From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS (Farkas) bashing/ Paul's vision/ prophets/ equivocating
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <lgil5jINNg80@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>
>
>>I have tried to use the Biblical definition for prophet, and have been 
>>castigated for presuming the Biblical definition of a prophet. In reply I
>>asked for the LDS definition of what constitutes a false prophet, and my
>>question went unanswered.
>
>How about this: 
>
>1. A prophet is a prophet when he speaks under the influence of the 
>   Holy Ghost. 
>
>2. A prophet is not a perfect person who doesn't err or sin.

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

>>ff> There is a major difference between bashing and discussions. For
>>ff> example, Anthony Rose made a claim...
>
>>Quoting about Jesus to answer a question about the LDS concept 
>>of the Father is meaningless.
>
>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.

The LDS always split the two up as two separate Gods until they are
pressed on the subject of the nature of the Father.  Then they write it
off by saying, "well, it doesn't matter because Jesus is God".  I was
trying to discuss the Father without allowing you to do this.  I was
unsuccessful.  Therefore, I determined that once again, a discussion about
the nature of God the Father was impossible.

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

Joseph Smith's position: " I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have
                           selected this text for that express purpose. I
                           will to declare I have always and in all
                           congregations when I have preached on the
                           subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality
                           of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for
                           fifteen years.
                           I have always declared God to be a distinct
                           personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct
                           personage from God the Father, and that the
                           Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a
                           Spirit; and these THREE constitute three
                           distinct personages and three Gods. If this is
                           in accordance with the New Testement, lo and
                           behold! we have THREE GODS anyhow, and they are
                           plural; and who can contradict it?
                           (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.370)

Bruce R. McConkie quotes this source in his books to prove the same point
that Joseph is trying to prove here, which is the same point that I am
trying to make.  Joseph declares that he ALWAYS taught this, and this IS
what the church teaches today according the Bishop I saw this past Sunday
evening in our two-hour discussion.  If you would like to talk to him
the number to that ward is (408) 927-9071.  The point is, that if we are
going to discuss the nature of God the Father, according to Mormonism,
He is a different God than Jesus.  Therefore, we should be able to
discuss the nature of God the Father without bringing in Jesus' nature.
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.

>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!

>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.  They teach that they are separate
Gods.  Are you denying this fact?  If you want to discuss theology, we
must know from what position you are coming from.  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.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc