Continuing:>>>/lit/24962299>>>/lit/25016974
>>>/lit/25022588>>>/lit/25022592>>>/lit/25022595>>>/lit/25022598>>>/lit/25022600>>>/lit/25022602>>>/lit/25022604
>>18296640Both of those threads devolved into religious debates, which felt out of place to continue on /lit/
>>18296645The Words of Zenos in this parable alone are possibly the most succinct exposition of the entire doctrine of the LDS church
>Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me
>>18296666Is that from the Book of Mormon? I know Isaiah is excerpted profusely
>>18296672No, it's from the OT, and it basically denies the Mormon claim of becoming God
>>18296676>Ye are gods
>>18296679If you can't reconcile the Isaiah verse, then that means Mormon interpretation of "Ye are gods" is flat out wrong. Do you see how that works? Scripture doesn't contradict itself.
>>18296684>Scripture doesn't contradict itselfIndeed
>>18296686I'm waiting. Explain away the verse in Isaiah.
>>18296676There is only one divine essence, one deity, one God, and, he breathed life into us, to whom Jesus says, Ye are gods.
>>18296688>Explain awayScripture is not to be waved off like how you flippantly ignore Jesus quoting the old testament.
>>18296684>Mormon interpretation of "Ye are gods" is flat out wrongWhat interpretation do you speak of exactly? Is it in scripture?
>>18296692I'm not ignoring anything, it means that since failure to reconcile Isaiah in a viable framework presents itself in LDS thought, then that means the interpretation presented from the LDS on what Jesus meant is wrong. You can't have "It means we can become gods", because it contradicts what scripture already says. It doesn't work that way. >>18296693That "Ye are gods" for Mormons means "they can become gods"
>>18296696see>>18296689
>>18296696>That "Ye are gods" for Mormons means "they can become gods"source?>It doesn't work that way.Jesus would disagree.
>>18296704Jesus is saying "You can become a god, even though it would be after the Father, and He already said there will be nothing after Him"? Jesus is contradicting what the Father stated?
>>18296706>source?I can just feel the slipperiness rearing its head. Would you like to make the claim that Mormons do not, in fact, believe they can become gods?
>>18296707Two distinct meanings, like how Jesus is God in essence, but his person is not the same as God the father. We have the essence of life breathed into us of God, and we are therefore gods according to Jesus. Jesus was as one of us, yes, but also had God indwelling his spirit in him, him being a temple.If you are confounded by something as basic as the "Trinity" then other doctrines may give you similar trouble. It is no reason to doubt the veracity of the teachings of the savior, as the Jews did, and as Joseph Smith was and is doubted as well.>>18296710What?
>>18296640Joseph Smith was just another fraudster and only in America could a cult turn into a religion for the most dimwitted of Americans. Same thing with scientology.
>>18296715The New Testament is full of marvelous doctrines that are difficult for laypeople to get a handle on, especially without the Holy Ghost. It is no surprise that further developments are similarly received.
>>18296710>slipperinessCheck the OP for previous threads; if you think LDS are more slippery than Catholics for example (in the thread) you are mistaken.
>>18296714>Two distinct meanings, like how Jesus is God in essence, but his person is not the same as God the father. We have the essence of life breathed into us of God, and we are therefore gods according to Jesus. Jesus was as one of us, yes, but also had God indwelling his spirit in him, him being a temple.Then why would the Psalm verse frame it in a way of judgment? It seems more phrased for human rulers, not used in a universal sense. It's why Jesus uses it on the Pharisees. >If you are confounded by something as basic as the "Trinity" then other doctrines may give you similar trouble. It is no reason to doubt the veracity of the teachings of the savior, as the Jews did, and as Joseph Smith was and is doubted as well.I'm not confounded on the trinity, I thought you were a Mormon arguing for the LDS position. >>18296719Does it matter? I'm asking for reconciliation for a core Mormon tenet, and I'm not getting anything in that way. Besides, I spoke mistakenly, I thought that guy was a Mormon.
>>18296724So you say, just because something is in the Bible, doesn't mean it's true? Or, if it's only true in some cases, doesn't that still mean it is absolutely a true statement? And if that statement you say is absolutely true in some cases, you also say must be harmonized to something else the Bible says, why cannot >>18296666be harmonized similarly?
>>18296724>I'm not confounded on the trinityIf something that isn't specified in the Bible (like the "Trinity") can be reasonably derived from it, why cannot Mormon doctrine be also derived from the scriptures?
>>18296728Define "true", because putting forth a position of an interpretation, and then said interpretation contradicts scripture would naturally mean said interpretation is wrong. This isn't "I'm doubting Jesus's words", it's "You're misinterpreting the context of why he said them in the first place". >>18296730We keep beating around the bush here, but I'm flat out asking for a reconciliation with the Isaiah verse with Mormon doctrine. So far, I haven't gotten any.
>>18296736I'm asking for a source you find incoherent to scripture. The given interpretations have no contradiction with scripture as they are scripture-derived. >You're misinterpreting the context of why he said them in the first placeThat's what the Jews said about Jesus quoting scripture.
>>18296740>A sourceDude, can you please just google "Do Mormons believe if they can become gods".
>>18296736>We keep beating around the bush hereI have no reason not to represent my best. Why would I post if it was mere filler? I truly believe Mormonism is astounding and true and I only want to see it posted well. No argument is worth representing poorly, see OP threads.
>>18296745>Mormons believe they can become gods>Isaiah says no god came before him or is coming after himIt's that simple. This is the point of contention I'm bringing up. Mormon doctrine is flat out contradicting scripture.
>>18296742Best AI gave me was D&C 132>20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.It defines godhood differently from God's self, "Ye are gods", we are gods because we 1. have no end and 2. have agency, given of God. It's a completely different thing from saying we somehow usurp God's Godhood by being gods. They are two different word usages and both are sourced from scripture. How can you say "Ye are not gods" when scripture is quoted "Ye are gods"?
>>18296747There is no other deity/God as God is, we are not to be exalted to be as God is, but are gods.
>>18296747Isaiah can be represented as saying, there is no one to us as God is to us, almighty
>>18296747If Tolkien can be a Catholic and still say gods as governing angels are compatible with Catholicism and monotheism, why can't Joseph Smith? It is sound doctrine.
>>18296749No, you turned it into "usurping" when it's continuation. Meaning, since Mormons believe God is an exalted man, then man on earth would follow Him into becoming God too. The line doesn't stop and start, and since there's a successive pattern, Isaiah debunks this belief, since "after" isn't possible, nor is "before".>>18296751>>18296755Read above
>>18296751God is perfect intelligence. We can only be united to his spirit.
>>18296760>God is an exalted manIs Jesus not God?
>>18296762He is, but He wasn't born as man was. He's fully man and fully God. You can't just take any schmuck off the street and say "Hey, you can become God". Not happening.
>>18296760>Mormons believe God is an exalted manThat's a non-issue and a really obscure claim. Nowhere is that found in the scriptures. That's like saying Mormons all believe in Adam-God because Brigham Young said so. Not all Mormons even followed Brigham Young, not the LDS church after Brigham Young even.A major feature of Mormonism is there is free ground for speculation on things that aren't binding scripture, so any conception is allowable, where most Christians are overly-close-minded. The opposite problem is sometimes strange ideas take moderate hold in popularity at least, but that is in every church.
>>18296724"Ye are gods" refers explicitly to our having agency, which us and angels alone have.
>>18296764It's kind of a different paradigm; where strange Mormon doctrines represent the faith badly to the outside, they also muddy the waters of the purity of the scriptural witness, of the Bible, also the Book of Mormon, &c.
>>18296764>That's a non-issue and a really obscure claimNo, it isn't. It's a core doctrine of Mormonism. You're speaking either from a position of not knowing anything about LDS beliefs (which I can understand, they're cagey with how defined they want to make their beliefs for public viewing), or you're a Mormon slip-n-sliding when it suits you, which isn't my first time dealing with that kind of engagement in regard to Mormons. Either way, the contention of Isaiah still stands for my argument, and it's fundamentally at odds with the prophetic authority Mormonism lays claim to.
>>18296779>they're cagey with how defined they want to make their beliefs for public viewingMost churches have comparable dissonance with their scriptures. It's a general problem. Mormons being different have it manifest in strange ways, but treating the problem there can only help fix the problem elsewhere.
>>18296782God being no respecter of persons, it makes sense that he would give them over to a foolishness wholly their own, as other Christians are given over to error as well. The key is, Mormon scripture is extremely useful on its own, for bringing any reader closer to understanding and following God, and especially at helping people gain the wisdom (the same wisdom Joseph asked for) to navigate difficulties arising from man-made doctrines.
>>18296779>you're a Mormon slip-n-sliding when it suits youOnly earnestness can prove against that.
>>18296782Mormons are unique, because their model is one of "ongoing revelation", so the problem becomes that nothing is stable to hold on to. What was once truth yesterday, becomes discarded tomorrow. Regardless of difference for Christian denominations, they hold fast to established doctrines and scripture, but Mormons are more loosey goosey with what they want to define as true and what can hold. There's no real consistency for their prophetic proclamations, and what allows them to shapeshift to survive in the modern age only tightens the noose further for their credibility in truth.
>>18296792>the problem becomes that nothing is stable to hold on to. What was once truth yesterday, becomes discarded tomorrowAlmost an imitation of the JW's problem but on key issues it's not
>>18296792>ongoing revelation>what allows them to shapeshift to survive in the modern age only tightens the noose further for their credibility in truthThere's a reason they aren't doing as well as they'd like. I say though, their scriptures being something that can't change, they are what hold up to me, and whichever way the wind blows, they are at the center of my religious understanding, and I seeing God in them only see their potential.
>>18296792>Mormons are more loosey goosey with what they want to define as true and what can holdThe worst trend in the church is when they say scripture is not as good as the "living prophet".
>>18296798Why not just believe in Christ without LDS beliefs? You lose nothing but falsehoods. I appreciate that Mormons do actually want to believe in Christ, but unless they can embrace full truth, they can never truly be free. >and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.Rather than a cataclysmic outcome that you're abandoning salvation, you're actually embracing God more than before, and that can only be a good thing. I think I only ask that you give more discernment into LDS claims, because I realize some random shithead on 4chan isn't going to change your mind overnight. All I want to say is that if your heart truly desires the truth unblemished from God, you'll get there.
>>18296820>Why not just believe in Christ without LDS beliefs?I could if I wanted to, but so much of the clarity of my understanding of the Gospel (not so much key points, but ability not to fall into common traps) comes from my time spent studying the Mormon scriptures (especially the Doctrine and Covenants, which are as close to a Bible part 3 as exists, and are equally wise to the Qur'an at its best) (not to say the Book of Mormon itself is a lesser testament than Joseph Smith's own revelations).
>>18296842The ability not just to produce the Book of Mormon (which is an anomaly) but also to have consistently good revelations at seemingly random intervals that don't reek of the inconsistency you find in forgeries, and that are justified all together in their wisdom, is not something to be taken lightly in judging whether Joseph Smith is false or not.
>>18296820>You lose nothing but falsehoods.The Book of Mormon itself recuses itself of being binding on the reader, by saying any faults it has are the mistakes of men (on the title page), so it is all only for the benefit of the reader to reckon with without fear of falling into traps in misinterpreting it. Plus the work spent interpreting it pays dividends in trying to understand other scriptures.
>>18296820Paul says "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." Joseph Smith is somewhat the opposite; none of what he says is spoonfeeding us doctrine, and a lot of it is left for ourselves to work out independently. Alot of Mormon problems come from people trying to translate the new stuff into baby food that can't be questioned.
>>18296855>>18296863That's assuming Joseph Smith's legitimacy as a prophet. If I were you, I would start raising some serious eyebrows at the whole Book of Abraham translation debacle.
>>18296888Book of Abraham problems should be the first thing people address when trying to understand Joseph Smith. If it's made up, even by a supposed revelatory process, it's just stupid and not worth the time. And so few Mormons even have a testimony or understanding of it.I think the clues surrounding that are enough to justify believing in it. I'd be curious to answer particular criticisms.
>>18296897The name "Olimlah" in BoA sounds like it comes from a different place and time than all the other names that would have to be made up for the Book of Mormon, so much different that it sticks out.
>>18296897A big thing for me is the physicality of the papyri. If the Book of Abraham can be accepted, it makes it that much easier to hold the view that there were actual plates.
>>18296897It also clashes so much with everything in Mormonism previous to it that it feels like an outside source added to the mix that Joseph Smith has to justify, rather than a sort of forged manifesto of Smith's own ideas. All of Smith's original thought postcedes the translations, and doesn't precede them.
>>18296909For instance; Smith prays for wisdom; God says "here you go" and gives us extremely challenging yet equally rewarding material nobody expected.
>>18296899You can just make that up, though, and we have archeology, linguistics, and genetics. Nothing in the Book of Mormon matches up with reality.
>>18296916
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroni,_Comoros
If Nag Hammadi can have the Gospel of Thomas, why can't Joseph Smith have the Book of Mormon?
>>18296917If the Book of Mormon is on Africa. Why didn’t Joseph Smith mention it? Everything in the Book of Mormon happens in America like with Cumorah, and I can just read Ethiopian writings on their history. Joseph Smith was not a saintly, intelligent, or good man. He did not deserve to be a Prophet. Moroni was angel created by Joseph Smith.I’ll admit some of the Mormon girls are attractive, but the religion is false.>>18296925I trust the Gospel of Thomas 100% more than the Book of Mormon. The Gospel of Thomas is actually on early Christianity like the rest of early apocrypha not that means it’s true. A lot of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas are in the canonical gospel and the unique material in the Gospel of Thomas isn’t proven to be objectively false. It’s useful for discussing how early Christianity developed. The same is with any apocrypha or ancient religious book.For example, the Quran is better than the Book of Mormon. The Quran is actually historical and based on the Old Testament, New Testament, early apocrypha, related legends and oral history. It’s actually accurate on the history of Arabia with Thamud, Ad, or Saba. The Book of Mormon is not historical or based on early Christianity. I’d read the Gospel of Thomas or the Quran anytime over the Book of Mormon.
>>18296962You should read the Qur'an, it tells of the ancient Sabian people, which are generally a mystery as to who it refers to; it refers to the people of the Book of Mormon, right across the Red Sea.Also the Qur'an is revelation of God and perfect and infallible, of course God made it strange in its own way, so you have to seek out a proper translation; most in English are worse than most English Bibles even, and they are all warped by the slant of anti-Christian hadith, like how the Jews warp the OT to be anti-Jesus. The Qur'an doesn't teach the major Christological errors most Christians accuse it of (and most Muslims erroneously believe). Muhammad was a noble prophet with a great chapter of human history, and fulfilled the statement about Ishmael being at odds with everybody and everybody at odds with him, being that Arabic as a language to this day is such a segmented culture from everyone else.I recommend the Rodwell Qur'an but it's wrong a tiny bit.
>>18296962>Joseph Smith was not a saintly, intelligent, or good man. He did nothing less defensible than Muhammad; both were edge cases meant to prove the Holy Ghost guides people to do thing that seem a stretch from normalcy. >He did not deserve to be a Prophet.If you actually read him you can tell he has nothing really wrong with him and is good natured. This one chapter, everything lives or dies by it:https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng
>>18296965Arabs are so proud of the fact that you can only read the Qur'an in Arabic; they fail to see that the problem is they are not able to understand it well enough to translate it without detracting errors.
>>18296962>early ChristianityEarly Christianity had the Holy Ghost, which is timeless.
>>18296962The people are actually fun to be around, which can't be said for any other denomination
>>18296977Everyone else is like Jews, where the unwritten rule #1 is "We don't talk about that [Jesus]".
One thing I find curious is that the Book of Mormon makes large sweeping claims of American civilization, but zero archaeological evidence has been found. As I understand, this has caused the church to try to frame the book as "theologically framed", but how exactly do you frame the whole chronicling the Book of Mormon puts forward for civilizations in theological terms? The text itself highly insists on a true historical recounting.
>>18296962>If the Book of Mormon is on Africa. Why didn’t Joseph Smith mention it?If it was an American book for American Indians, or was revealed from the start to be for Africans, there would always be the lingering doubt that it was actually a forgery made by a people foreign to the recipients. The fact that it only makes sense to be from Africa instead even though they got the geography wrong based on assumptions, lends credence to the fact that it is from God, and had to be given without the direct medium of white people. It really is first and foremost for Africans; it is one book they as a whole could reckon with and in a generation intellectually develop and catch up to everybody else on a lot of issues.>>18296987>the church to try to frame the book as "theologically framed"It kind of works that way, sort of like how Paradise Lost and Pilgrim's Progress is a framework for exposition; the things the Book of Mormon exposits especially in the fine details are uniquely spiritual and potent, which is part of why it has managed to endure in spite of so much held against it.
>>18296987>The text itself highly insists on a true historical recounting.It's more of a retrospective narration of Mormon (then Moroni) than like the Bible; this is why the Book of Mormon has twice as much Jesus before Jesus than you would expect, and the Old Testament half as much (as it was written before and could only predict so much as was possible even with the Holy Ghost).
