Isaiah 9:6

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, KoL said:

On what basis do you conclude this? Joseph's "revelation?"

Cuz I read the original texts quite often and my 1611 KJV, (comparing them) though limited in English, is pretty on the money.

KoL, when I see a critic of Mormonism who moves on to the next dig at Mormonism rather than sticking to the topic at hand, I see the sorts of red flags that Estradling mentioned in his first post to this thread.  If you want to discuss a topic in Mormonism, discuss the topic--and have the courage and open-mindedness and integrity to keep discussing that same topic rather than trying to change the subject just because someone demonstrated that you weren't quite as indisputably Right™ as you thought you were.

2 hours ago, KoL said:

2 John 1 says that if anyone come preaching a different Gospel than that which was first delivered; that which is revealed in Scripture, he is a deceiver and an antichrist. And to not receive him into your home or bid him Godspeed. So..."similarities," according scripture, if there be major discrepancies in Gospel content, are not enough to even sustain relationship between us, let alone unity.

Actually, 2 John 1 just warns about deceivers who "confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh"; and Mormons can confess that, no problem. 

I think the scripture you're actually thinking of is probably Galatians 1:8-9.  But the thing is, Paul described the Gospel in 1 Cor 15:1-4, and his enunciation had nothing to do with the mechanics of the earth's creation or the nature of matter.  We call ourselves Christian because we believe that Jesus Christ is our Creator and Savior; and it's curious to me that some folks prefer to define who is "Christian" based on arguments about the nature of matter and existence that were largely pioneered by pagan Greek philosophers.

That said--yeah, I think sometimes as Mormons we do ascribe some of our teachings to the Bible without really having solid Biblical support; and I don't think Mormons should be ashamed or afraid to admit it where one of our tenets has an extrabiblical source.  That said, mis-citing scripture is a problem that goes at least back to Matthew himself; so slipshod hermeneutics is hardly the silver bullet against the Mormon beast that many of our critics would like it to be.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, KoL said:

On what basis do you conclude this? Joseph's "revelation?"

Cuz I read the original texts quite often and my 1611 KJV, (comparing them) though limited in English, is pretty on the money.

It's not so much that the text have been corrupted, but the teachings from the text.  An example we've already touch on is the creedal Christian idea that the Father/Son/Spirit are one through a shared substance, which is frequently defended by quoting John 10:30 which doesn't actually say anything about a shared substance.  In fact, the entire Bible doesn't say anything about the substance of God.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[rpframe]

On 6/10/2016 at 4:18 PM, KoL said:

On what basis do you conclude this? Joseph's "revelation?"

Cuz I read the original texts quite often and my 1611 KJV, (comparing them) though limited in English, is pretty on the money.

Not sure to exactly what text you are referring to when you say "Original Texts", but, most of the time when we refer to original text, we are referring to what was originally written down by the prophets and apostles, not the many times over rewritten and re-translated manuscripts.

Moreover, we also believe that scripture alone is incomplete, and that just as in the times of the apostles, revelation is an essential part of the Gospel of Christ, and that God continues to guide his people on the earth through his prophets. So even if the bible was somehow near perfectly preserved, it could still be misinterpreted, and we need constant guidance through our personal communication with God, and the direction we receive through His chosen prophets.

[Guest]

On 6/10/2016 at 2:48 PM, KoL said:

Moreover, if a creator is not separate from his creation...my confidence in knowing what "creator" means begins to falter I suppose.

Let's take a look at it by way of analogy for mortality.

Children are "created" by their parents. Their life begins and has an end.  But the body was formed by already existing matter, the DNA and all the parts of the fertilized egg from the mom and dad. Over the course of time, other matter (food) comes to those cells and cause them to multiply.  That matter didn't come from nothing.  It existed previously.  So, did mom and dad create the baby?  You could say that the baby always existed.  But that would be ridiculous.  The baby is the baby, not the constituent parts and atoms.

In spiritual things, we look at something more than atoms or DNA.  We look at essence.  LDS theology teaches that all mankind always existed in essence, which we call "an intelligence". (we do NOT believe in ex nihilo creation.)  We don't really know what this "intelligence" was.  We believe it is something we can't really understand in this life.  But at some point that intelligence was housed in a spirit body.  Then at birth that spirit was housed in a physical body.

So, which of those phases would you say the "person" was created?  Any of those three could be considered a creation.  You might say there were multiple phases of creation.  The creation you speak of is only one phase.  There were previous ones.  This is not "stretching it".  This is our belief.  It always has been.  You can try to understand that or simply get into a religious debate.  But that usually ends up with tempers flared and no one really getting anything out of it.

On 6/10/2016 at 2:48 PM, KoL said:

I'm not currently aware of any sound bodies of evidence to suggest matter is eternal.

You'll have to clarify.  Are you talking about scientific or religious?

On 6/10/2016 at 2:48 PM, KoL said:

but why the incentive to appeal to Christianity, or the Bible as a "confirming source."

Who told you that?  We don't "appeal" to Christianity.  We are Christians.  It is a self-identification.  We believe it because we believe in Jesus as the Christ, our Savior and Redeemer.  The Bible is as much a part of our scriptural canon as the Book of Mormon.  So, of course we're going to find evidence in the Bible confirming our positions.  Why wouldn't we?

We read the Bible as much as our other books of scripture.  We believe in it and we see the same verses you do.  What is it you think we're missing?

On 6/10/2016 at 2:48 PM, KoL said:

Biblical Christianity and Mormonism are wildly different. Why not just say that, on the nose? "We believe this. It's an entirely separate thing, but we believe it." And that'd be fine. Most "anti-Mormon rhetoric is a result of Christians who say to themselves "that's not Scriptural and I feel convicted to not stand idly by while someone perpetuates a non-Christian theological worldview whilst claiming Christian foundations."

Obviously we disagree.  We agree that we are certainly different from what we'd call "creedal Christians". And I have no problem with declaring that we are separate from you.  I personally wear that with a badge of pride.

But you are taking it upon yourself to define what is and is not a Christian.  You are claiming the authority (yes, you truly are) to interpret and declare what is and is not Scriptural, what is and is not correct interpretation.  What is your justification for that?  We claim divine authority that was physically, prophetically restored to this earth.  You have majority opinion which you often debate among yourselves except when united against Mormons.

Our basis for truth is not hermeneutics or exegesis. Our basis for truth is continuing revelation and the revealed word of God through a living prophet and confirmed by personal revelation to each one of us.  We use scriptural study to help educate our minds and focus our souls on the correct principles and have something to measure truth against.  But we always depend on a spiritual confirmation -- as Jesus told Peter :

Quote

flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

That is where we look for the proper interpretation of the written word.  The written word itself is flesh and blood.  It's simply something physical.  True knowledge of Divine things must come from the Divine.

If you're simply wanting enlightenment, then agree to disagree.  We have different beliefs.  Get over it.  Going over scripture after scripture will not change anything.  We've studied the Bible as much as or more than you have.  Does that surprise you?

FATHERHOOD OF JESUS

Jesus IS God the Son (in your vernacular).  And we have no problem with that.  We believe Jesus was the Jehovah of the Old Testament.  This may be difficult to discover based on your background.  But it is so.  When Moses went to Mt Sinai, he was speaking with the pre-mortal Jesus.  Jesus is our spiritual father partially because of that distinction.  

The other reason he is the "Everlasting Father" is that He ransomed (or if you prefer "adopted") us through the atonement.  By that deed, He becomes the "Eternal/Everlasting Father".

Edited June 15, 2016 by Guest