Mormon Teachings

[Jenyar]

Is that true? Perhaps you should re-read the Bible, if that's what you think, starting with these verses ... All of these verses point to the fact that you need certain authority, from God, to preform certain things.

I'll take you up on that challenge. Let's examine the verses and see what they say about authority:

* Matt 16:19
Jesus gives the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to his disciples, to interpret and apply the law in his church (against which even death/hades will not prevail). But who else has this authority? Who are his disciples and who are his church? For that, you just have to read a little further; here's Matt. 18:15-20:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."​

(In Jewish texts "binding and loosing" ('asar and hittir or sera') could refer to authority to interpret the law, hence to evaluate individuals' fidelity to the law; in this case it refers not only to those in the church, but also to those who enter it). The Mormons have to suppose the church failed to exercise this authority - that Peter and the disciples failed to initiate new members into the church as God commanded, that the epistles they wrote (even those we still have) were in vain, and that death prevailed against it (hence baptism being needed for dead members).

* Mark 3:14
Jesus appoints twelve apostles to be with him, to be trustworthy witnesses to His life. That's why the canon was closed when these witnesses to Jesus' life weren't available anymore. What criteria comprised this authority?

Acts 1:21-25 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.

So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs."​

* Mark 11:28
One of my favourites, one I've often asked Marlin to answer:

"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"
Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"​

Maybe you think this is one of those "irrelevant" verses I like to quote, but I assure you it's not. Where did John get his authority to baptize? From men (through some priesthood) or from heaven? Compare your answer with the Pharisees'.

* Luke 9:1; Luke 10:1
Jesus sends out the twelve to do four things: to drive out all demons, to cure diseases, to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. In 9:10, they return. Then Jesus follows up by sending 72 others (10:1) with a specifc purpose: to go to every town and place where he was about to go, where they must do two things: "heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.'" And like the Twelve, they return (10:17) - mission accomplished - and Jesus exclaims "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (This corresponds with Rev. 12:10 and 20:3).

* John 15:16
Jesus calls himself "the vine" and speaks to his "branches" (the disciples), whom he chose when he started his ministry. He himself equips them for the time He won't be with them anymore:

John 15:26-27 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.​

We have their testimony in the gospels. It bore fruit, and as Jesus promised their church was pruned whenever it did not bear fruit. But it's a completely different thing to say the Gardener let the branches of His vine die off after the first generation, not pruned but uprooted. How can anything that had been grafted into Christ and was bearing fruit be called dead? Or did all the apostles fail like Judas, theri testimony lost?

The authority Jesus delegated here never died, so there was no need to resurrect it like the Mormon church did. Why did Joseph Smith start a new church, and not pruned the existing one like a servant of God would have done? Because he was convinced it died in the first century and there was nothing left.

* Acts 6:6; 10:42
In Acts 10:42 the apostles repeat the commission they were given in John 15: "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead." Why did Jesus appoint them specifically? Because they were there with Him. In Acts 6:6 we see them delegating authority to seven men to supervise the daily distribution of food among widows. They weren't delegating priesthoods, they were turning over some responsibilities to other believers, so that they could focus on Jesus' specific command to them.

* Gal 1:1
This one speaks for itself:

1 Paul, an apostle — sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead — and all the brothers with me...

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.​

Whose approval do we need to preach the gospel, which Jesus entrusted to his disciples and the twelve apostles (who were witnesses to his life and resurrection)?

* Titus 1:5
Paul asks Titus to appoint reputable elders in every town of Crete, which he did. Although they were heavily persecuted under Decius (249-251 AD), the apostolic church of Crete existed uninterrupted until 824 AD, when it was sacked by the Saracens (Arab Muslims). It was restored in 961.

But according to the Mormons, Titus must have failed his mission, and "true Christianity" was lost until 1830.

* Heb 5:4
It's almost funny that you would put this in here, because Hebrews 5 speaks of a defunct priesthood:

Heb 5:1-4
Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was.​

This "Aaronic priesthood" is described to explain how Christ received his authority, the "Melchizedec" priesthood:

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.​

I might have understood the Mormon church if it chose to continue the Aaronic priesthoods (although as far as I know they make none of the prescribed sacrifices it was supposed to do), but that they feel qualified for Christ's Melchizedek priesthood is beyond me. In Hebrews 7 it is specifically contrasted with the Levitical priesthoods (of which Aaron and his priests were part), as being of singular significance: "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever". I know of no man who fits this description except Jesus. Yet how many priests of this order do Mormons have?

Hebrews 7:11-12; 18-19; 23-25
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. ...

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.​

If you wish to talk about delegated authority, you must answer to Hebrews 7. You must explain why God replaced an earthly, fallible line of authority that depended on uninterrupted generations of priests (7:23), with an inimitable "Melchizedek" priest, namely Christ, only to have it "restored" to the former pattern of endless intermediaries and laws to "save completely". Revelation 12:10 makes clear that these three things go hand in hand: salvation, the power and the kingdom of God, and the authority of his Christ.

Trustworthy and respected authorities in our churches? - yes by all means: we follow Paul's pastoral advice about overseers and deacons (1 Tim. 3), and every Christian church has similar hierarchies. But nowhere does he or any apostle command anyone to exercise any "priesthood authority", which they would have if they were in the business of creating priests.

Unlike the other high priests, [Christ] does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.​

 

[The Goose]

actually, I don't need to, plenty of mormons like you have told me & other Christians more than what we need to say, ?the LDS is a cult?

like;
are Jesus & satan 'spirit' brothers?

Acts 17:29 "we are the offspring of God" If we are th offspring of God, is it too far of a stretch to beleive that Jesus is? It's probably the satan part you have a problem with. Luke 10:18 says "I beheld Satan as lighning fall from heaven." This means he was in heaven with God in the Begininng. How could he not also have been one of God's children. Look at it this way. If you are a very good person, and you have a brother who murders, does drugs, steals from old ladies, etc, does that make you any less good than you are? Why, then, can't satan be Jesus' spirit brother, as we are all his spirit brothers and sisters, since we are all children of God?

can humans become "gods"?

This is not official church doctrine that children can become gods. Note, they cannot become "God" but can become "gods." I thin that's a huge difference. Look at it this way. You're father is a doctor. Does that mean that you, even if you are a little, do not have to potential to become a doctor, if you do all the right stuff and go to school, etc? No. Why would God even have children and give us physical bodies if he didn't want us to progress, and what better progression than to become like him. I do not "his equal" or that "he won't be our God anymore" He will always be our God. But why does that mean that we can't be gods, too?

did God the Father have physical sex with Mary to have Jesus born a human of 'flesh & bones'?

I have never even heard that we think that God came down and had physical sex with Mary.

was there a Semitic culture here in the Western Hemisphere?

The Mayans (or perhaps the Aztecs) have in their religion the record of a great white God, Quetzlqoatl, who came and visited them for a space of a few days (like what the BoM tells of Jesus doing to the Nephites.). This Great White God, who was above all others, then left, but he said he would come again sometime. Doesn't that sound a lot like Jesus to you, like perhaps a semitic culture that has been corrupted over time?

you answer any of those truthfully as the LDS core beliefs & yes, you would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that LDS is not Christian, but a cult

Well, I answered those truthfully, but I'm still waiting to see how those answers make my not a christian.

can't be, the "real" Jesus would never have anything to do with falsehood

What falsehoods? You are once again basing your bashing in nothing more than myth.

oh, trying to 'psych' me out are we? accusing me, trying to see if I actually read the Bible are we, or just trying to taunt me?

Nope. Just trying to taunt you, and to point out the absurdity in saying that the only reason you don't read the BoM is that it is boring. That is no reason at all, when you think of how boring the Bible can be.

that you're lying, please post the links to those supposed projects of debunking? the only thing you might find, is the Smithsonian letter, needed after many mormon missionaries started lying about archeologists at the SI using the BoM as a guide. a patent lie

Nope. It's not a lie. I'll try to find the link for you. (I had it in my favourites on my old computer, but then I got a new one, and so I'll have to find it again for you. Sorry. )

its amazing how weak your knowledge is of ancient people, you must only read LDS sources, the only people that would believe that lie are deluded un-historical people, worthy of last place in any history tests

I'm sorry, but I don't know where you are getting those accusations from. As a matter of fact, in my Spanish class we have talked extensively about ancient SA and Mexican cultures. I have also never read any Mormon history or literature published by the LDS church about ancient americans. You tell me what you think definitevely says they cannot be Jews. I've already told one reason I think they were decendents of Jewish people, namely Queztlqoatl.

did they keep 'kosher', circumcise their males? what BoM customs did they follow? Jewish? you say, who was the author? Jeff Lindsey? stop trying to steal the Incas' history for the BoM, it don't belong to LDS or fake BoM peoples

How many times in the OT did the Jews turn away from the Lord and go practicing foreign religions, sacrificing to made up gods, and the like? Do you for some reason think that this culture should have been better? That they should have been able to keep all the jewish customs for as long as they were around? That's rediculous.

 

[The Goose]

I'll take you up on that challenge. Let's examine the verses and see what they say about authority:

* Matt 16:19
Jesus gives the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to his disciples, to interpret and apply the law in his church (against which even death/hades will not prevail). But who else has this authority? Who are his disciples and who are his church? For that, you just have to read a little further; here's Matt. 18:15-20:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."​

(In Jewish texts "binding and loosing" ('asar and hittir or sera') could refer to authority to interpret the law, hence to evaluate individuals' fidelity to the law; in this case it refers not only to those in the church, but also to those who enter it). The Mormons have to suppose the church failed to exercise this authority - that Peter and the disciples failed to initiate new members into the church as God commanded, that the epistles they wrote (even those we still have) were in vain, and that death prevailed against it (hence baptism being needed for dead members).

It's not that they failed to confer new members. It's that, once all the deciples died, people started to corrupt the Church's teachings. Even thought they may have been "given the keys to bind or loose" things, they were not given those keys righteously, nor were they using them righteously, so they were not able to do the things the keys were for. Therefore, the keys had to be restored by a person who actually had those keys righteously in the first place.

* Mark 3:14
Jesus appoints twelve apostles to be with him, to be trustworthy witnesses to His life. That's why the canon was closed when these witnesses to Jesus' life weren't available anymore. What criteria comprised this authority?

Acts 1:21-25 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.

So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs."​

Well, I don't know how that doesn't show that people need to be chosen and have authority. Jesus had to choose his apostles. Not everybody could be an apostle. He even had to choose the one that took over for Judas. The 11 remaining disciples had to pray to their Lord in order to get a righteous Apostle. They coudn't just choose him by themselves. That would be against the rules that people need certain authority to do certain things, and the 11 did not have the authority to pick a new Apostle.

* Mark 11:28
One of my favourites, one I've often asked Marlin to answer:

"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"
Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism?was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!"​

Maybe you think this is one of those "irrelevant" verses I like to quote, but I assure you it's not. Where did John get his authority to baptize? From men (through some priesthood) or from heaven? Compare your answer with the Pharisees'.

It was from heaven. Priesthood authority is not from man - it is from heaven. Was it man who set up the aaronic preisthood? No. Is was Moses, but from authority from God. John baptized by the God-given authority he had through the aaronic preisthood. Jesus did his things by the same heavenly authority, but throught the Melchizideck preisthood, the higher priesthood which can do more things, because it has higher authority.

* Luke 9:1; Luke 10:1
Jesus sends out the twelve to do four things: to drive out all demons, to cure diseases, to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. In 9:10, they return. Then Jesus follows up by sending 72 others (10:1) with a specifc purpose: to go to every town and place where he was about to go, where they must do two things: "heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.'" And like the Twelve, they return (10:17) - mission accomplished - and Jesus exclaims "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (This corresponds with Rev. 12:10 and 20:3).

Once again, you don't really state how this does not show authority. Jesus did not give universal authority to all to cure diseases, cast out demon, etc, but instead he only gave to his 12. The same with te 72. It was not universal authority given to all people. It was only given to the 72.

* John 15:16
Jesus calls himself "the vine" and speaks to his "branches" (the disciples), whom he chose when he started his ministry. He himself equips them for the time He won't be with them anymore:

John 15:26-27 "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.​

We have their testimony in the gospels. It bore fruit, and as Jesus promised their church was pruned whenever it did not bear fruit. But it's a completely different thing to say the Gardener let the branches of His vine die off after the first generation, not pruned but uprooted. How can anything that had been grafted into Christ and was bearing fruit be called dead? Or did all the apostles fail like Judas, theri testimony lost?

The authority Jesus delegated here never died, so there was no need to resurrect it like the Mormon church did. Why did Joseph Smith start a new church, and not pruned the existing one like a servant of God would have done? Because he was convinced it died in the first century and there was nothing left.

The authority of Jesus will never die. But what did die was people righteously using the Authority. Once the deciples died, everybody started going off in their own direction, until there was no one who was using the authority righteously, which means they had no authority at all.

* Acts 6:6; 10:42
In Acts 10:42 the apostles repeat the commission they were given in John 15: "He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead." Why did Jesus appoint them specifically? Because they were there with Him. In Acts 6:6 we see them delegating authority to seven men to supervise the daily distribution of food among widows. They weren't delegating priesthoods, they were turning over some responsibilities to other believers, so that they could focus on Jesus' specific command to them.[/QUOTE]
That's right. But they were delegating the responsbility. It wasn't just people thinking to themselves "hmm. I'd better do such-and-such a task." On the contrary, the people had to be DELEGATED by the apostles, who had the authority to do such a thing.

* Gal 1:1
This one speaks for itself:

1 Paul, an apostle ? sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead ? and all the brothers with me...

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.​

Whose approval do we need to preach the gospel, which Jesus entrusted to his disciples and the twelve apostles (who were witnesses to his life and resurrection)?

We need Jesus' approval to preach the Gospel. I don't care who goes around preaching the gospel. Anybody can do that. It's when you get to things like baptism, giving the holy spirit, administering sacrament, prophesiying, that you need certain authority.

* Titus 1:5
Paul asks Titus to appoint reputable elders in every town of Crete, which he did. Although they were heavily persecuted under Decius (249-251 AD), the apostolic church of Crete existed uninterrupted until 824 AD, when it was sacked by the Saracens (Arab Muslims). It was restored in 961.

But according to the Mormons, Titus must have failed his mission, and "true Christianity" was lost until 1830.

Not "true christianity." The keys to the priesthood. People were not using the keys righteously, so they got taken away.

 

[The Goose]

* Heb 5:4
It's almost funny that you would put this in here, because Hebrews 5 speaks of a defunct priesthood:

Heb 5:1-4
Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was.​

This "Aaronic priesthood" is described to explain how Christ received his authority, the "Melchizedec" priesthood:

Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.​

I might have understood the Mormon church if it chose to continue the Aaronic priesthoods (although as far as I know they make none of the prescribed sacrifices it was supposed to do), but that they feel qualified for Christ's Melchizedek priesthood is beyond me. In Hebrews 7 it is specifically contrasted with the Levitical priesthoods (of which Aaron and his priests were part), as being of singular significance: "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever". I know of no man who fits this description except Jesus. Yet how many priests of this order do Mormons have?

Do you know why it is called the Melchizidek preisthood? Because it was named after a priest called Melchizidek, of whom you will find reference at Gen 14:18-20. Obvouisly Jesus was not the only Melchizidek priest who ever lived. Why shoudn't there be more?
The Aaronic preisthood, in the LDS church, is still concered with physical things, like giving sacrament, and baptizing people. The Melchizidek preisthood, like Melchizidek and Jesus, is concered with spiritual things, like giving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 7:11-12; 18-19; 23-25
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come?one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. ...

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.​

If you wish to talk about delegated authority, you must answer to Hebrews 7. You must explain why God replaced an earthly, fallible line of authority that depended on uninterrupted generations of priests (7:23), with an inimitable "Melchizedek" priest, namely Christ, only to have it "restored" to the former pattern of endless intermediaries and laws to "save completely". Revelation 12:10 makes clear that these three things go hand in hand: salvation, the power and the kingdom of God, and the authority of his Christ.

Yes. You must be saved through Christ. But Christ requires certain things of us if we are to be saved. he requires that we follow his example. Therefore, since he was baptized, we must be baptized, too. Do you think he could come down here and baptize everyone who wanted to be baptized? I don't. So he conferred some of his priesthood power on his disciples.


Now, if there is still something you have a question about, tell me, and I'll try to answer that, too. Or if I didn't expalin something well enough.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Do you know why it is called the Melchizidek preisthood? Because it was named after a priest called Melchizidek, of whom you will find reference at Gen 14:18-20. Obvouisly Jesus was not the only Melchizidek priest who ever lived. Why shoudn't there be more?

Obviously, there was only one person named "Melchizedek", can you find any others? Obviously, only Jesus is of the priesthood in the "order of Melchizedek", otherwise why is Hebrews devoid of references to others in that order? only Jesus is mentioned as our "High Priest", from the "order of Melchizedek", in Psalms only one is mentioned, while the word "order" seems to imply "members", this may be a "set" of only 2; Melchizedek & Jesus

Yes. You must be saved through Christ. But Christ requires certain things of us if we are to be saved. he requires that we follow his example. Therefore, since he was baptized, we must be baptized, too. .

then how or why did one of the thieves on the cross, get to go to heaven with Jesus. he wasn't baptized. Jesus never baptized anyone, if it was essential, wouldn’t He have done it at least once? that’s why some churches do "foot washings", etc... from example

why did He only tell Nicodemis you must be “born again”, & didn’t give him the full LDS doctrine?

What we need, John 3:16 says it all

 

[The Goose]

Obviously, there was only one person named "Melchizedek", can you find any others? Obviously, only Jesus is of the priesthood in the "order of Melchizedek", otherwise why is Hebrews devoid of references to others in that order? only Jesus is mentioned as our "High Priest", from the "order of Melchizedek", in Psalms only one is mentioned, while the word "order" seems to imply "members", this may be a "set" of only 2; Melchizedek & Jesus

First of all, did you read what Melchizedek did? He had obvoiusly been a preist for a while, to know what to do when people come to priest. Second, Abraham came to him, knowing that he was a priest, and he knew what to do with priest. It wasn't like "Whoa! What is this priest guy?" The Melchizedek priesthood, called in OT the priesthood of the most high God, was the standard. The aaronic priesthood is what the Jews got when they coudn't handle the Melchizidek, and was the lower priesthood. Melkizidek priesthood had to be restored, by Jesus, but he is not the only one. Also, do you read what it says of Melchizedek? The NRSV says "he was priest of God Most High" The NVI says (translated) "[he was]priest of the highest God" These versions, and probalby most that you would ever look in, don't say "he was God's only priest," or "he was the only priest of the highest god." It just says he was a priest. There were obviously others.

then how or why did one of the thieves on the cross, get to go to heaven with Jesus. he wasn't baptized. Jesus never baptized anyone, if it was essential, wouldn?t He have done it at least once? that?s why some churches do "foot washings", etc... from example

Jesus may not have baptized anyone himself, but what does that matter. He himself was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, and he commanded his desciples to baptize. Either he baptized people and it just isn't recorded, or, as I beleive, he had more important things to do, and so he let his desciples take care of that.
As for the theif on the cross, Jesus said "to day shalt thou be with me in paradise." This does not refer to "heaven" as you probably think of it. This refers to the spirit prison to which jesus decended after his death, and where he was for three days. (1 pet 3:19; 4:6) Jesus in the spirit prison preached his gospel to those who died before he came, and provided for the dead to be baptized. If baptism wasn't necessary, why waste all that time down there?

why did He only tell Nicodemis you must be ?born again?, & didn?t give him the full LDS doctrine?

That is the whole LDS doctrine. Why do you think we preach anything different?

What we need, John 3:16 says it all

LDS never have negated that fact. Once again, you are swimming in falsehoods.

 

[Jenyar]

Luke 10:18 says "I beheld Satan as lighning fall from heaven." This means he was in heaven with God in the Begininng. How could he not also have been one of God's children.

Because the Bible makes it clear Satan was a creation, an angel. We're creations, but not angels. Jesus is neither (Hebrews 1:4). Satan was an accuser (that's what his name means, and what we see him doing in the book of Job), and he was allowed into heaven like any other angel. But in Revelations we read he was thrown out of heaven, and this is what Jesus confirms. "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment" (2 Pet. 2:4)

This is not official church doctrine that children can become gods. Note, they cannot become "God" but can become "gods."

Yet you believe it as if it were official doctrine, and most Mormons teach it as if it were one of those important facts that was lost in the apostasy. The problem is less with what people are supposed to become, but with what it makes God. You believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet, yes?

"I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345)​

I have never even heard that we think that God came down and had physical sex with Mary.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" - Bruce McConkie (LDS apostle), Mormon Doctrine, 1979.​

But, of course, Mormon Doctrine is not "official" Mormon doctrine, even though he confirmed what Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and Joseph Fielding Smith believed.

 

[Jenyar]

It's not that they failed to confer new members. It's that, once all the deciples died, people started to corrupt the Church's teachings. Even thought they may have been "given the keys to bind or loose" things, they were not given those keys righteously, nor were they using them righteously, so they were not able to do the things the keys were for. Therefore, the keys had to be restored by a person who actually had those keys righteously in the first place.

Let's see. How are new members conferred in Mormonism? Are its first apostles still alive? Are their words still believed? How do you know that the same thing didn't happen in the Mormon church? David Whitmer wrote, in An address to all believers in Christ:

"The next grievous error which crept into the church was in ordaining high priests in June, 1831. This error was introduced at the instigation of Sydney Rigdon. The office of high priest was never spoken of, and never thought of being established in the church until Rigdon came in. Remember that we had been preaching from August 1829, until June, 1831 almost two years - and had baptized about 2,000 members into the Church of Christ, and had not one High Priest."​

Well, I don't know how that doesn't show that people need to be chosen and have authority. Jesus had to choose his apostles. Not everybody could be an apostle. He even had to choose the one that took over for Judas. The 11 remaining disciples had to pray to their Lord in order to get a righteous Apostle. They coudn't just choose him by themselves. That would be against the rules that people need certain authority to do certain things, and the 11 did not have the authority to pick a new Apostle.

Of course Jesus had to choose his apostles! Who else would do it? And they made every decision after prayer and asking God, as every believer should. But Jesus didn't pick the Mormon apostles, did he? The Mormon "apostles" weren't witnesses to Jesus' life, and thus they weren't selected by the same authority and for the same reasons.

It was from heaven. Priesthood authority is not from man - it is from heaven. Was it man who set up the aaronic preisthood? No. Is was Moses, but from authority from God. John baptized by the God-given authority he had through the aaronic preisthood. Jesus did his things by the same heavenly authority, but throught the Melchizideck preisthood, the higher priesthood which can do more things, because it has higher authority.

Then you are arguing against the logic of Hebrews. It never said the Aaronic priesthood wasn't established by God. Nobody argues that the law was established by God either, but that doesn't change the fact that it never made anybody perfect - it pointed out sin clearly enough, but it was insufficient for salvation. And the old priesthoods, although they fulfilled their function, were equally insufficient. Does or doesn't Hebrews say: "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless"? The "high priesthood" cannot do more things, Christ can do more things.

Besides, your argument is flawed, and I will show you why:

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.​

Does that mean an "apostle" delegated by the goverment is the same as one of the apostles delegated by Christ himself, because every authority ultimately comes from God? No, you have to examine what kind of authority was given and what it was given for. That's why succession is fallible, because people are fallible authorities. And that's why God submitted all authority to Christ, who is the head of his church, and will always be the only one who grants salvation. The keys He gave the church are for letting people into heaven through His gospel, because He has unlocked hell to let out everyone who would come out of it:

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.​

Therefore, if the Mormon church wants to use the keys righteously, they should stop trying to convince people that they can be prevented from approaching God's throne, which is in the highest heavens (Matt. 5:34, 23:22) even though they have accepted Christ as their only saviour and high priest.

Once again, you don't really state how this does not show authority. Jesus did not give universal authority to all to cure diseases, cast out demon, etc, but instead he only gave to his 12. The same with the 72. It was not universal authority given to all people. It was only given to the 72.

Those were specific tasks they were to do to prepare for Him. Yes, it was a specific gift, but it was also a gift given by the Holy Spirit after Jesus was gone. The significance of Jesus' resurrection is that he is still alive to confer such authority. There is no need for an endless succession of priests anymore. That's the explicit point made by Hebrews, and I don't understand how you are able to overlook it.

And if only the 72 people Jesus had already chosen would have that authority, why did He tell his disciples:

Mark 16:16-18 "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."​

And all of this was fulfilled (v.20): "Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it." But before then, there simply wasn't many other people to give such authority to (There were only about 120 believers when Peter had to choose a replacement for Judas - Acts 1:15). The gospel had to spread some way.

The authority of Jesus will never die. But what did die was people righteously using the Authority. Once the deciples died, everybody started going off in their own direction, until there was no one who was using the authority righteously, which means they had no authority at all.

Of course they had no authority: the authority they were given was Christ's, they were to heal people and drive out demons in His name, not their own! Therefore they could not lose it. How can you lose something God himself gives? Only if you reject it, and there is not sign that any of the apostles or disciples rejected Jesus' authority. Those who did were put out of the church, as Paul advised them to do. "Everybody" didn't go off in their own direction. Let's compare your version to the Bible's:

Acts 2:41-47
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.​

And all of this stopped when the last apostle died? They were told to make disciples for Christ - how could they, who you say were able to use their authority properly (or do you?), fail at their task to make disciples that would outlive them, and preserve the gospel intact? And if the apostles Jesus picked can fail at the task He chose them for, so can the apostles of the Mormon church, and we're all back at square one. But keep in mind Jesus' words to his disciples: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last" (cf. Col. 1:5-7).

That's right. But they were delegating the responsbility. It wasn't just people thinking to themselves "hmm. I'd better do such-and-such a task." On the contrary, the people had to be DELEGATED by the apostles, who had the authority to do such a thing.

And these delegations, could they keep the authority given to them by the apostles? Or did it evaporate when the apostles died? One only loses authority when someone takes it away, when someone in authority looses it ("binding and loosing", remember?), and even then it only pertains to the tasks that were delegated to them. The authority that saves belongs to Christ alone.

We need Jesus' approval to preach the Gospel. I don't care who goes around preaching the gospel. Anybody can do that. It's when you get to things like baptism, giving the holy spirit, administering sacrament, prophesiying, that you need certain authority.

You mean, the elementary teachings about Christ are actually the most important and difficult ones?

Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.​

If you're still concerned with them, I don't recommend that you become blasé about the gospel. The gospel of grace is our hope, not the gospel of works and deeds (the law):

Heb. 6:19-20 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.​

That's the gospel that "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:6). The most prolific and effective apostle of all, Paul, was "not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:17). If they were ever one and the same thing, why does he make a distinction between them?

I don't believe Christ is divided between those who are baptized in a Mormon church, a Presbitarian, Methodist or a Catholic church. There is only "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5) that God recognizes. He does not distinguish between those who follow Paul, Pope Benedict, or even Christ himself - "we were called to one hope when we were called", and that hope is the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection which Jesus attained for all who hold on to Him. He makes the relationship possible, not ordinances or sacraments.

You say the your ordinances are of first importance. Paul says:

1 Cor. 15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.​

"By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I [Paul] preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."

Not "true christianity." The keys to the priesthood. People were not using the keys righteously, so they got taken away.

There never were any keys to a "priesthood". There were only keys to the kingdom of heaven, which, as Hebrews 7 explains, has nothing to do with earthly priesthoods. A priest named Melchizedec once held a unique priesthood, and Christ holds it now, eternally. It won't be delegated because no mortal can meet its requirements - and the only authorized priesthood held by men of Israel, the Levitical priesthood, was considered insufficient. Something that succumbs to death is still under the authority of death. That even goes for "gods".

Hebrews 9:24
For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.​

 

[The Goose]

Because the Bible makes it clear Satan was a creation, an angel. We're creations, but not angels. Jesus is neither (Hebrews 1:4). Satan was an accuser (that's what his name means, and what we see him doing in the book of Job), and he was allowed into heaven like any other angel. But in Revelations we read he was thrown out of heaven, and this is what Jesus confirms. "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment" (2 Pet. 2:4)

There are so many different meanings when the Bible uses the word angel. One is a spirit without a body. We all used to be spirits who didn't have body, and Lucifer was one of them. So was jesus. In Heb 1:4 is shows that he was made better than the angels, but only after he had taken on a body and purged our sins.

Yet you believe it as if it were official doctrine, and most Mormons teach it as if it were one of those important facts that was lost in the apostasy. The problem is less with what people are supposed to become, but with what it makes God. You believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet, yes?

"I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345)​

What is the problem with believing that God was once a man? Does that make him any less of our God, or does that mean we don't need to obey him? The best brain surgeon in this country was once an intern, but does that make any less good at doing brain surgeries? Or does that mean that he actually has no idea what he is talking about? No. Why does it make God less God if he was once a man? And what is the problem of thinking that we can become gods. Why would God even go through the trouble of having us and creating this world for us if it wasn't, through progression, that we might become like him? Does our becoming gods in some way devalue all that he has done for us, of make him any less our God? No.
And joseph Smith was only a prophet when he was speaking God's word.

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" - Bruce McConkie (LDS apostle), Mormon Doctrine, 1979.​

But, of course, Mormon Doctrine is not "official" Mormon doctrine, even though he confirmed what Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and Joseph Fielding Smith believed.

That in no way means that God came down and had sex with mary. It means that, before he gained a physical body he was begotten spiritually by spirit parents.

 

[The Goose]

Let's see. How are new members conferred in Mormonism? Are its first apostles still alive? Are their words still believed? How do you know that the same thing didn't happen in the Mormon church? David Whitmer wrote, in An address to all believers in Christ:

"The next grievous error which crept into the church was in ordaining high priests in June, 1831. This error was introduced at the instigation of Sydney Rigdon. The office of high priest was never spoken of, and never thought of being established in the church until Rigdon came in. Remember that we had been preaching from August 1829, until June, 1831 almost two years - and had baptized about 2,000 members into the Church of Christ, and had not one High Priest."​

How are new members conferred? By baptism. How are priests ordainded? By the laying on of hands, as has happened since the beginning. The sin was because Sydney Rigdon didn't even have the High Priesthood at that time, so what business was it of his to tell toerhs to intorduce it? Appearantly, Joseph Smith didn't see that it was necessary to give to anybody at that time, and neither did God, or He would have told him to. In August of 1831, it is also necessary to note, that Joseph received revelation that Sydney Rigdon needed to be more careful about not exalting himself. The sin wasn't that they were introducing the High Priesthood - it was that they were doing it on their own time, not God's time.

Of course Jesus had to choose his apostles! Who else would do it? And they made every decision after prayer and asking God, as every believer should. But Jesus didn't pick the Mormon apostles, did he? The Mormon "apostles" weren't witnesses to Jesus' life, and thus they weren't selected by the same authority and for the same reasons.

Jesus did pick the mormon apostles. What does it matter if they never saw his life. His apostles are just the leaders on earth.

Then you are arguing against the logic of Hebrews. It never said the Aaronic priesthood wasn't established by God. Nobody argues that the law was established by God either, but that doesn't change the fact that it never made anybody perfect - it pointed out sin clearly enough, but it was insufficient for salvation. And the old priesthoods, although they fulfilled their function, were equally insufficient. Does or doesn't Hebrews say: "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless"? The "high priesthood" cannot do more things, Christ can do more things.

The High Priesthood can do more things. It has the power to bind in heaven what is bound on earth etc, which I never recall the Aaronic priesthood having. Christ does what he does through the priesthood.

I'll look at the rest in a little bit.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

: :Marlin wipes the dust off his feet, goes on his way: :

stop using Biblical terms, the dust you shake, is the one that bids you "adieu!" & sends you on your merry way to perdition

humph! & you call yourself a 'god-in-training'! what a weakling LDS, to give up so quickly
& many times too, you always come back

& on a personal note, I feel you have done an outstanding job of telling us about your cult, study more, see us again when you have more info

 

[The Goose]

Okay, Jenyar, let me just make sure I'm looking at this correctly - Are you basically saying that we don't need a Melchizedek priesthood? Just to make sure I'm not completely missing the mark, because I'll do that sometimes, and no one will have any idea what I'm talking about

 

[Marlin]

stop using Biblical terms, the dust you shake, is the one that bids you "adieu!" & sends you on your merry way to perdition

humph! & you call yourself a 'god-in-training'! what a weakling LDS, to give up so quickly
& many times too, you always come back

& on a personal note, I feel you have done an outstanding job of telling us about your cult, study more, see us again when you have more info

:sighs: All right, WildBlueYonder, I will communicate with you again. I'm not leaving; I just wasn't talking to you. But now I realize that people with such prejudiced, bigoted minds as you cannot seem to grasp the idea that their slurs are offensive.

I seem to remember a certain character named "Randolfo" who got extremely angry with me when I called him "Old bean," which was actually picked up from my forays into British children's literature. He thought it was a racial slur against all Mexicans and demanded that I retract my "bigoted" statement.

Now I see the same offended, proud man insisting that my cherished religion is nothing more than a "cult," and yet he cannot understand that he is the one being offensive this time.

I fully expect you to drag out the tired old "You believe Jesus and Satan are brothers so you must be a cult!" argument, along with other non sequiturs. I must resign myself to the understanding that you are too blind to see your own bigotry, too blind and hypocritical to give me the respect you demanded I give you by retracting the "old bean" comment.

Sheesh. What a god-in-training must go through!

 

[WildBlueYonder]

: sighs : All right, WildBlueYonder, I will communicate with you again. I'm not leaving; I just wasn't talking to you. But now I realize that people with such prejudiced, bigoted minds as you cannot seem to grasp the idea that their slurs are offensive.

There’s a diff between being born a ‘Mexican” or a “Chinese” (those are accidents of birth), and becoming a (or being born a) “mormon” or “Buddhist” (usually a choice of a religion/philosophy that you believe in/or trust is true). That you think they are equal, says a lot about your mind-set, mormons have not evolved into an ethnic group yet, give them a few centuries

He thought it was a racial slur against all Mexicans and demanded that I retract my "bigoted" statement.

Now I see the same offended, proud man insisting that my cherished religion is nothing more than a "cult," and yet he cannot understand that he is the one being offensive this time.

have I ever mentioned whatever your ethnic group is, in a negative way? First of all, someone with the user name, “Marlin” could be anything. I could care less if you were greek, jewish or Danish, that’s not the point, you belong to a religion that not only started by telling ALL other Christians they were “WRONG” & in “APOSTACY”, but continues to this day, that is not just bigotry but arrogance. & the fact that people tell you so, is that bigotry?


Secondly, & that’s where I come in, mormons believe that the BoM is true history, a history that steals from a ‘real’ people & gives it to a ‘non-existent’ one. One that will always be ‘non-existent’, no matter how hard you pray or believe.

I fully expect you to drag out the tired old "You believe Jesus and Satan are brothers so you must be a cult!" argument, along with other non sequiturs. I must resign myself to the understanding that you are too blind to see your own bigotry, too blind and hypocritical to give me the respect you demanded I give you by retracting the "old bean" comment.

Sheesh. What a god-in-training must go through! : D

You consider the LDS belief that ‘Jesus & satan are spirit brothers’ a non-sequitur? I think most Christians would insist that if that is even one LDS belief, it follows that the rest is hooey too, a cult to most. I would call that very significant

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/nonseq.htm
The term non sequitur literally means "it does not follow".

 

[Marlin]

WBY, Jesus and Judas Iscariot are brothers also. Here is a partial, by-no-means-complete list of all the brothers of Jesus:

Peter, Paul, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Churchill, Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln, Greg Louganis, Alexander the Great, King Louis XIV, David Crosby, Bryan Adams, Don Adams, Douglas Adams, you, me, every other male that has ever been born, etc., etc., etc.

Here's a sobering fact, WBY: Satan and *you* are also brothers, as you share the same eternal parents. Satan is brothers with ALL males of the human species, as is Jesus. We are all one great big family. So yes, it is a non sequitur to say that Mormons are a cult just because they believe that the family of God contains bad people as well as good people.

 

[Marlin]

have I ever mentioned whatever your ethnic group is, in a negative way? First of all, someone with the user name, “Marlin” could be anything. I could care less if you were greek, jewish or Danish, that’s not the point, you belong to a religion that not only started by telling ALL other Christians they were “WRONG” & in “APOSTACY”, but continues to this day, that is not just bigotry but arrogance. & the fact that people tell you so, is that bigotry?

Come now, Randolfo, you yourself have been seen on these boards calling Buddhism and Islam false religions. Is this not also arrogance? Were the early Christians "bigoted and arrogant" because they believed in Jesus Christ? The Jews believe so. Your religion also believes that others (like the RCC, if I'm not mistaken) are apostate. Does that make you arrogant and bigoted? Some would say so. You're not on the high road here. Everyone believes their particular religion (if they have one at all) is true and others are at least partially wrong. Otherwise, we would all belong to the same religion and there would be no divisions among us.

Secondly, & that’s where I come in, mormons believe that the BoM is true history, a history that steals from a ‘real’ people & gives it to a ‘non-existent’ one. One that will always be ‘non-existent’, no matter how hard you pray or believe.

Oh really, Randolfo. What difference is it if your ancestors came from Jerusalem as opposed to the New World? Do you have something against Hebrews or Jews? Why does the idea of them being your ancestors put you in such a tizzy, unless you're prejudiced?

 

[The Goose]

This is especially for WildBlueYonder. I don't know if anybody else has posted it yet, but I thought I would, anyway. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography

 

[Jenyar]

Okay, Jenyar, let me just make sure I'm looking at this correctly - Are you basically saying that we don't need a Melchizedek priesthood? Just to make sure I'm not completely missing the mark, because I'll do that sometimes, and no one will have any idea what I'm talking about

I'm saying - with Hebrews - that we needed Christ, who is a priest in the order of Melchizedec (for being "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life").

The argument of Hebrews is that, for the same reason there was a need for many (Aaronic) priests ("since death prevented them from continuing in office"), there is no need for any other "Melchizedek" priest, because Christ is "a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." He is a priest forever "because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them" - and "such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." The logical flip side is that no mortal man, Mormon or not, can fit our need. "Men who are weak" don't live for ever, and the Mormon priests are once again priests "on the basis of a regulation".

Yet the Lord "descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests." Jesus didn't come from a long line of Melchizedek priests. Neither did Melchizedek himself. It's a unique position in every way, and it contains all other priesthoods in every way.

1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.​

For Mormons there are many gods and therefore many mediators, and another testimony (as if the testimony of Christ came at an improper time, unable to survive more than a single generation). On top of that there are new laws - "ordinances" and rituals - that place a burden on people. Paul preferred that people don't marry (and he himself was never married, 1 Cor. 7:8-34), yet for Mormons ("celestial") marriage is nothing less than essential.

When some among the early believers said "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1), Peter made this statement:

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."​

So they (along with the Holy Spirit) decided not not to burden new believers with anything beyond the following requirements: to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. If during that wonderous time anything more would be a "burden", how is it that 1800 years later - after an incredible period of "apostasy" - God would burden people who turn to Him even more than ever? Note, they are not talking about a general "salvation" in which everyone has part, but about a "purification by faith" shared by the saints themselves.

But I have a question. Doctrine and Covenants 132:7 says "and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred". How can James, Peter and John have all held the "keys" if this is true? And who has them now, according to the LDS Church?

 

[Jenyar]

Goose,

You said "We all used to be spirits who didn't have body" - and in the same breath "God was once a man". The problem (except for the contradiction) is that Mary most definitely had a body. Christians believe Jesus was conceived through the Spirit; God's Spirit conceived as Jesus by no recognizably physical means (Matt. 1:18).

That in no way means that God came down and had sex with mary. It means that, before he gained a physical body he was begotten spiritually by spirit parents.

But Joseph F Smith wrote:

"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended by any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit"​

And Brigham Young said:

"Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost", and later: "I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ...he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it" (Journal of Discourses Vol.8, p.211)​

That doesn't agree with our interpretation.

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar, it is possible to fertilize an egg cell with a sperm cell without sexual intercourse. If man today can do this, couldn't God cause it to happen in the case of Jesus?

Even if Jesus were conceived by actual intercourse, the facts of life being what they are, isn't it a bit juvenile to assume that God doesn't have sex? After all, mankind is "in the image of God," which, taken literally as the LDS do, means that God has functioning sexual organs. Only young children are scandalized when they find out that their parents had sexual relations to bring them into the world. Sexual intercourse is a reality of life, both in mankind's experiences, and in God's.

Personally, I believe that God never had intercourse with Mary and that He achieved Jesus's conception miraculously.