From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS (Farkas) bashing/ Paul's vision/ prophets/ equivocating
Date: 19 Nov 1992 21:03:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual






The continued discussion with Anthony Rose regarding the issue, if God
the Father has a physical body or not.

I must say that we reached a point where we are repeating the same old issues 
over and over again. If there are no more "new" issues, it is not productive 
to continue. It appears that Anthony's bottom line issue is what we LDS believe.
His idea doesn't agree with what we believe. Since he is insisting that we
don't know what we believe in, any further discussion is futile.

So, here it goes!

>This still doesn't answer the question he asked which was, to you, what
>constitutes a FALSE prophet?

You are right! I did answer the wrong question. So here it is:

A believe that a false prophet is a person who is an enemy to God,
and one who attempts to frustrate the will of God. 

My personal problem with the EC defination of a false prophet is that
when it is applied, it makes some of the biblical prophets, false prophets.
Here is two example: 2 Kings 20:1-5 and Jonah 3:1-5,10 and 4:1-5.

However, I really don't care to discuss this issue. I would like to remain 
with the subject which you brought up that we are illogical when we say
that God the Father has a body.

>>Not to me, since I believe that Jesus is God.

>But you don't think that Jesus is the Father, and we were discussing
>the Father.  Therefore, your bringing in Jesus DID change the discussion
>we were having from THE FATHER to THE SON, and thus I made the above
>comment.

You questioned our logic regarding our belief that the Father has
a body. Jesus is God, and he has a body, therefore, it is not illogical
to believe that God the Father also has a body.

>The LDS always split the two up as two separate Gods until they are
>pressed on the subject of the nature of the Father.  

We didn't split any one up. We recognize God the Father and his Son to
be two separate individuals who posses the same godly attributes. The
Bible does support this very strongly. 

>>I will definately not confuse the Father and the Son! Do you remember? 
>>It is us who claim that the Father and the Son are two separate personages. 
>>However, we believe that they are the same "God"

>Are you sure you meant to say this?  This is certainly NOT LDS teachings.
>I was just talking with a Bishop from the San Jose Ward off Camden Ave,
>in San Jose on Sunday, and he told me that the LDS believe that the Father
>and the Son are two separate Gods.  

What we mean when we say that they are two separate Gods is that they are
two separate personages. If you would see the Son and the Father side by side 
you would see two separt personages. We do not believe that they are the same beings.
We do believe that they are the same God because they hold the same godly 
attributes.

>What you are saying above is totally contrary to what he told me. 

No, it is not. The problem is that you have a different definition of the
meaning of "two separate Gods". To you it means that there is two
beings, and two different Gods. To us it means that they are two separate
beings, but they are the same God because they hold the same godly
attributes. I hope that you get my point.

>Since what he told me is in accordance with Joseph Smith, the founder and >prophet of Mormonism, I have to believe what he said; and have to wonder 
>if you are just unaware of this LDS doctrine or if you are trying to 
>deceive us by saying what you have said above.

I am fully aware of LDS doctrine. There is no contradiction in what I 
said, and what Joseph Smith said. No, I am not trying to deceive you or
any one else. 

The problem is that you have your own idea what we believe in and there 
is nothing I, or anyone, can do to change it. Your mind is closed.

I am really troubled by your attitude. It shows a basic disrespect towards
me and others. 

Stuff deleted.

>Therefore, we 
>should be able to discuss the nature of God the Father without bringing in
>Jesus' nature. 

Wrong! Jesus came to reveal the Father. He constantly pointed to himself
when questions came up about God the Father. If we want to know the Father,
we need to look at Jesus. This is what the Bible says very plainly.

>And with this Mormon position, it is impossible for you to 
>say that Jesus is God with a body, therefore the Father is God with a body.
>Because what you really mean is that Jesus is A God with a body, and the
>Father is A God with a body.  Therefore you cannot logically make that
>statement.

First of all, you are going on a totally wrong assumptions regarding what we
believe about God the Son and God the Father. Secondly, you made an argument
that God the Father can't have a physical body because he couldn't be
the Almighty God, he would be restricted. Do you believe that Jesus is
restricted? I have a feeling that it is you who believe that God the Son
and God the Father are two different gods.

>>The reason I am pointing to Chist is that I do believe that he is God
>>(the Son). Not a different God, or a "little" god, but God in its fulness. 
>>The fact that he has a body doesn't limit him at all. One of the major
>>arguement put forth against the Father having a body is that it would be 
>>a limitation on him, therefore, He couldn't be the "Mighty God". 

>That fact was stated by your own prophet!

What fact! We do not believe that having a physical body in anyway
disqualify a person from being a God. It is you who believe this. Based
on your belief, Jesus can't be God, but is a lessor God, because he has
a body. We believe in no such thing! We believe that Jesus is the same God 
as God the Father, not because they are the same being, but because they 
have the same godly atributes. It is you who argues that Jesus and the 
Father are two separate Gods when you implied that Jesus is restricted 
because he has a physical body, while the Father is not. We do not share 
your beliefs.

>>Jesus is a perfect model of God, since he is in fact God. He is both man 
>>and God, and in this there is no conflict or contridiction. Now, if you 
>>believe that Jesus is really not God, or if he is a "limited" god, then 
>>your arguement from your point of view, that it is irrelevant that Jesus has 
>>a body, is indeed correct. Looking at Jesus we see no problem at all with
>>God the Father having a physical body. It is very logical, and not 
>>unbiblical (no smoking gun one way or the other). Do you get it now why
>>I am pointing to Jesus when the issue of God having a body comes up?
>>
>>With brotherly love,
>>
>>		Frank

>Are you sure that you are a Mormon?  Because the LDS church doesn't
>teach that Jesus is God the Father.  

I never said that Jesus is God the Father. What I said is, Jesus is
God, not a lessor God, but God in its fulness. He has a physical body and
it doesn't make him a little or different God from the Father.

Col 1:19
========
"For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"

Col 2:9
=======
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

>They teach that they are separate Gods. Are you denying this fact?
  
I already explained what we mean and what we don't mean by the plurality
of the Gods. One more time, there can be more then one persons who is 
God, because more then one can share the same godly attributes.

>If you want to discuss theology, we
>must know from what position you are coming from. 

I explained over and over again what I believe. If you are still confused,
I don't know what to do for you, because you are not listening.

>If you are a Mormon,
>then unless you deny this doctrine, that the Father and Son are two
>separate GODS, as Joseph Smith has told us above, you must discuss this
>from that point of view.

This is unfortunately one of the classical bashing methods. A person must
accept what someone else insist regarding what his/her beliefs are. Brother,
when are you going to listen and show respect for other peoples beliefs? Contrary to what you think, I do know what I believe in.

Now, if you really want to know what we believe in, please ask, and listen.
If you don't, have the decency and leave us alone.

With brotherly love,

		Frank