary for Ammon to head strait into things, but needed to be led and shown the meanings. Ammon does this beautifully in his response.
    “The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.”
    We read later on that Ammon did eventually go into a lengthy and detail discourse of the creation, the fall of man, and the gospel, as well as the history of the world, teaching the King. But he started by gaining a common ground from which he could guide the King into understanding.

    Now, there is one other thing to consider when looking at this record. It states that God created everything, and we read in the Bible (as well as other LDS scripture) that the actual creation was carried out by Christ. Since it is true that Christ was a spirit before he was born on this Earth (as attested to in Ether 3: 8-9). Considering that Ammon lived before Christ was born for him to say that he was a spirit is perfectly true and in no way contradictory to anything the church has ever taught.

    As to the Biblical references, there is truly only one that says God is a spirit, and that is John 4: 24. The rest that you sight do not mandate God being a spirit. Yes he is invisible, but that does not mean he is a spirit, only that we cannot see him. As to John 4: 24, I have never been one to believe in the idea that the Bible is without error, and as this fairly contradicts the rest of the Bible I will simple say that there was a mistranslation somewhere along the line.
    Simple question: If the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one being (the trinity) how can one be physical and the others not? Better question is, since Christ has declared that the Son can do nothing that the Father hasn’t done, how is it that the Son took on a physical body when the Father hasn’t?

    As to inheriting the Kingdom, I guess Paul was lying when he said we would be joint-heirs with Christ. After all, to be joint-heirs requires both to inherit something. Otherwise we are not joint-heirs.
    Christ most definitely is the King, but he inherited that position from his Father who hath placed all things under his feet. We can see this plainly in Hebrews 1: 3
    “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”
    It was only after he had purged our sins (or had performed the atonement) that he took his place at the right hand of the Father. It was after fulfilling this calling that he inherited the Kingdom.

    So, once again you come with weak evidence to prove something that cannot be proven. Of course you will have other interpretations for everything (most likely ignoring those pesky words that interfere with your belief) but that is all they are, and as such are no better than anything I have.
    I am not here to try and argue who is right and who is wrong. It is a pointless and truly annoying goal. I am simply showing that you cannot prove us wrong, any more that we could prove you wrong. You can believe us wrong, and you can persuade others that we are wrong, but you cannot prove it.


  14. Shemmy, Shemmy, Shemmy,

    I know what Smith is saying, but look again at all the quotes together and the context is indeed the idea that Christ would be coming back. Why did Smith keep choosing that time if it was just an example? Why did he not say 85, and then perhaps 75, etc? Because that fits in with his prophecy about THAT generation.

    Now, you want to play around with the term “generation,” but your excuses won’t hold water. The meaning of the word “generation” is defined by Webster as “all persons born about the same time; the average in which children are ready to replace their parents… about 30 years.” The Bible defines a generation as 35 to 40 years (e.g. Job 42:16), The Book of Mormon says that a generation is 110 years (4 Nephi 18). Since Smith wrote the BOM, then he has already defined his meaning of “generation.”

    To buttress my argument about Smith’s idea of a generation, I refer you to D&C 84:1-5, 31 (Sept 1832) “A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun…. Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city of New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house…which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed….”
    By context, Smith’s intent in this prophesy was that the generation was the one he was currently part of. And, by the way, this prophecy failed also, since neither New Jerusalem nor the temple were ever built, let alone in THAT generation.

    Let’s look at another prophecy of Smith’s in which he referred to “this generation,” to wit, from 1/4/1833, as recorded in Hist. Vol.1, pp.315-316: “And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. …therefore, ‘Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgement is come.’
    “…there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled.”
    (This is also recorded in Teachings, pp. 17-18)
    It is patently obvious that Smith was talking about the generation in which he was living. And by the way, this was another failed prophecy.

    Smith also used “this generation” in a prophecy dated 9/1/1838 as recorded in his diary/journal wherein he stated, “The First Presidency [with] Judge Higbee (as surveyor) started this morning for the halfway house (as it is called) kept [by] Br. Littlefield, some 14 or 15 miles from Far West directly north, for the purpose of appointing a City of Zion for the gathering of the Saints in that place for safety and from the Storm which will soon come upon this generation. That the brethren may be together in the hour of the coming of the Son of Man and that they may receive instructions to prepare them for that great day which will come upon this generation as a thief in the night.”
    Notice that this prophecy ALSO stated that Christ would be returning in that generation, and it is another example of a failed prophecy.

    I maintain that when Smith spoke of the “rising generation” in regards to when Christ would return, he was using the term as meaning the generation he was in or the one right behind his generation. This would be in accordance with all his other prophecies in which he referred to “this generation,” as well as his definition from the BOM, and his comments about the return of Christ not taking place until he was 85 was part and parcel of his teachings of the return of Christ in THAT generation.

    Smith was a prophet, and using terms such as, “Were I going to prophesy” does nothing to mitigate the issue, because D&C 21 says “thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; 5. For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.”

    Notice again that “God” says ALL of Smith’s words are to be accepted as from “God.” So, according to you, was God just having Smith give a speculation? After all, Smith’s words were from God. And you still have to deal with Smith’s “God” not being able to tell Smith how old he will be – the big “IF” he lives is a real problem biblically.

    Now, let’s get back to Smith when he said that “the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years old…” When Scripture says Mary did not have sex with her husband “until” Jesus was born, does that mean Joseph left her alone forever as the Romanists teach? Or did it mean he didn’t have relations with her for many years to come? “Until” (“till”) is normally taken to mean something happens shortly after the “until” point. Smith repeated this more than once, and along with his prophecy about the “rising generation,” it is obvious to anyone but a LDS apologist that Smith intended to mean that 1890 or shortly thereafter Christ would return.

    Before I continue, I noticed you haven’t addressed the first part of my charges against D&C130 – the fact that it says that “the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false,” while contradicting the BOM and the Bible.

    Nor have you explained why “God” talks in 1611 KJV English, which was already obsolete in 1611!

    So back to the BOM and God being a spirit. SO, you are saying that Ammon didn’t contradict King Lamoni (for all you who don’t know, that is where Lamoni, IA got its name) thinking God was a spirit, he just identified what Lamoni called a spirit as God. He didn’t say, “Hey Lamoni, this thing you call a spirit really isn’t a spirit – it’s really a man just like you and me and he is God.” No, he left the thinking of God being a spirit because when Smith wrote the BOM that was his theology. Smith didn’t develop the man-god theology until years later.

    So now you escape all this by saying Christ created everything and Christ wasn’t a man yet when this conversation took place! BUT, since the discussion was about GOD and not God’s son, you still have a problem. Ammon didn’t say to Lamoni, “Oh, and by the way, God has a son who right now is a spirit but will later be a man like God.” The context of the BOM demonstrates that God was taught as a spirit and not a man.

    John 4:24 is very plain teaching that God is a spirit, and you claim it disagrees with the rest of Scripture. The problem for you is that nowhere in the Bible will you find God ever referred to as being an exalted man, never has flesh and bones, etc. You make the bold claim that this was a mistranslation, and that the Bible has error, etc. Yet the manuscript evidence is directly against your claim. You have to make that claim in order to believe in your system, but you have nothing to support it.

    Your misunderstanding of Christ being heir under the Father is why you believe Christ could not have been the King unless he became a man first. This theology is obviously beyond your comprehension because you come at it through LDS glasses. I will go no further with this one for now because of time constraints.

    However, I have demonstrated that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he had almost 50 bonafide false prophecies, can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wrote the BOM out of his head with plagiarizing from the KJV Bible and other materials readily available to him at the time. The BOM can be proven false by archaeology, also. The BOM has been proven wrong by DNA. In fact, it is very easy to prove the LDS is a false faith to anyone who cares to see the truth, which I find is rare among members of the LDS faith.


  15. @ Shem:

    Glenn has throughly proven the falsehood of this prophecy and, although you refuse to see this truth, I think most reasonable people can see plainly that JS spoke presumptuously of an event that did not occur, thus qualifying him as a false prophet (as per Deut. 18).

    I don’t expect to persuade you from your error merely by my words, but I am glad for these conversations because they reveal many ugly truths about LDS that slick TV commercials and young missionaries will never reveal, and these truths are read by those investigating LDS. So these conversations are fruitful.

    And finally, one of us is deceived (that is abundantly clear), and in spite of the overwhelming mountain of evidence against Mormonism (as Glenn touched on) the worst that will happen to me if I’m wrong is that I’ll end up in Mormonism’s 3rd heaven (at least according to the LDS missionaries that I talked to). But if you’re wrong you will have to endure unbearable conscious torment in the Lake of Fire that burns forever without end under the fierce, unmitigated, horrifying wrath of God. This fact alone should cause a truly humble man to take a step back and review where he stands.

    Again, I plead with you before it’s too late; repent and turn to the true and living Christ.


  16. GLENN

    I am not going to comment on all the prophecies you mention (some of which are not prophecies). You have one goal in mind, and it is not to seek or reveal the truth. You lack true understanding of scripture or of Joseph Smith’s words. You are blinded by your own religion bias and refuse to see the truth.

    There are two things I will say. You use D&C 21: 4 to argue that we are to take all of Joseph Smith’s words as truth, but you again fail to see the actual meaning of this verse of scripture.
    “thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you AS HE RECEIVETH THEM, walking in all holiness before me.”

    This verse is not saying that everything he says is to be taken as truth, but what he says while influenced by the spirit, or those words which are given to him by God to deliver to us. You again twist the meaning of scripture in your attempt to prove what you cannot prove through honest analysis.
    With this in mind we can see that your analysis of this so called prophecy is obviously biased, as you have failed to grasp even the basics. The prophecy does not state that Christ would come back at this time, only that it would not be before this time, and nothing he said while in the spirit contradicts this, as I have shown.


    You are correct that one of us is deceived, but you are not right in the consequence of that deception. After all, as you believe all we need is faith in Christ than I am good, for I believe fully in his atonement and all it has done for me. I rely solely on his power to save, and so, by your own doctrine, I am saved. If it is you who is deceived, on the other hand, though you will be in heaven (and I think it more likely that you would be in the second) you will have to live continually with the knowledge that you failed your God and are thus forever banished from his presence; a torment more exquisite than anything imaginable, even as a lake of Fire and Brimstone.


  17. Shem,

    In all kindness, I would be so thankful if you read the book The Mormon Mirage (written by a former Mormon)

    It is written in love and truth. 🙂 If, you would like to read it, and you don’t have the money, let me know and I will send you *my* copy. Know that Glenn and Pilgrim (and myself) are writing in love for *your* soul’s sake. 🙂



  18. Shem,

    You say I have “one goal in mind,” which is “not to seek or reveal truth.” On the contrary, I am trying to get you to seek the truth as I did and I am indeed revealing the truth about the LDS to you and everyone else reading this string. You claim I lack understanding of Scripture because I refuse to use LDS bias to interpret it. You also claim I lack true understanding of Smith’s words, yet I maintain that I have demonstrated it is indeed I and not you who understand Smith’s meanings. You are the one blinded by your own religious bias to shut off the truth. Your conscience screams but you ignore it.

    So not all the D&C are prophecies?!?! That’s news. All of them during Smith’s reign say they are prophecies, but I guess they are wrong to say that? Or are you referring to what is recorded in the History of the Church where he says he is speaking “by the authority of Jesus Christ.”? Or perhaps his prophecies in his diary/journal aren’t really prophecies?

    As for D&C 21:4, how are we supposed to know when Smith DIDN’T receive what he claims from God? So I guess that is your out, because we can’t know if he received something from God or made it up out of whole cloth. How do we know when he was supposedly influenced by the spirit? The evidence demonstrates conclusively that the only spirit Smith was ever influenced by was a demonic spirit.

    You claim it is only my bias which is saying Smith claimed Christ was coming back at that time, yet I demonstrated from several of his writings that he was consistent with naming a “not until” date and stating it would take place within the “rising generation.” Consistency demonstrates his intent.

    I would strongly suggest not only the book Katy-TheCountryBlossom recommended, but also I challenge you to throughly study the Tanners’ tome, “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” It is responsible for bringing many, many Mormons out of the LDS cult.

    “The sound of the trumpets of conscience falls deafly on a brain that holds its ears.”


  19. Katy

    I appreciate it, truly. However, I doubt that Glenn and Pilgrim share the same concern that you seem to.
    No, I have no desire to read the book. I am not suffering from any delusions or a deception. I am not out to prove anything, unlike Pilgrim or Glenn. I know the truth, for God himself has revealed it to my mind and my heart, and nothing can break his witness. I have shown the flaws in what Glenn is claiming as truth, and it is up to God to confirm or deny them to the individual.


    You are always learning, but you will never come to a knowledge of the truth, because you do not seek it. You are clouded by your own bias and refuse to see what I have pointed out, that the only consistent meaning of Joseph Smith’s words is that the second coming would not be before 1890, which meaning has been fulfilled.
    We can know what Joseph Smith spoke as revelation, and we can know the meaning of it. But we cannot know it through our own study. It must be revealed to us personally, through his spirit which is the witness to all truth. It is through a personal relationship and communication with deity that we may know what was inspired by God, and what men speak of themselves; and it is through this same method that we may learn the true meaning in that which is revealed.

    It is through this witness that I know the truth, and that I can see the darkness that envelopes you at this time. It is through this witness that I know what you claim is false, for God cannot lie (though you can). Of course, it is also through you continual ignoring the actual words of prophets and misrepresenting LDS doctrine that I find it easy to ignore what you say.
    If you fail to even understand the basics of LDS doctrine how can you be an authority on error within it?

    In truth it is useless discussing things with you. You will never be open to even the hint that you are in error, as you are far to arrogant to accept such. I am perfectly willing to discuss doctrine, as I was doing with Salitude before you came. I am not willing to beat my head against a brick wall when I know all I will get for my trouble is a headache.


  20. Shematwater:
    You claim you are not trying to prove anything, yet you spend your entire time on this blog trying to prove the LDS to be a true faith.

    So because I refuse to succumb to the lie of the LDS faith, I therefore “will never come to a knowledge of the truth”? It is you who refuse to seek the truth and are clouded by bias.

    You say you cannot know what Joseph Smith meant about anything unless it is revealed to you by personal revelation of Smith’s spirit? Interesting. So words written mean nothing? And how does Smith’s spirit reveal this to you? Can you show me from Scripture where any dead person can communicate via his spirit to let you know what he really meant? Or did you perhaps mean the Holy Spirit? Your grammatical structure seemed to be saying Smith’s spirit (“his spirit,” following statement about how you can know what Smith spoke as revelation) so I wasn’t sure exactly what you were saying.

    God doesn’t lie, and cannot lie, but the LDS god lies all the time, never gets his prophecies right, doesn’t know the future, and contradicts what he said in the Bible.

    I fully understand the basics of LDS doctrine, but you refuse to acknowledge that because I show you its errors.

    Let me cite what you said, just to make a point:
    “You will never be open to even the hint that you are in error, as you are far to [sic] arrogant to accept such.”
    Pilgrim and I have both stated that you are in error and yet you won’t “be open to even the hint that your are in error,” so making the same charge against you, you are far too arrogant to accept that you are in error.

    You are NOT really willing to discuss doctrine without making claims that people lack understanding. The LDS doctrine is built on a house of cards of the false prophet Joseph Smith. How about we start with him being a false prophet and the BOM being a work of fiction before we even consider doctrine based on these, since by knocking out those cards the whole LDS house falls?


  21. Dear Shem:

    You told Katy:

    “I appreciate it, truly. However, I doubt that Glenn and Pilgrim share the same concern that you seem to.”

    I am sorry that you feel I have some ulterior motive other than to give you the truth of the gospel. My heart breaks for LDS who sincerely believe they are following God; I have no ill will toward them (nor you).

    And if I’ve done anything or acted in any way to suggest otherwise, I apologize. My entire goal, hope, and prayer is for you to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Believe me when I tell you I have many other things I’d rather be doing than “bickering” with you. But I am compelled by the grace of my Lord and Savior to tell you the truth.

    And one of those hard truths I must tell you is that you are incorrect when you stated:

    “After all, as you believe all we need is faith in Christ than I am good, for I believe fully in his atonement and all it has done for me. I rely solely on his power to save, and so, by your own doctrine, I am saved”

    You see, if I were to tell you that the tree in my front yard is Jesus, and I trust that Jesus to save me, you would rightly tell me that that is a false Jesus who can no more save me on the Day of Judgment than a rock named Jesus or a river named Jesus.

    It is the same case here. “My doctrine” in no way suggests that you are “good” or are “saved” as you claim because “my doctrine” (Sola Scriptura) makes it clear that there is a distinction between the Christ revealed in holy writ, and the “christ” of the vain imaginations of men. Jesus Himself even warned us to beware of false chirsts, not because they might come, but because they will come.

    The Jesus of LDS is not the Jesus of biblical Christianity (even the late G.B. Hinckley admitted that LDS don’t believe in the same Jesus as Christians). And I’ve even taken the time to show the differences between the false Jesus’ of the varied religions and that of the true Lamb of God as revealed in Scripture:

    You can tell me all day you trust Jesus, but your version of Him is so skewed by LDS doctrine that on the Day of Judgment when you stand before Him, He will be completely unfamiliar to you and you will curse the day you ever heard the name Joseph Smith because your soul will be assigned to the lake that burns with fire forever and ever, without any hope of an end.

    That, my friend, compels me to share the truth with you and this is why I fear for your very soul and plead with you to repent and turn to the true Christ of Scripture for salvation.


  22. GLENN

    I apologize for the poor grammar. I was speaking of the Spirit of God or the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead.
    The simple fact that I am willing to admit my mistakes proves that you are wrong. I have admitted mistakes before, and even on this particular thread. I am not arrogant, for I am willing to accept my errors. You, on the other hand, have yet to do so in any conversation I have ever had with you.
    I am perfectly willing to accept a hint as to my error, but you have not yet given one. Your interpretation of scripture is not proof of anything.

    As to discussing doctrine, I am perfectly willing to discuss doctrine, but that is not what you are doing. Discussing does not entail extensive, and rather insulting lists of “this is why you are wrong.” It entail “this is how I understand the meaning, what is your understanding?” and once that is answered followed by “why do you believe that.”
    I am perfectly willing to discuss nearly anything in the world with you, but I am not willing to get carried away into another useless written competition that really amounts to a “you said – I said” battle that can have no real point.


    I do think you have better intentions than Glenn, and I will even admit that I was likely in error as to your motivations. However, a continual attack on another person’s faith, regardless of the intention, does not show a very loving attitude. Nor does the insistence that you have “proved” my faith false. The very definition of faith means it can’t be proven false or true.
    In truth, when Glenn is not in the discussion, I actually enjoy talking with you, and I apologize for anything I said that may have been hurtful.


  23. Shem,

    May I just add something? If you were (unknowingly) walking in front of a bus would you rather someone tell you or not? (even if they had to scream to get your attention?) Although it may feel as though you are being attacked, in all actuality, we are trying to love you by telling you the Truth. I have prayed for you and hope you will come to a knowledge of the truth.
    The reason I mentioned that book, in my above comment, was because I always just thought Mormons were Christians. But I felt like something about that wasn’t right….so God led me to that book and I read it. It explains so much…the author of the book loved her mormon life…and didn’t *want* to accept that it was wrong…but she did her “homework” and found out the truth.
    I dont’ speak in order to argue with you or anything at all….just out of concern for you.

    I hope you will seek God’s Truth for yourself…investigate Joseph Smith’s true past. You will learn so much. I will keep praying for you. I don’t know you, but God does…and He does want you to be His.


  24. Shematwater,

    First, if I have not made mistakes in my claims, why should I then have to correct them? If I’ve not made errors, why should I state that I have? You haven’t proven me wrong on any thing I’ve posted – you just reinterpret to claim it says something different, and now you claim that the Holy Spirit is the one who directs you to understand properly, which means if I don’t understand it the way you claim, I am therefore bereft of the Holy Spirit.
    And then you call me arrogant..

    You keep claiming I am arrogant and yet your only “proof” is that you don’t like the information I provide and claim I misunderstand, etc, – words don’t really mean what they appear to mean.

    Your rules listed for discussing doctrine are merely YOUR rules and not standardized rules. I point out what the teachings state and then demonstrate why they are erroneous. Then you tell me that isn’t discussion. Yet you give your interpretation and say I’m in error and that IS discussion. Hmmm. I’m confused.

    My intention in discussing Mormonism with you or any other Mormon is to hopefully open your eyes to the false system you are in bondage to so that you will see the truth and come to the real Jesus Christ. I would suggest that rather than assigning intentions to me, that you should have asked my intentions, even though I thought I made them clear from long ago. My intentions are to expose the fraud of the LDS and provide the truth of the real Gospel. And that is not in any way dishonorable as you are implying.

    You don’t enjoy discussion with me because I know the material quite well and demonstrate how you misrepresent what Smith actually was saying. Truth gets to be quite offensive, doesn’t it?

    “Attacking” a person’s false faith is not at all unloving. What is unloving is to suggest that a person’s false faith which will lead to eternal damnation is to be left alone. I’m not attacking you or any LDS member; I am attacking – or, more appropriately, exposing – the lies of Mormondom and any other false belief system. To ignore that someone is in danger of eternal damnation and not attack their beliefs is actually very, very unloving.

    Faith can’t be proven true of false, but what one bases that faith on can very often be proven to be false.

    Just remember, it is LDS teaching that all of Christendom is an abomination before God and that only the LDS have the truth; is that unloving?


  25. KATY

    I would have no problem with someone yelling at me under the circumstances given. I might even willingly forgive physical force if such was necessary.
    However, when a person uses that physical force and then starts yelling at me for being such a moron for not seeing the bus and starts lecturing me on how much better they are in traffic because they have seen it, then I get annoyed.
    Notice the difference.

    Now, in actuality your tactics, though they may be motivated by love, do not convey that motivation all that well, which is my point.


    The fun thing is that nothing can truly be proven false. It is impossible to prove a negative.
    Second you have made mistakes, ones that I have pointed out (not on this thread necessarily) and have never accepted such. If you need an example I am sure I can find one.

    As to attacking faith, you really need to take the example of Christ. He did not attack the faith of others (and neither did his apostles). He explained the truth in love, and when a question was put to him he answered it directly and than moved on.
    It was the pharisees who were constantly on the offensive against Christ, not the other way around.

    As to discussion, I never said that I was discussing anything with you. By the understanding I have given I wasn’t, but was engaged in a pointless battle (not discussion). I am willing to discuss, but I really don’t care for such written fights.

    As to being loving, the LDS church is far more loving in its approach to teaching as well as in its doctrine than you are. The church does not spend money or set up ministries that have the sole purpose of digging up every little thing that can possible be twisted into a negative for another religion and then spending time to proclaim it to the world. No. We teach our members the simple truths of the gospel, and they go out and share that with their friends, with no real concern about proving others wrong.

    As to giving you intentions, I can only judge by what I read; and what I read conveys no love and no real concern for my personal welfare. What I read conveys only a desire to tare down something that you hate, and it doesn’t seem to matter who is hurt in the process.
    It reminds me of a doctor who is trying to remove something from the patient. The doctor rips the person apart, but glories in the end for he has been successful in removing the object. When criticized he simple states “the man would have died if I left it in.”


  26. Shemmy,

    No, you demonstrated no error that wasn’t acknowledged as such (and I don’t remember any errors made – only things you claimed as errors by reinterpreting the information to fit your LDS worldview)

    Christ did indeed attack false teachings – I suggest you go back to the Bible to see how he called the Pharisees hypocrites and vipers as he labeled them as false prophets burdening the people down (matt. 23). Paul vilified false teachers and their false teachings – check out Gal. 1 where he said to let the false teachers be eternally condemned. Many places throughout the N.T. you will see Jesus and the apostles attacking false doctrines. Mark 7 (and Matt. 15) demonstrates Christ attacking false teachings and vilifying the teachers.

    The LDS church puts on a face of being loving to Christians as it seeks to proselytize them and appear to be just another Christian denomination, all the while attacking all other faiths as erroneous. You teach no truths of the true Gospel; you teach only what Paul called “another gospel” and “another Christ” and, as Paul said, for that reason the LDS should be eternally condemned. Was Paul unloving to say this?

    Every Mormon I have ever met is determined as you are here in proving the LDS faith as the right one and true Christian faith as being wrong – that has been your entire reason for being here.

    “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) – and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of the, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of me, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’ He again forbade me to join any of them…” Joseph Smith’s History

    The LDS says God claims the rest of us have creeds which are an abomination to him, that we are all wrong and those who profess the faith are corrupt. Where is the LDS concern for our welfare?

    So when I state the facts of the fraudulent nature of the LDS faith, you pull a page out of the homosexualist playbook and call it hate, but Smith can say we are all abominable to God and that’s okay? How can I show concern for your personal welfare other than to try to lead you away from serious error in your religious belief which will lead you to eternal damnation? If I didn’t care about your welfare I wouldn’t bother trying to share the truth with you – I’d just say go to hell and be done with it. You are playing the “hurt” victim card because you are being force to look at the truth.

    And by the way – it is very easy to prove things false. If that wasn’t true, then I could say 2+2=5 and you couldn’t prove me wrong. And I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Smith was a false prophet and the BOM was a man-made work of the early 19th century.


  27. Shem,

    Point taken. I would hope, though, that I have only screamed the warning in love..and not lectured etc. With that token, I just ask you to please listen…because it’s very important…my concern is for *you*….thus why I have spent time praying for you. May I make an assumption? Perhaps God led you to this very post and to this very time for a reason….because of His love for you, to point you in the right direction.

    In all actuality, it is your soul up for grabs. So you are the one who needs to make the decision.
    Although you and Glenn seemed to have clashed a bit, I feel that I have spoken out of concern for you, and that it is able to be seen in my words. All I ask, and again…this is not for *me* but for *you*…just do some homework on the true past of Joseph Smith…do a lot of digging.

    I won’t continue to prod at you and beg….I will pray that God opens your heart to what I am saying and the manner I am saying it in. I will pray He opens doors and helps you see clearly. I wish you all the best and truly hope to meet you one day, in Heaven. 🙂

    With all kindness and care,


  28. KATY

    I don’t think you were lecturing. As I said, I think you show more love for me and other LDS than anyone else here. I appreciate the way you have spoken and the suggestions you have made.

    As to the reason I am here, there may be a point to it. However, how do you know that my reason for being here is to lead you to the truth, for it is is your soul that is in danger of loosing the blessings.

    I have read the history of Joseph Smith, and I know it very well. No, I cannot always cite sources, but that is fine with me. I have no interest in reading the works of people whose sole purpose to degrade the man. This is not because it is Joseph Smith, but because I really don’t like this kind of writing, regardless of who the subject is.
    If the purpose of a book is to destroy another person than it is not a good book, regardless of its intentions.


    Yes, the rest of the world is following creeds that are abominations in the sight of God, and so you should carefully consider how you proceed.
    The difference is not in what we believe in regards to others, but how we actually treat them. Yes, we believe this, and if you believe that we are an abomination that is fine. I really don’t care. But we do not spend our time hunting down everything we can to use in an open campaign to destroy your faith; and yet that is exactly what you are doing. We do not spend hours going over every record of every leader that has influenced your religion to try and find something that can be used in an attack on your faith; but that is exactly what you have done.
    We declare you are in error, yes, but we then follow it with the truth, not with the reasons you are in error. On the other hand you say that we are in error and then spend most of your time lecturing us on why.
    The difference is clear to anyone with their eyes open. We have a great love for all men and so seek to lead them into the truth. You, on the other hand, seem to have only a great hatred for our faith and so seek to destroy it whenever you can.

    As to Christ: Matthew 23 is after a direct confrontation with the Pharisees (chapter 22). They have attacked him and so he is now telling the multitude their error.
    Mark 7 (Matt 15) is again in response to a direct attack on his teachings, and is thus more a defense than an attack.
    Christ never attacked the Pharisees or the Scribes or anyone else. He did defend his own doctrine, and at times he did this by pointing out the hypocrisy of the those who attacked it.
    However, this is not what you have done. You are not responding to any attack on your doctrine, but are on the offensive. I have made no attack on your doctrine.

    As to Paul, he does condemn false teachers, but he doesn’t take any time to explain what doctrines are false, nor does he mention any specific teacher or group. So again, you are not in line with Paul’s example, but are contrary to it.

    Now, I find it funny that you would try and declare my intentions when you have complained of me doing the same. Just a little of your own hypocrisy showing I think.


  29. Shem,

    We spend time doing what we can to destroy the validity of the LDS faith because that is what we as Christians are called to do – expose false teachings. We do it to protect other people from being duped into the LDS, we do it to let society know that the LDS does NOT represent true Christianity. We do it to hopefully save souls out of the LDS faith.

    You do spend your time going from door to door claiming you are the only true church, which by extension does indeed denigrate real Christians.

    You declare we are in error, but you do not follow with the truth – you follow with lies from Joseph Smith’s teachings and the teachings of every LDS leader since. You have no truth.

    Yes, true Christians have a hatred for what is false, which is why we hate the LDS faith. But hating the teachings is not the same as hating the people. I have great sorrow for those who are trapped in the LDS or any other false belief system because I know that, unless they turn to the truth, they will be eternally damned.

    Yes I am responding to attacks on Christian doctrine. Every time you speak Mormonism you attack Christian doctrine as being false.

    Paul does indeed many times explain what teachings he is attacking, and in Galatians 1 he says it is another Christ and another Gospel – which is what the LDS teach.

    As for your intentions – I only stated your attendance here is to attempt to prove the LDS true. That is provided by the evidence so it isn’t speculating on your intentions. Your defense of the LDS is evidence of your intent to prove the LDS as the true faith and the rest of us in error. That isn’t hypocrisy – that is reading the evidence.


  30. GLENN

    It is nice of you to finally admit your hatred. Now, I never once said you hated the people, and so you have simply confirmed what I have been saying from the start. You hate the faith, and it is that hatred that motivates you.
    Now, I do not say you hate the people, nor have I ever denied that you have love for them. What I have said is that your overriding motivation is not love of the people, but hatred for the faith, and as such your words and actions disguise any love you might have, which is directly contrary to the practice and teaching of Christ and the apostles.

    You said “You do spend your time going from door to door claiming you are the only true church, which by extension does indeed denigrate real Christians.”
    I find the hypocrisy from you strong. Why is it that declaring us to be in error is not denigrating us, but to declare you in error is denigrating you? If you can have a hatred for the doctrine and not the people, why is it that we cannot? You again use a double standard.

    As to motivations, you are again using a double standard. You have accused me of being in error when I judged on your words, and yet I cannot accuse you of the same error.
    As I have stated more than once, I am not here to prove anyone right or wrong, as such is impossible. If I seek to prove anything it is only that both are possible given the evidence available, and thus it must be left in God’s hands to declare to the individual which is true.
    Now, I have engaged in a proof type discussion with you, but that was not my intention when I entered this thread, but something that you forced into the discussion with your arrogant attacks. I responded in defense of my faith, just as the early saints did. Go back to the discussion I was engaged in with Solitude and you will see no evidence of an attempt to prove the LDS true. This came because your hatred drove you to enter a perfectly civil discussion on theology with your ramblings against my faith.

    Please, do not try and force your agenda on me, as it just does not apply.


  31. Shem,

    EVERY Christian hates false teaching, as does God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and all the apostles. Just like we hate sin. There is nothing wrong or nefarious about that sort of hate.

    No, my overriding motivation is indeed love of the people, which is WHY I hate lies and false teaching because that is what hurts and condemns the people to eternal punishment.

    I am not the one with the double standard. I merely pointed out yours! YOU are the one accusing us of denigrating your faith, etc, yet you do the very same thing while claiming you do not!

    You said my intentions were ONLY to destroy the LDS, while I said that was not true. My intentions are ONLY to protect people FROM the LDS. It is your intentions to prove the LDS as the one and only true faith.

    Again, you are wrong to say that nothing can be proven right or wrong, as I demonstrated with simple mathematics.

    NO, both LDS and real Christianity are not possible with the evidence. The evidence thoroughly refutes the LDS and proves it to be a false faith made up by a con-man. From your first entry you were defending the LDS faith – that is the displayed intention of your comments. No one forced you to make your first comments.

    Again, you call my comments “arrogant,” and yet you provide no evidence of arrogance – you just call it arrogance because I had the audacity to demonstrate the errors of the LDS.

    Contrary to your assertions, your very first comment to Solatude was a defense of your faith to prove it as true. Your first sentence brought in Joseph Smith, and then you gave teachings from the King Follett discourse. In your second response to Solatude you brought in LDS teachings to prove your points. If you are going to use LDS teachings then you are saying YOUR faith is true.

    So your agenda was exactly as I stated, to defend the LDS faith as true, which by extension says the Christian faith is false.


  32. GLENN

    You have no perception, and as such it is impossible to discuss with you.

    My first comment to Solitude had nothing to do with proving the LDS church true, and only one whose sole goal is to prove it false would see anything like that in what I said.
    My point was to simply comment on what was said and give my understanding of various concepts. I did not care to prove LDS doctrine true or false, but to simple show what it is.

    When I state the LDS church teaches such and such doctrine, or that I see such in what it does teach, this is not an attempt to prove it true, but to simply prove what it is.
    It is thus you who reads into my words a desire to prove truth, and then your inner desire to prove false kicks you into such activity as you engage in.

    Despite your claims, matters of faith cannot be proven true or false, and to claim that you can prove such shows your own arrogance.


  33. The article itself was a critique of the LDS teachings. There is no other reason for you to come on about every article about the LDS unless it is to demonstrate the LDS beliefs, which you believe are true. If you aren’t defending your faith with truth claims, then what other purpose are you serving by commenting on every LDS post on this site? You say you “simply prove what it is,” but that isn’t true. Since it is your belief system, you not only try to prove what it is, but you also defend it as being true, or else you would make a caveat to the effect, “this is what the teachings are, but I don’t believe it.”

    Any time you present a truth claim from the LDS, it must be countered with the truth that the LDS is a false belief system.

    Now, while one can’t prove another’s faith to be true or false, it is easy to prove what one’s faith is based on is false if it is a belief system like the LDS. The LDS origins have been proven over and over again to be fraudulent and it is NOT arrogant to state that historical truth. It has been proven over and over that Smith was a con-man, a false prophet, necromancer, adulterer, etc. It has been proven over and over again that the BOM is the product of Smith’s imagination, that the D&C are also products of his imagination, as is the POGP and every other teaching of Joseph Smith. It is NOT arrogant to claim this historical fact.


  34. @ Shematwater:

    You make it sound as if Glenn’s hatred for a false religious system (that is damning countless souls to an eternity in the Lake of Fire) because of his love for those believing this lie, is a bad thing! It’s like saying a Christian’s hatred for abortion because of his love for women and their babies is a bad thing.

    Let me be very candid with you, if I may. The vast majority of posts on this blog regarding LDS are not necessarily directed at LDS nor LDS apologists (like yourself). You see, I’m fully aware of how tough it is to come out of a false religious system once you’ve been ensnared by it. It goes beyond just a mental ascent to a set of doctrines or principles, it is engrained generationally, it involves family, tradition, status, work, etc. I understand that.

    My goal is to provide the “other side” of Mormonism that so many non-LDS folks know nothing about. I’ll admit that Mormonism’s slick PR marketing campaign has done wonders to the LDS image in the eyes of the public (I believe much credit for this goes to Gordon B. Hinckley). So my goal is to make people aware of the truth of Mormonism so they never get caught up in it in the first place.

    The best way to get out of a false religious system is to never get involved in one. I have this same philosophy when it comes to other false organizations (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholicism).

    If a current member of LDS, or even an LDS apologist (such as yourself) is persuaded by the facts, and God uses any of this to bring them to the truth, then that’s wonderful and praiseworthy for sure. I hope and pray that current LDS members can come to the saving knowledge of Christ by what we post here, but I do this mostly as an inoculation so unsuspecting people never get trapped in these organizations to begin with.

    And to claim we’re “attacking” Mormonism is inherently dishonest. Everything we write is a defense of your organization’s unwarranted attack on the Christian faith. After all, your organization only exists because of its preemptive attack on Christianity. Your founding prophets’ attacks on the Christian faith is the very foundation of Mormonism; take that away and the whole LDS faith crumbles. The only difference is that now you guys are more reserved about it and downplay your views. But this was not so at the founding of Mormonism; your founding prophets had many nasty things to say about Christians, the Bible, and even the Apostle Paul.

    Finally, this long thread of endless squabbling has been very successful at diversion; distracting the reader from the original post. Now that we’ve spent this entire thread examining each others’ motives, accusing people of arrogance, assuming people are unloving, and debating about the merits of who can say what about whose faith, can I suggest we get back to the subject at hand?



    What I am saying is that being motivated by that hatred is a bad thing. I would say the same thing to anyone who hates abortion. If it is that hatred that motivates than you are on the wrong course. If, however, it is your love of the unborn that motivates, then you will be able to do some good.
    Christ was never motivated by hatred, but by love. He hated the sins and despised the hypocrisy, but his motivation was his love for the people, and it showed in his actions and his words.

    Now, I do apologize for the side track. My behavior hasn’t been what it should be, and I made at least one comment about you personally that I wish to retract.
    Now, I am all for a discussion on the original point, which is what I was actually engaged in before Glenn gave his original tirade that had absolutely nothing to do with that point. As such, I will return us to it (and I will ignore Glenn if he posts again).

    So, going back I have to admit that the original article did not capture my interest very much. I have heard discussion on this topic before and find them rather pointless. James clarified what he meant in the quote you provided, and that was sufficient.
    However, I was intrigued by Solitudes comment, and I responded to that more than the original post.

    Now, despite Glenn’s insistence that I can’t discuss my faith without trying to prove it, I never had any intention of proving anything. I agree with James that a simple understanding of the doctrine of the LDS church (which most members have) leaves the question unanswered. There is no direct statement concerning this anywhere that I am aware of.
    However, as I was trying to point out, with a more in-depth understanding of the doctrine the idea becomes less and less logical, and thus I conclude that it is a false idea. I used as support a quote from John and the King Follett discourse. Taking everything the prophets have actually taught it becomes very unlikely that the Father ever sinned; and if you take Christ and Joseph Smith at their literal words (in the references given) it becomes an impossibility.

    Jesus Christ did only what his Father had done before him, which was to lay down his life and take it up again as an atoning sacrifice for those of his generation. The Father could not have done this if he had not also been perfect and without sin, and the Son could not have done it if the Father had not.

    Now, Solitude did bring up the very valid point that in John Christ was speaking in the present, and I gave a very clear explanation as to how that does not alter the teaching.

    So, if anyone would like to make a comment regarding these things I am happy to reply. I will not be replying to anything off this subject again on this thread.


  36. My motivation for exposing any false teaching is the love of the people who are caught in it or could be deceived by it; I don’t want to see anyone eternally condemned. If my motivation was based on hate for the LDS, then I wouldn’t care about the people.

    I find it interesting that you choose to say my examination and exposing of the LDS false doctrine is a “tirade.” Your comments are just discussion but mine are a tirade.

    My original comment was to demonstrate that your defense of your position was based on false doctrine and a false prophecy. You used D&C 130 to buttress your argument and I proved it wasn’t a valid document to use. So that makes it a tirade? And because you used D&C 130 and I addressed that, I was indeed addressing the original point.

    My question for you is that, if God was once as we are now, why wouldn’t that make him a sinner prior to his working his way to godhood? How can we become like the LDS god if we are sinners if he never was? “As man is, God once was…” So if man is a sinner, doesn’t that mean God once was?


  37. An interesting question has been asked. If God was once as we are now, and we are sinners, doesn’t it logically follow that he was once a sinner?

    The answer is so obvious that it is hardly worth giving. Using this same logic, if you are going to believe that Christ had a human nature (which I understand most Christians accept) than he must have sinned, for all humans are sinners. In fact, I have heard people profess this very belief; that Christ was indeed a sinner until his baptism, at which point he never sinned again.

    However, if we are to actually examine the doctrine and what is taught we will see clearly that just as Christ lived in mortality without ever once sinning, so too did the Father, for such a sinless life is required to make the sacrifice needed for the atonement.
    As we are, meaning mortal beings living on a planet and progressing to perfection, God once was. As God is, meaning a being who possesses all power, knowledge, and dominion, we can become.
    However, we cannot become like God in the sense of his authority over us, nor will any of us become the Head of Gods, as he is, for that is the position that Christ will hold. We will become gods like him, or receive the same degree of glory, power, and honor, but we will never be part of any Godhead.


  38. Shem,

    My heart is terribly concerned for you. I know that your beliefs are blaspheming the Word of God…for He *is* the One and Only…we will never become “little gods”…please let go of the Book of Mormon and cling only to the true Word of God…for it is the only truth that will set you free from this. There is no reason to take the simplicity of Jesus’ gospel and twist it.
    Prayers, for you….for the True Light is hidden from you 😦


  39. Shematwater,

    I have been peeking in on this thread for a while and want to contribute now. You’ve entered into the area of dealing with Jesus Christ and his deity and I want us to be very careful in this area. Discussing who Christ is is vitally important to our eternity. I urge extremely reverence and Biblical accuracy when it comes to this topic.

    The most important question any of us can answer is the question that Jesus poses to Peter in Matthew 16:15 – “He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter got it right, through the working of the Holy Spirit when he replied in verse 16: “Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

    So, who do we say this Jesus is? Only the holy scriptures can tell us and we must pray that the Holy Spirit in us (if we are faithful believers in Christ and have received the Spirit of God), will give us faith and understanding. Let’s look simply first at John 1:

    John 1 tells us that in the beginning (actually “origin, beginning of beginnings, extreme first place”) was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then the word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus was born of a woman, but he was no mere man. Jesus is the only true living God who came down to dwell with man, in the form of man, to live like man…but in a way that man could never live. We see in Hebrews that Christ fulfilled all the atoning sacrifices as the sacrifice and as the priest and that sacrifice is settled once and for all. We know that Christ was 100% God – he is the Word from the beginning of beginnings. Also, we know this about Jesus:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

    The image of the invisible God, firstborn – meaning of reputation, stature, prominence not first chronologically. All things, including you and me, were created by him, through him, and for him. You were created by, through, and for Christ.

    This idea is echoed in Hebrews 1:1-4
    1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

    Christ upholds all that he created with the word of his power. Wow! Christ if beyond amazing. Our minds can’t comprehend who he is. We can only hope that that he with give us a tiny glimpse of his glory.

    Finally, Jesus did live the perfect sinless life. He fulfilled all the law of the Old Testament, he withstood all temptation and proved sinless. Look at this amazing verse:
    2 Corinthians 5:21:
    “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

    What? This is amazing. Jesus knew no sin and was made sin on the cross and received all the punishment that you and I deserve so that we can become the righteousness of God. We are not adopted into the family of God by Christ’s work on the cross.

    Christ knew no sin. God is so Holy that looking at him with burn you instantaneously. God is so holy that each and every one of your sins (even the littlest tiniest sins of anger, pride, jealousy, looking at a woman with sexual thoughts, whatever) is such an offense to God that we are all destined for Hell. But!!! Praise God, he came to earth, lived as man…perfectly, sinless…and took the wrath and judgement for all your sins and all my sins! How can we deny this great truth.

    Our hope now lies in the fulfillment of the nation of Israel and the realization of the Kingdom of God when Christ returns to earth, judges those who are not in Him (do not believe in Him as dieing on the cross for your sins) and he will usher in the new Jerusalem (Revelation 20) and we will not live as Gods, but we will live as worshiping the only true majestic, infinite, eternal, holy, creator and God of the universe, Jesus Christ. Just seeing Christ in the life to come (kingdom) will be so overwhelming that all we will be able to do is worship.

    So, my question is: “who do you say that Jesus is?” answering with anything less that that he is God in flesh, on earth who lived the perfect sinless life, died on the cross as sin paying the full price for the judgement and righteous wrath of God and now sits in Heaven giving us a new name, adopted into the family of God with an inheritance with Christ of the Kingdom of God will keep you in the fast lane to eternal judgement and damnation. Without faith in who Christ really is you will have to answer for all the minor sins and major sins and even 1 sin requires eternal punishment.

    There is no time to waste, pray that he will reveal himself to you will be adopted as a Son of God.


  40. I must add…without a perfect God…there would be no such thing as “sin”…for it would not be able to exist without something to go “against”. God is perfect….always has been, always will be! :o)



    I am not going to address what you mention, as I have stated I am only addressing those things that pertain directly to the topic of the original article: that being the possibility of the Father having sinned according to LDS doctrine.

    Let me ask you this, as it is more on topic: Do you know enough about LDS doctrine to say that it supports the idea of the Father having sinned, or that the Father was perfect?


    Even though it is off topic I will say this. I am not deceived, but know the truth. However, as we are only discussing doctrine here I will not gt into such a discussion at this time.


  42. Shem, I don’t know anything about the LDS doctrine for the same reason I don’t know anything about Islam. I’m not concerned with the finer points of your doctrine. What I am concerned about is that the Mormon church, and thus you as associated with them, claim the name of Jesus and I would hope that you agree that the best source for information on God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ is found in the Holy Bible. The Bible is our authoritative Word of God and thus anyone who claims any association with Jesus (i.e. Mormons in this case) need to go to the Bible for the authoritative word on who Jesus is. So I’m not interested in the LDS supplemental doctrine as it conflicts with the Bible.

    The Bible states God is Holy, perfect, Sovereign…and Jesus is God condescended in flesh to live with man. This is the doctrine that we should all be concerned with. Let’s talk about sin and the responsibility of you and other LDS folks when it comes to the judgement to come. How will you stand before the righteous judge and expect anything less than eternal punishment if you do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible?



    Again, you are off topic. I have stated twice now that I do not plan on discussing anything that is off the original topic. If you do not have enough knowledge to engage in a discussion on that topic than I am sorry.

    However, I will pardon myself one small stray from the original topic. First of all, I have yet to hear any LDS doctrine that I cannot find in the Bible, but I will also say that the Bible is not the final authority on God. The final authority on God is God, and his personal witness to me I will accept.


  44. Shematwater,
    You just had to stray, didn’t you? I’d like you to find in the Bible ANY LDS doctrine without taking Scripture out of context and re-interpreting what it means. Priesthood, eternal progression, baptism for the dead, God being once a man, temple ordinances, people turning into angels when they die (Moroni?), etc, etc, etc.

    So the Bible is not your final authority? You say His personal witness to you is. Have you had God talk to you personally? I don’t mean that “burning in your bosom” – I mean a vision, an audible revelation?

    Apparently, from our discussions here, the LDS doctrine is your final authority because I’ve never seen you appeal directly to God before.


  45. Glenn, Abiding and others….

    14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. ~Matthew 10:14

    There is no use…all that *can* be said has been said. Shake the dust from your feet and go…if Shem is truly open to God, he will see the Truth one day….there’s nothing more than we can do.


  46. Shem,

    Respectfully, my dear friend, yer speaking rubbish. I entered the discussion at this point…quotes from your comment:

    “An interesting question has been asked. If God was once as we are now, and we are sinners, doesn’t it logically follow that he was once a sinner?”


    “However, if we are to actually examine the doctrine and what is taught we will see clearly that just as Christ lived in mortality without ever once sinning, so too did the Father, for such a sinless life is required to make the sacrifice needed for the atonement.
    As we are, meaning mortal beings living on a planet and progressing to perfection, God once was. As God is, meaning a being who possesses all power, knowledge, and dominion, we can become.”

    My question and comments are INCREDIBLY relevant and on topic. You are discussing Who God is, who Jesus is…My question still remains:

    Who do you say that Jesus Christ is? This is the lynch pin to all of human history. This question defines the conversation you’ve been having. Discussion that Christ live a sinless life and a sinless life is required for the Atonement…that speaks to SIN and WHO Christ is. Suggesting that we are progressing to perfection begs the quest, “who do you say that Christ is?” And you have stated that God the Father was once like us on earth? Who do you say Christ is?

    Don’t dodge the most important question you’ll ever have to answer. Some day when you die or Christ returns you won’t be able to answer…it’ll be too late. Don’t brush it off as off topic…it is the topic.

    I anxiously await your answer.

    fully dependent on the loving and infinite grace of God,



    Your question is not on topic, and thus not relevant. The original article did not concern itself with a discussion of who God is, but with the single aspect of God concerning the possibilty of his having sinned. To go into a discussion on the rest of the attributes and works of God is to avoid the subject at hand.

    The Article is concerning with pointing out to those who might consider the LDS church that we have a possibility of a sinful God. My purpose is to show through the actual teachings of our leaders that the possibility is not truly there when one has a full understanding. Anything not in line with this is off the topic.

    You are trying to do the same basic thing that Glenn did; divert the discussion from the original topic into a debate of who is right and who is wrong. This is not a religious debate where we are comparing doctrine.

    As to your question, (just to get you to leave the subject) I would simply give the same answer that Peter did: He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.


  48. Shem, I’ll patiently wait to discuss these deeper issues with you when they are “on topic”. Maybe I need to create my own post with the topic…



Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.