What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor

[Giuliano]

I doubt it because that day is a supposition based on no other evidence than a comma... And that Jesus Himself said after His resurrection that He had no yet ascended to His Father. And the location of Paradise should not be ascertained according to what the Jews think, but what the Bible tells us... And revelation informs us that the Paradise of God is where the river of Life flows, and that River flows from the throne.

You would have Jesus saying a cruel thing to the thief if you change where the comma is. The meaning of the word paradise is obvious. It means Garden, the Garden of Eden. That's where the River of Life is. I also remind you that Jesus was a Jew, using words the way other Jews used them. We are not free to impose a "Gentile-version" of what the word means.

Jesus ascended to the Father later probably on that Sunday, after his meeting with Mary Magdalene. Later he told Thomas to touch him. That's when the ascension happened. Later he disappeared in a cloud, but that was not the actual ascension.

 

[Giuliano]

High Sabbath means that the Passover was occurring on the Jewish Sabbath......Saturday.

Then you're back to the assumption that "sabbath" must mean a regular sabbath and couldn't mean Passover on a different day of the week; and you still have the problem of three days and three nights.

 

[Grailhunter]

Then you're back to the assumption that "sabbath" must mean a regular sabbath and couldn't mean Passover on a different day of the week; and you still have the problem of three days and three nights.

Sabbath is always Saturday. As we see today Passover is calculated on the cycle of the moon. A similar calculation is used for Easter, that is why the day Easter falls on, moves from year to year. The Passover could be any day of the week...one per year. That year Passover fell on the Sabbath. Since the lunar cycle is easily calculated we can narrow the year of the crucifixion down to one of two years. Once you understand what a high-day or high sabbath means it is easy to run through the scriptures and see the chain of events.
It also solves another misunderstanding, of what the meal that Christ ate really was.

 

[Giuliano]

Sabbath is always Saturday. As we see today Passover is calculated on the cycle of the moon. A similar calculation is used for Easter, that is why the day Easter falls on moves from year to year. The Passover could be any day of the week...one per year. That year Passover fell on the Sabbath. Since the lunar cycle is easily calculated we can narrow the year of the crucifixion down to one of two years. Once you understand what a high-day or high sabbath mean it is easy to run through the scriptures and see the chain events.
It also solves another misunderstanding, of what the meal that Christ ate really was.

I really don't feel like going on about what "sabbath" means in those passages. I have an explanation that I find acceptable; and I guess you also like yours.

 

[Grailhunter]

I really don't feel like going on about what "sabbath" means in those passages. I have an explanation that I find acceptable; and I guess you also like yours.

sounds good.

 

[farouk]

Jesus is the Son of God.

This is indeed the key to Biblical doctrine; so vastly important.

 

[Mjh29]

How can something be "completely inaccurate" when it is directly and accurately quoted from published authoritative sources of the LDS Church?

I know for a fact that the Book of Abraham -- which is Scripture for Mormons as within The Pearl of Great Price -- has three Gods involved with creation.

Introduction

THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE
A SELECTION FROM THE REVELATIONS,TRANSLATIONS, AND NARRATIONS OF JOSEPH SMITH, FIRST PROPHET, SEER, AND REVELATOR TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

The contents are as follows:
1. Selections from the Book of Moses.
2. The Book of Abraham*.
3. Joseph Smith—Matthew.
4. Joseph Smith—History.
5. The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

*The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.

I completely agree. The fact that someone does not even know if they have an opinion on something should be a huge red flag.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I completely agree.

How can something be "completely inaccurate" when it is directly and accurately quoted from published authoritative sources of the LDS Church?
When the person reading it is not understanding the context: needed background, other important information, authoritative degree, etc.

This really applies to all ideological groups, including every Protestant camp.

The fact that someone does not even know if they have an opinion on something should be a huge red flag.

All faiths have things about God that are not completely understood. The question "how are three different persons one God?" is a classic one in that regard.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I already checked out the site that stated the Bible was inerrant -- from Dallas Theological Seminary.

As for "false claims" about the Bible, feel free to tell me why the Book of Hebrews says the manna was kept in the Ark when it wasn't.

How can something be "completely inaccurate" when it is directly and accurately quoted from published authoritative sources of the LDS Church?

I know for a fact that the Book of Abraham -- which is Scripture for Mormons as within The Pearl of Great Price -- has three Gods involved with creation.

Introduction

THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE
A SELECTION FROM THE REVELATIONS,TRANSLATIONS, AND NARRATIONS OF JOSEPH SMITH, FIRST PROPHET, SEER, AND REVELATOR TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

The contents are as follows:
1. Selections from the Book of Moses.
2. The Book of Abraham*.
3. Joseph Smith—Matthew.
4. Joseph Smith—History.
5. The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

*The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois.

All Mormons do this.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

All Mormons do this.

WADR, you can’t possibly know what ALL Mormons do. Let’s stick to the facts.

 

[Mjh29]

All faiths have things about God that are not completely understood. The question "how are three different persons one God?" is a classic one in that regard.

The difference is this; I know I have faith in this truth, and would stand on it firmly; you told me you don't know if it is true, you don't know if you believe it, and you don't know if it could even be POSSIBLE to be true.

If you want to hold to this logic, I'm fine!!

I do not understand how God is 3 persons in one God, but I do believe it to be true, yes.

So, was God previously just a man? And please, by all means, let's use your standard! You don't have to know how it is true; do you believe it is true at all?

And even if you don't know if you believe it, do you believe it is possible that God was once just a man?

 

[Preacher4Truth]

WADR, you can’t possibly know what ALL Mormons do. Let’s stick to the facts.

Likewise, wadr, simmer down. "All" was used as a figure of speech and it wasn't meant to describe every single Mormon who's ever lived. This is a well-known trait of Mormon's, they deny their own teachings only to own it later.

I've stuck to the facts, you just knee-jerk reacted. Really no need for it IMHO.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

The difference is this; I know I have faith in this truth, and would stand on it firmly; you told me you don't know if it is true, you don't know if you believe it, and you don't know if it could even be POSSIBLE to be true.

If you want to hold to this logic, I'm fine!!

I do not understand how God is 3 persons in one God, but I do believe it to be true, yes.

So, was God previously just a man? And please, by all means, let's use your standard! You don't have to know how it is true; do you believe it is true at all?

And even if you don't know if you believe it, do you believe it is possible that God was once just a man?

Using plain English, tell me *how* are three persons are one God?
You cannot. It is a mystery (using the theological definition of that word).

We all have things about God we don't understand.

 

[Mjh29]

Using plain English, tell me *how* are three persons are one God?
You cannot. It is a mystery (using the theological definition of that word).

We all have things about God we don't understand.

Not asking you to explain HOW it works; just if it is true. Do you have faith in this truth?

And EVEN IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S OK!!!!!!

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE?!?!?!

If you asked me if I believe that God is 3 in 1 I would say yes.

If you asked me if I believed it is possible I would say yes.

I'm not asking you to tell me HOW it works, only if you believe that it is the truth.

And AGAIN even if you don't know if you believe it is true,

DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Not asking you to explain HOW it works; just if it is true. Do you have faith in this truth?

And EVEN IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S OK!!!!!!

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE?!?!?!

If you asked me if I believe that God is 3 in 1 I would say yes.

If you asked me if I believed it is possible I would say yes.

I'm not asking you to tell me HOW it works, only if you believe that it is the truth.

And AGAIN even if you don't know if you believe it is true,

DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE.

The *how* is important here. For me to even go into my personal thoughts on this matter would require much talk on the *how*.

I do believe that three are one God, but I don't believe the same *how* this is as you do. Which, in your eyes (if I'm understanding correctly), is enough to make me be un-saved. But you cannot explain to me *how* they are one in simple English because it's a mystery.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Likewise, wadr, simmer down. "All" was used as a figure of speech and it wasn't meant to describe every single Mormon who's ever lived. This is a well-known trait of Mormon's, they deny their own teachings only to own it later.

I've stuck to the facts, you just knee-jerk reacted. Really no need for it IMHO.

It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction on my part. You've said this more than once in this thread, and it doesn't help the cause for truth when we overgeneralize. Just want to be fair.

 

[Mjh29]

The *how* is important here. For me to even go into my personal thoughts on this matter would require much talk on the *how*

No... not really at all.

Hebrews 11:1

Faith does not require knowing any of the hows.
In fact, evidence of faith is that you do not know the hows but are personally convicted anyways.

Not asking you to explain HOW it works; just if it is true. Do you have faith in this truth?

And EVEN IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S OK!!!!!!

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE?!?!?!

If you asked me if I believe that God is 3 in 1 I would say yes.

If you asked me if I believed it is possible I would say yes.

I'm not asking you to tell me HOW it works, only if you believe that it is the truth.

And AGAIN even if you don't know if you believe it is true,

DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE.

So again, please answer the question.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

No... not really at all.

Hebrews 11:1

Faith does not require knowing any of the hows.
In fact, evidence of faith is that you do not know the hows but are personally convicted anyways.


So again, please answer the question.

So, in your beliefs, can a person be saved despite disagreeing with the Athanasian Creed on *how* three persons are one God?

 

[brakelite]

LDS Christians aren't Sola Biblia.

It wouldn't be so bad if the books they believed were scripture agreed with the Bible. But official LDS teaching is that not only there is other scripture other than the Bible, but they make the point as quoted earlier from LDS sources, that later revelations can and do supercede previous revelations. So truth not only grows, but can change as well. Now I can accept a growing understanding of truth that reveals a different perspective, for example on the Godhead, but I think we need to be wary of so called revelation that flat out denies and contradicts previous revelation.
As for your often made declaration that quotes from official LDS sources are inaccurate... Your personal faith as stated by your own lips appear to be in harmony with the majority of Christians in the person of Christ. Yet you then say official LDS sources which describe Christ differently to yourself, are inaccurate. Please describe in detail how it is inaccurate that God the father was once a man. Please describe in detail how it is inaccurate that Christ and Satan are brothers. Please describe in detail how it is inaccurate that humans were previous spiritual entities in another existence.

 

[Mjh29]

So, in your beliefs, can a person be saved despite disagreeing with the Athanasian Creed on *how* three persons are one God?

That's not the same question! Because your view on the mechanisms of the Trinity radically change who God is.
How the 3 persons are interrelated is a much, much harder question than "Was God a man?"

The 2 aren't even CLOSE!

The difference is it is possible to misinterpret one and not the other. One is complex, and requires breaking down of the persons of God, one is a simple yes or no "Was God a man" question.

Please explain why this yes or no question is just as complex as the interworkings of the Godhead.