JayJayDee & Katzpur: Who is God and What Does He Tell us About Himself?

[Katzpur]

What happened to your desire to terminate the conversation “before un-Christian attitudes surface any further”? Just a temporary cease-fire, huh?

Katzpur, I hope you feel better now after expressing yourself out of your displeasure.

Actually, I don’t. You’re the one who thrives on contention, not me. I came into this discussion thinking (1) it would be a good learning opportunity for both of us and (2) we would stick to the topic we agreed to discuss the topic of who God is and what He tells us about Himself.

I thought I would give you an opportunity calm down and to defend your beliefs with a little less emotion if you wish to continue. Isn't that what a debate is for? We are living in a time period where decisions are made that will determine our everlasting future. People need to know where to place their faith.

No, you thought you’d take a break to do some “research” on Mormonism so that you could come back when you had your magazines reloaded. I see you’ve done a fair job of digging up some anti-Mormon material. I had thought you’d be above that, but apparently not. This kind of discussion was not what we agreed to and your last roughly 15 posts have been off-topic.

By questioning your beliefs (and you are welcome to question mine) we get to establish facts. Not just for ourselves but for those who are reading this thread.

In case you hadn’t noticed, I haven’t had a chance to question your beliefs. I’ve been too busy defending mine. Maybe you have 24 hours a day available to pour into your interrogation of my beliefs. Unfortunately, I don’t. When you literally bombard me with point after point after point after point, I would think you’d at least have the courtesy to wait until I’ve had a chance to respond before dishing out some more. It takes ten times the work to adequately respond to a single accusation than it does to rattle off a dozen of points, one after the other. But no, once you get going, there’s no stopping you.

Ask yourself why you are angry?

No, you ask yourself why I’m angry, because you don’t seem to have the foggiest notion. This isn’t a discussion, because you have virtually no interest in actually learning anything about Mormonism. (I had sincerely looked forward to learning about your beliefs – though I don’t any more.) It’s not a debate either. Debates are structured. They start with a premise. Each side is given an equal number of turns to defend their position and to prove the premise to be either true or false. They each make their closing remarks and the debate concludes (on a forum such as this, it’s usually with both sides declaring themselves the winner.) The debaters stick to the topic previously decided upon. At your instigation, we’ve strayed so far off the topic you chose yourself, it’s not even funny. If you’d wanted a debate, you should have said so. I would have asked you to agree to some rules, and I would not have proceeded had you not agreed to them. Instead, you start off civilly enough. But by post number 29, you’re well into doing what you had intended to do all along, and that was to undercut every LDS doctrine you could conceivably think of.

We are discussing what we believe. I am questioning what you have said. Your sarcasm is not necessary. You can defend your church and your beliefs without anger seething behind everything you say. I don't get angry when people challenge my beliefs...I can defend them from the Bible because that is where they are found. Can you not do the same?

Why on earth should I have to? Mormons don’t believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and we’ve never claimed to. If I’d known I’d have been expected to do what you’re asking me to do, I’d have never agreed to this “discussion.” The vast majority of LDS doctrines actually are supported by the Bible. Those that are not clearly spelled out in the Bible do not contradict the Bible, despite what you have been taught to believe. It is flat out impossible to contradict something that is not even mentioned. I don’t know why you didn’t just start out by saying, “Mormonism contains some doctrines that are not found in the Bible.” I would have said, “Yes, that’s right.” It surely would have saved us both a lot of time and energy. Now if you’d wanted to prove that any given LDS doctrine actually contradicted a doctrine found in the Bible, I would have been 100% willing to have that debate.

So much of what we have discussed demonstrates that about 85% of what you believe is from your own ‘scriptures’...not the Bible.

Are you in the habit of pulling percentages out of the clear blue sky? How on earth did you come up with that particular figure?

We Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We study extensively from it; we just don’t study exclusively from it. We believe everything the Bible teaches, but that doesn’t mean we will agree with every other Christian denomination, including yours, with respect to the interpretation of every passage of scripture.

 

[Katzpur]

But if you want specifics on where the Book of Mormon and the Bible disagree.....here are a few.

Great! Three classic anti-Mormon examples.

At Ezekiel 18:4 the Bible says " the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (KJV)

The Book of Mormon, at Alma 42:9, states: “The soul could never die.”

I’ve just got to tell you that this example amuses me to no end. You do realize, don’t you, that hardly any Christian denominations share this belief with Jehovah’s Witnesses? Try asking a Catholic or a Methodist or a Presbyterian whether the human spirit is immortal or not. All of them will tell you that it most definitely is. Where do you think they’re getting their doctrine from? (I’ll give you a hint, since it’s such a hard question: It’s not from the Book of Mormon!) Anyway, here are just three of a number of passages form the Bible which teach that the spirit is eternal…

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Revelation 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.
Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."

Well, you obviously didn’t pick up this argument reading the Book of Mormon. You need to update your anti-Mormon sources.Like Christians everywhere, we believe that Jesus Christ was born in the small middle-eastern village of Bethlehem. However, the Book of Mormon states:

"And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." (Alma 7:10)

In his prophecy concerning the coming of a Savior, the ancient American prophet Alma refers to Jerusalem as "the land of our forefathers," and said that Jesus Christ would be born in this land. Considering the fact that Bethlehem is, in fact, a suburb of the city of Jerusalem (roughly 5 miles away from the city itself), his choice of words makes perfect sense. If an individual today lived in a small suburb of Los Angeles, and were asked where he was from, he might very well answer, "I'm from L.A." No one would accuse him of lying or even of stretching the truth a bit.

In recent years, archeological findings have proven especially interesting as they relate to Joseph's translation of the plates. For instance, two non-LDS scholars (I point this out only because it seems this makes a great deal of difference to some people), Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, discuss an example of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" in the Dead Sea Scrolls in their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. They write that the use of this phrase "greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs." In other words, not only was the city of Jerusalem referred to in this way, but the entire surrounding area. Thus, what was known as "the land of Judah" was also known as "the land of Jerusalem."

Use of that phrase was utterly illogical for Joseph Smith, who published the Book of Mormon over a century before the Dead Sea Scrolls were even discovered. As a matter of fact, I imagine that he might very well questioned the translation when it came to him. After all, even a school child in 1830 would have known better than to say that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Obviously, Joseph would have been very much aware of the supposed "blunder" he was making in translating the text according to what he knew it actually said.

Once again, what for years was considered yet another "proof" that the Book of Mormon was a fraud now can be added to the ever-growing list of evidences that it is exactly what it purports to be.

The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.

Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

The Book of Mormon says that people were known by this title before Christ came.

Alma 46:15 "...yea, all those who were true believes in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come."

I can’t believe you’re this desperate. The writer of Acts didn’t know what was taking place on the other side of the world. He was recording the events which were transpiring in the part of the world he knew. This isn’t doctrine! It’s an historical account of “the acts of the Apostles.”

There are more.

Yeah, I suspect I’m going to hear every last one of them, too. Do me a favor, though, and try to come up with something that hasn't been addessed by LDS scholars a million times already.

Now, the following is an excerpt from an LDS website outlining Mormon beliefs. I just wanted to gain another perspective on the beliefs of the Mormon church to round things out a bit more. I was rather taken aback that America featured so strongly in LDS teachings. It explains why they have such an interest in American politics.

I’m curious… Could you provide me with a link to this “LDS website”?

Jesus is all about America???? What about the rest of the world? (Acts 10:34, 35)

Jesus isn’t “all about America.” Jesus is about all of the human family.

Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus said that America would be the site for the New Jerusalem?

No, I can’t, and I shouldn’t have to. Isaiah 2:3 states that the law will go forth out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. This is not a redundancy. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that at the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign, two locations will coexist, each as a hemispheric capital.

That the New Jerusalem is a heavenly city, rather than one located on earth is supported by the vision of her that John records in the Revelation. Only a symbolic city could have the dimensions and splendor of New Jerusalem.

This is clearly not a city that will be found on earth. It exists in heaven and extends its rulership over the whole earth.

I disagree. Our tenth Article of Faith explains that we believe that during the Millennium, “Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. I see no biblical evidence at all to lead me to believe that this city will not be built on earth.

Consider the sheer size of it!

Yeah, wow. All that for just 144,000 people. What a waste.

God’s temple is in heaven.

Actually, God currently has 140 temples, all of them on earth. :yes:

This one is believed to be the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophesy that the "mountain of the Lord's house would be built in the tops of the mountains and that all nations would flow unto it."

 

[Katzpur]

Do animals know that they are naked? Do you consider that their sexual behavior is "innocent"? If it is not the correct time to mate for the production of offspring, how often does it take place in the animal kingdom?

Holy crap. We’re not animals. There is absolutely no point to this argument. If animals had no sexual desire, they would not procreate. If people had no sexual desire, they would not procreate. There is no indication whatsoever that Adam and Eve had any sexual desire prior to their being cast out of the Garden. That is the first time that the scriptures mention that “Adam knew Eve, his wife.”

If man was created in his Father's image and likeness, wouldn't humans have been endowed with God's attitude towards sexual activity?

I guess you’re going to tell me that the Bible explains what God’s attitude towards sexual activity is. Be my guest; this should be interesting.

Are we not a higher creation than the animals? Is it not possible that sex wasn't on their mind 24/7 like it is with imperfect humans today? Just because man developed the morals of alley cats doesn’t mean that this is how God created them.

I would suggest you give some serious thought to dropping this subject if this is the best you can do. You can argue this point till you’re blue in the face, but the Bible clearly makes two statements which would lead any thinking person to conclude that Adam’s and Eve’s sexual activity began after they ate the forbidden fruit: (1) Prior to that time, they were unaware of their nakedness. (2) Adam “knew” Eve for the first time after they left Eden.

Don't you think it's interesting that even when the angels rebelled with their leader, Satan, they developed an inordinate interest in human sexual activity, especially depraved and violent sexual activity? Can't we see that sex and violence dominate the world of fallen humanity in this world of whom Satan is its god? It saturates their entertainment; it is a common cause of their relationship breakups; it transmits disease because we are not supposed to have multiple partners or perverted sex and it is completely out of pace with the other natural 'appetites' that we have. Pornography is now so widespread that many people are regularly accessing it on the internet. And even ‘decent’ people are accepting it, along with graphic violence in the movies they watch, without a moment’s hesitation.

While I agree with everything you’ve said in this paragraph, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

Jesus was a perfect man but still mortal. He would never have died of natural causes but he could be put to death.

I disagree that He could have been put to death. I believe that He gave His life; no one could have taken it from Him otherwise.

I most certainly do believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ...I just don't believe that he was raised to life as a fleshly creature. He was raised "in the spirit", not the flesh. He materialized bodies to appear to his disciples. Why is that hard to understand?

Why is it hard to understand? Uh… because it’s precisely the opposite of what the Bible says took place. Why is it so hard for you to understand that if the Bible says Jesus Christ had a body of flesh and bones, that’s really what it means?

The majority of mankind will be resurrected in the flesh as subjects of the heavenly kingdom. Over the 'thousand year reign' of Jesus and his associated kings and priests all will be brought to its successful conclusion and we will go back to the conditions that Adam and his wife first enjoyed.

Forever? What on earth for? We’re born, we live, we die and we end up right back where we started. What a drag! What a complete and utter disappointment! We Mormons believe that there is room in Heaven for all of us, not just for a measly 144,000. And we see Heaven as a new beginning, not as a final end.

 

[Katzpur]

Can you demonstrate how a knowledge of evil, (which led to the practice of evil,) has been of benefit in the world ...ever?

It’s a no-brainer, Jay. There is no good without evil. It’s just a fundamental, basic truth that I’m afraid I can’t dumb it down any more than I already have. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God said that “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” God knows the difference between good and evil. Has this knowledge been of any benefit to Him? Obviously, it has. Jesus Christ commanded us to be “perfect,” even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. We can’t become perfect without a knowledge of both good and evil. If we were only to know good, we could not make any choices whatsoever, as there are no choices without options. And if we were never to be able to make choices, we could not grow and learn. Apparently Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God wants a bunch of mindless little puppets who never become anything greater than what they started out as. Latter-day Saints believe just the opposite – that He wants us to attain the full potential that the sons and daughters of Deity have been given. And we can do that only by making informed choices.

Again, you don’t have to taste garbage to know it’s bad. The smell should be enough. Which in Adam’s case was the penalty attached to the deed.

Apparently godhood sounded more than a little bit appealing (not that I would expect you to understand).

If evil was removed from the world, who would complain?...only the wicked

There wouldn’t be any wicked!!!! But there wouldn’t be any good either, because they both require the other in order to exist.

Yet the LDS teach that… God… set Adam and Eve up to fail and to bring all of this calamity on mankind on purpose.

No. He set them up to succeed! You seem to believe that He set them up merely to exist.

And you are speechless? Really?

Yeah, really. I can’t decide whether you just think He was incredibly stupid or what. To begin with, why did He even put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden? If He hadn’t wanted them to eat its fruit, why even give them the choice? You say they needed to have free will? Whatever for? Or was it just not possible for Him to keep Satan out of the Garden? If God truly didn’t want Adam and Eve to ever have to leave their garden paradise, it would have been no problem whatsoever for Him to make sure it never happened. I can’t believe you actually think He didn’t know exactly what was going to happen when (a) He placed a tree in the Garden that would give them knowledge and (b) He allowed the epitome of evil to tempt them into eating the fruit by promising them godhood in return. "Duh. Oops. Guess Didn't see that one coming. Better go with Plan B." Yeah, I’m speechless.

Adam and his wife began the slow descent into physical death from the day they ate from the forbidden fruit. Spiritually they were cut off from God who knew that there could be no remorse for the wrongdoing because it was a deliberate act. There was no excuse and no basis on which to forgive them. Adam knew that there was no going back. They fully deserved the penalty that they knew existed before they ever touched the tree. There is not one word of remorse expressed by either of them, nor any sacrifice offered by them. Abel was the first one to do so.

Here’s what Moses (in the Pearl of Great Price) has to say about what took place after Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden…

And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence. And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.

And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me. And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will. And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.

Yes, I do realize that this account is not found in the Bible, and I also realize that because it’s not found in the Bible, you are completely closed-minded to the possibility that it may actually have taken place the way it is recorded in the Pearl of Great Price.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes it was going to be necessary to re-establish the truth in “the time of the end”...but I don’t see Jesus saying that we would have a complete new set of scriptures that are only accepted by one group in the whole world.

So how do you think He was going to re-establish the truth? Perhaps via Watchtower – a publication only accepted by one group in the whole world.

How on earth can anyone come to a knowledge of the truth without the authority of God’s word as it is accepted by the world in general?

It would certainly be easy enough to come to a knowledge of the truth to the extent that the truth was made available. But as one LDS Apostle has said at the end of his book, “Our Search for Happiness: An Invitation to Understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”: “Please don’t let this opportunity to receive personal revelation from God pass. Consider what I’ve written here. Weigh it carefully. Measure it against the things you believe – and the things you want to believe. Hold fast to all that you know to be true and add to that the fulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Chirst. Take into account what you’ve felt as you’ve read these words. Then put it all to the ultimate test: Ask God. Listen for His answer with your heart, then respond to what you feel.”

Where does it say that this ‘divine revelation’ would come to just one man in the woods who was given golden tablets from an angel?

Divine revelation has been given throughout human history to single individuals called by God to be His prophets. There was nothing new about God speaking to a prophet and telling that prophet to spread the word.

Who else ever saw these golden tablets?

Eleven other men say them and handled them. None of them ever denied it, even though several of them eventually had a falling out with Joseph Smith and left the Church. To their dying days, every last one of them insisted that what they’d initially claimed had happened really did happen.

How do you know that Joseph Smith wasn’t just experiencing a delusion?

I know because I’ve prayed about it and the Holy Ghost has born witness of the truth to me. The Holy Ghost doesn’t lie.

These are questions that ordinary people would ask.

Yes, and they are questions that should be asked. And every day of the year, roughly 800 of these ordinary people get the same answer I have and are not afraid to act on it.

When God was establishing his people as a nation and he wanted them to appreciate his power to save them and protect them, he demonstrated it with signs for all to see. Lookat Israel...they had a pillar of cloud to guide them by day and a pillar of fire at night. They had manna that fell from the sky to feed them in a hostile wilderness. Water was miraculously provided for the millions who wandered about in that environment for 40 years. It was visible to all.

When Jesus came, it was with signs and miracles that were demonstrated to a wide range of people.
There was healing and ability to speak different languages that had never been learned. ....raising people from the dead and again feeding vast multitudes out of meager rations.

If something new was to be introduced in the time of the end, don’t you think it would be with demonstrable signs to prove that God was backing it?

Here's what I believe: As one LDS Prophet taught, “Faith precedes the miracle,” not the other way around. Furthermore, I believe what Jesus said to Thomas, who needed “a demonstrable sign of proof” that Jesus had, in fact, taken up His body and had overcome death: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Prior to Joseph Smith going into the woods to pray for guidance in knowing which church to join, he’d been reading the Bible. He came to James 1:5, which said, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” He believed what he read and he asked God for wisdom. We, too, believe that if a person asks God for wisdom, having faith that his prayers will be heard and answered, he/she will be given the wisdom he asks for.

Yes it is very obvious that we see scripture very differently, but I am not quite sure that God wasn’t demonstrating a bit of favoritism if what you say is true. Why just America? What about all the other continents? What about all the other native peoples? How did the “lost sheep” end up only in America?

We believe that the American continent was a “land of promise” and that God led a small group of Israelites to settle here just prior to the Babylonian captivity (roughly 600 B.C.). That is not to say that He didn’t lead any other group elsewhere. The Book of Mormon is the historical account of the group of people who were led to this continent. Perhaps someday a history of some other group of people will be found.

When Jesus said he was sent to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel', he was talking about the people he was sent to in the area where he preached.

No. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel – wherever they might be.

Attitude to scripture will always be the stumbling block for people who value the word of God and see no need for anything to replace it. You can say that the books you refer to as scripture complement the Bible, but they clearly teach something completely different.

Yes, attitude will always be the stumbling block. When you’re busy telling God to shut up, it’s kind of hard to hear Him.

 

[JayJayDee]

We Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We study extensively from it; we just don’t study exclusively from it. We believe everything the Bible teaches, but that doesn’t mean we will agree with every other Christian denomination, including yours, with respect to the interpretation of every passage of scripture.

JW's do not recognize anything but the Bible as scripture. Nor do we borrow from Christendom things which were introduced into Christianity from paganism in the foretold apostasy. I cannot accept anything but scripture as truth. If you wish to use the BOM, or other 'Mormon only' books, it will be for your benefit only. It means nothing and it proves nothing to me. Your prophet is not my prophet.

If Jesus had made mention of the fact that he was going elsewhere to preach to people on another continent and choose another 12 apostles and rewrite the scriptures, adding to what God had preserved for centuries, then we might have some grounds for agreement, but I have never heard of the Laminites or the Nephites outside of the BOM and I don't know of anyone else who has.

Great! Three classic anti-Mormon examples.

You asked for examples of where the BOM contradicted the Bible and as I do not have a BOM, I relied on others to furnish the examples. I Googled it. Were any of them wrong?

At Ezekiel 18:4 the Bible says " the soul that sinneth, it shall die" (KJV)

The Book of Mormon, at Alma 42:9, states: “The soul could never die.”

I’ve just got to tell you that this example amuses me to no end. You do realize, don’t you, that hardly any Christian denominations share this belief with Jehovah’s Witnesses? Try asking a Catholic or a Methodist or a Presbyterian whether the human spirit is immortal or not. All of them will tell you that it most definitely is. Where do you think they’re getting their doctrine from? (I’ll give you a hint, since it’s such a hard question: It’s not from the Book of Mormon!)

Well I'll give you another hint...it is not from the Bible either. These beliefs are taken from Hellenism. Platonic Greek influence introduced the notion of an immortal soul so it was adopted by both the Jews and the apostate Christians. The Bible does not teach that we "have" a soul. It teaches that we "are" a soul as long as we breathe. (Gen 2:7)

Anyway, here are just three of a number of passages form the Bible which teach that the spirit is eternal…

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

You seem to get "spirit" and "soul" confused. They are not the same thing.

The soul is the whole person; it does not exist apart from the body. It is the personality and everything that makes us who we are....unique individuals in God's eyes.
The spirit is the breath or lifeforce that keeps the body and hence the soul, alive.

God can destroy both the body and the soul (person) by not permitting that one to be resurrected back to life. (John 5:28, 29) The spirit that animates the body 'goes out'. (Psalm 146:4) It returns to God because only the Creator can give it back and make a soul live again. (Eccl 12:7) Eternal life or eternal death...that is all the Bible holds out to mankind. There is nothing in between. We were never meant to live in heaven and only a chosen "few" get to do so. Man is made for the earth and the earth for man. There is no pre-life or after-life mentioned for the soul at all. ( Ezek 18:4)

Revelation 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Again the soul is the person or the life that they enjoyed as a person. Revelation is presented in signs. Here it is speaking of those killed for their faith crying out to God for justice. Abel's blood is also said to cry out to God for justice. (Gen 4:10) It is figurative.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Again you are confusing "soul" and "spirit". Just as faith that is not backed up by Christian works is dead or unacceptable to God, so is a body without breath. No lifeforce means a dead body...like a dead faith.

Those "dead" in their trespasses and sins are still breathing, though 'dead' to God. Those who die physically, are silenced in the grave.

"The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s; But the earth He has given to the children of men. The dead do not praise the Lord, Nor any who go down into silence." (Psalm 115:16, 17)

As for the rest of your explanations....you are welcome to them as they do not involve the Bible. You are free to believe in Joseph Smith and his writings. I cannot.

I’m curious… Could you provide me with a link to this “LDS website”?

I did. It was from an LDS forum quoting Mark E. Peterson, whom I believe is one of the 12 apostles of your Church. Am I mistaken?

America's future by Mark E. Peterson. - LDS Freedom Forum -

Isaiah 2:3 states that the law will go forth out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. This is not a redundancy. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that at the beginning of Christ’s millennial reign, two locations will coexist, each as a hemispheric capital.

"Many people shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isa 2:2-4)

It might have been revealed to Joseph Smith but that is not what Isaiah said. Where does it mention the two co-existing locations with hemisphere capitals?

Where, apart from the BOM do we find Laminites and Nephites who are called "lost sheep of the House of Israel"?

Yeah, wow. All that for just 144,000 people. What a waste.

Since it is heavenly and we have no idea what goes on in it as the seat of Jesus' rulership of the earth along with the 144,000 chosen ones who will be kings and priests with him (Rev 20:6) how do we know that it doesn't require all of that space?

I am rather curious though. Didn't you say that all humans were spirits in heaven with God before they came to live as humans on earth and that all return there? Does that mean that they were all in heaven at first and all go back there? Yet you speak about life continuing on earth where New Jerusalem will rule in Jackson County Missouri? I am confused. Where did God intend humans to live? Heaven or earth?

Actually, God currently has 140 temples, all of them on earth

Can you demonstrate where Christians ever had an earthly temple? Or even an earthly priesthood? The temple of the Jews was pictorial of the grand spiritual temple of Jehovah in heaven.
"For the Messiah did not enter a sanctuary made with hands (only a model of the true one) but into heaven itself, so that He might now appear in the presence of God for us." (Heb 9:24 Holman)

 

[JayJayDee]

It’s a no-brainer, Jay. There is no good without evil. It’s just a fundamental, basic truth that I’m afraid I can’t dumb it down any more than I already have. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God said that “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” God knows the difference between good and evil. Has this knowledge been of any benefit to Him? Obviously, it has. Jesus Christ commanded us to be “perfect,” even as our Father in Heaven is perfect. We can’t become perfect without a knowledge of both good and evil. If we were only to know good, we could not make any choices whatsoever, as there are no choices without options. And if we were never to be able to make choices, we could not grow and learn.

Is it your belief that Adam and his wife never knew anything good whilst they were in the garden? Adam was educated in God's ways long before his wife was created. Was none of this knowledge good? He had the privilege of observing and naming the animals....none of that was good either? What did he have to eat? Fresh delicious fruit of every variety...Not good? Did he need evil things as a contrast these things? Why would he? It was not a complicated existence. It was in fact beautiful in its simplicity.

Why must you assume that a knowledge of evil was a necessity? If God knew about good and evil as opposites and intended to keep that knowledge to himself, adding the death penalty for anyone who took it upon themselves to know it, how can it be a good thing to unleash it? All of what you said is based on assumption. Living forever in perfect bodies with no defect and free will that operated within the parameters that God had set meant never knowing what an evil thing was. Good things would come from God as he had already demonstrated. They would never have known what evil was or what death was either, or the pain of losing someone close. All evil did was complicate everything.

Their attitude towards sex was chaste. If it is not nakedness that leads to animals having sex and reproducing, what makes us assume that in perfection humans would have this reaction to nakedness either? They were unaware of it before the imperfection of sin entered the picture.

We are higher than animals, but you would never know it these days. Lust is not love. Humans in their imperfection experience lust based on what they see. The porn industry thrives on it. That is why Adam and his wife covered up their reproductive parts. Lust felt wrong; it made sex appear to be dirty instead of the beautiful act of creating new life that God intended it to be.

Apparently Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God wants a bunch of mindless little puppets who never become anything greater than what they started out as. Latter-day Saints believe just the opposite – that He wants us to attain the full potential that the sons and daughters of Deity have been given. And we can do that only by making informed choices.

Or that the Creator loved his human children enough to shield them from evil forever. The full potential of humans was to fill the earth with their kind and to respect what belongs to the Creator and not to take what is not rightfully theirs. They were to enjoy their paradise home with its animal creation and extend its borders to encompass the whole earth. That was the mandate. "Be fruitful become many and fill the earth and subdue it".

To begin with, why did He even put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden? If He hadn’t wanted them to eat its fruit, why even give them the choice? You say they needed to have free will? Whatever for? Or was it just not possible for Him to keep Satan out of the Garden?

Free will means way more than you seem to give it credit for.

Was there any excuse for Adam or his wife to disobey a direct command, especially one that carried the death penalty? It was the only cause of death in existence. No death is even mentioned except from this one act.

God had a right to expect his children to respect his laws. This tree was God's property and it was off limits to them. The tree of life was not off limits until after the law was broken. Paradise was denied them from that day onward, along with the ability to live forever. All they could look forward to now was death and hardship on cursed ground.

If God truly didn’t want Adam and Eve to ever have to leave their garden paradise, it would have been no problem whatsoever for Him to make sure it never happened

. I can’t believe you actually think He didn’t know exactly what was going to happen when (a) He placed a tree in the Garden that would give them knowledge and (b) He allowed the epitome of evil to tempt them into eating the fruit by promising them godhood in return.

God is all knowing but he leaves things to our freedom of choice. He does not want robots or puppets, so that's why he gave us choices.
Those choices lead him to act in various ways. He can reward and he can punish as he demonstrated with Israel. Since satan was a cherub in the garden, he was in a prime position to do as he wished with his own free will. The garden was never going to be their permanent home. Filling the earth required them to go beyond the garden. It was only the blueprint for the entire planet. Once they had sinned, the ground was cursed and their paradise was lost.

Here’s what Moses (in the Pearl of Great Price) has to say about what took place after Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden…

And have you never asked why Moses didn't just write all that in the first place?

There is no record whatsoever of Adam and his wife offering sacrifices at all. That began with Abel. Why? Because Adam and his wife were not remorseful. There is not one statement or expression of remorse made by either of them. Nor was there any basis to forgive them. Sin entered the world through what they did, not before. {Rom 5:12)

The woman was deceived but Adam was not. The devil counted on the woman to lead the man astray. Divide and conquer works well for him as it always has.

Yes, I do realize that this account is not found in the Bible, and I also realize that because it’s not found in the Bible, you are completely closed-minded to the possibility that it may actually have taken place the way it is recorded in the Pearl of Great Price.

Of course you are right. To put faith in the writings of a man who claims to have received the words from an angel is a bit of a stretch you have to admit. As I said, where is your proof that Joseph Smith was in fact a prophet?
How do you know that he was not visited by the devil himself and told these things? It is stated in scripture that satan can "transform himself into an angel of light" to mislead and deceive people who are susceptible to his leadings? To accept his writings as coming from God is nothing more than blind faith, especially when it is a totally different 'gospel' to the one presented in the Bible. (Gal 1:8, 9) As much as you protest, there is no compatibility of the writings of Joseph Smith and the Holy Bible.

I see incompatible additions from what you have shared, not complimentary writings at all.

 

[JayJayDee]

So how do you think He was going to re-establish the truth? Perhaps via Watchtower – a publication only accepted by one group in the whole world.

Well I'm sorry to burst your bubble but there are only 7.6 million JW's in the world. Our magazines are read by millions more. In fact the latest figures for the publishing of the Watchtower are just on 45 million copies in 205 languages each month and 43.5 million in 98 languages for the Awake!, so they are the most widely read publications on earth and they don't talk about America or any other country as blessed by God. Christians are blessed in every nation and they are "no part" of this world. (Acts 10:34, 35)

Our website has proven to be very successful in educating people about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Many are requesting free home Bible studies, where they can ask all the questions they want and get Bible based answers.

Jehovah?s Witnesses?Official Website: jw.org

It would certainly be easy enough to come to a knowledge of the truth to the extent that the truth was made available.

Yes indeed, as the above figures show. JW's are making sure that the kingdom message is delivered to as many households on earth as is possible to reach, no matter how remote the area or difficult the terrain. Everyone knows who Jehovah's Witnesses are. And we serve our God in the capacity of evangelizers for the rest of our lives.

Divine revelation has been given throughout human history to single individuals called by God to be His prophets. There was nothing new about God speaking to a prophet and telling that prophet to spread the word.

And there was always proof demonstrated by God that the prophet was his own. Nothing new was ever introduced and expected to be 'swallowed' at face value. Moses was a great prophet who was commissioned to deliver God's people from slavery in Egypt. He demonstrated to all that he was chosen by God to lead his people to a promised land. What were the circumstances that led to the liberation of the Hebrews? Did Moses just front up to Pharaoh and say "let my people go"? Who backed him up with amazing demonstrations of power?

Jesus too, who again introduced something new (religiously speaking) had the deeds to back up his claims. When God wanted to people to accept something new, he did not expect blind faith.

I know because I’ve prayed about it and the Holy Ghost has born witness of the truth to me. The Holy Ghost doesn’t lie.

I know the holy spirit doesn't lie so the obvious question then becomes....' how do you really know that it was holy spirit that revealed it'? What if the 'angel of light' was doing his work. How would you know? The truth is, we all believe what we want to believe....whether its the truth or not will be revealed soon enough. (2 Thess 2:9-12) :sad:

Here's what I believe: As one LDS Prophet taught, “Faith precedes the miracle,” not the other way around.

I have to disagree there. Many saw Jesus' miracles and were moved to put faith in him. The miracles were for the benefit of the unbelievers, not the believers. There are examples of faith first but only a few.

The Samaritan woman at the well was told about her life by a man she had never met before, yet he knew all about her marital situation. She recognized him as a prophet.
"The woman, therefore, left her water jar and went off into the city and told the men: “Come here, see a man that told me all the things I did. This is not perhaps the Christ, is it?” They went out of the city and began coming to him."
"Now many of the Sa·mar′i·tans out of that city put faith in him on account of the word of the woman who said in witness: “He told me all the things I did.”

Again faith came as a result of something Jesus miraculously revealed, not the other way around.
The apostles never used the miracles on each other. They only ever used them for the benefit of unbelievers.

No. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel – wherever they might be.

There is no other place mentioned in the scriptures where Jesus sought out the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" except in the holy land, whilst he was still alive. If he was going to go to America, why didn't he do so whilst his commission was still in force? If it was God's will for him to go there he would have been sent and it would be part of the holy writings handed down from the apostolic period.

There is no mention of new scriptures or any other writings to come, since the Revelation of John takes us a thousand years into the future. Not a thousand years from John's time but a thousand years from our own, when Jesus brings the rule of his kingdom to mankind in the very near future. The only new scrolls mentioned were to be opened after the kingdom began its rulership. (Rev. 20:12, 13)

Furthermore, I believe what Jesus said to Thomas, who needed “a demonstrable sign of proof” that Jesus had, in fact, taken up His body and had overcome death: “

Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Thomas was the only one who received such a proof. Jesus did not do that for anyone else.
He was talking about motive here. Thomas refused to believe unless he saw the proof of his wounds. Remember that Jesus had been whipped and his flesh torn to shreds before his execution. He had a crown of thorns impressed onto his head, no doubt inflicting more wounds. His hands and feet were run through with huge nails. Can we even imagine what physical state Jesus' body was in when they finally pulled him down from his execution stake? Yet no one else ever mentioned Jesus as having wounds of any sort. In fact they did not even recognize him most of the time. He broke bread with them...wouldn't they have seen his hands? There is no mention of anything like that.

A spirit being can materialize. It is flesh and bone; they can eat and drink and even produce children, so it is real people that were seen. They were not ghosts, but spirit beings who had made fleshly bodies for themselves as the rebellious angels had done in Noah's time. You just don't seem to be able to understand that concept, do you?

Yes, attitude will always be the stumbling block. When you’re busy telling God to shut up, it’s kind of hard to hear Him.

I guess that depends on who is doing the telling, doesn't it?