| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| ADAM IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL AND THE ANCIENT OF DAYS, THE TRINITY THEORY MEANS THAT THE ANCIENT OF DAYS CANNOT BE GOD OR JESUS CHRIST |
|
The Mormon Challenge Monday, May 2 Hello Gary, I went through your table of comparison between the LDS (Mormon) and your particular interpretations and would like to clarify some points. Subject: Ancient of Days You have written: "BIBLEComments: The passages in Daniel 7 don't support your interpretation that the Ancient of Days is God Himself. And that fact is specially true if you believe in the Trinity theory. 1. In verse 9, thrones were prepared. Judging by the subsequent verse 10, it appears that these thrones were prepared for the Ancient of days and the Son of Man. So, there are two persons meeting for some sort of a final account as it also mentions that the books were open. That meeting seems to be taking place on the earth as it mentions that the Son of Man descends with the clouds and is brought before the Ancient of days. Some questions arise: Is this the final judgment? If so, is God the Most High coming down to sit on a throne upon the earth to judge? Or, will the final judgment be taking place in heaven where the throne of God the Most High is? 2. The word ancient is defined by linear time count. That is an ancient person is one that was born a long, long time ago. Therefore, that person is so old that can be called ancient. Unless the word ancient has a different meaning, it cannot be applied to God because God is not old, He is infinite. Being infinite means He is not bound by time, therefore there is no counting of age, so we cannot call Him old or ancient. The terms "of days" also refer to time, linearly counted. Again, God is not bound by time, the Bible says He is everlasting, eternal, not ancient, much less of days. 3. Since we cannot apply the term very old, or ancient to God, then there must be another person that was bound by time and is very old. That person can only be Adam. He is truly ancient, as he became bound by time, got old and is, in fact, the oldest of all men. Not even the Savior is older than him if we consider all those were born upon this earth. Also, Adam was not born like all of us. When he came to be upon this earth as a mortal he was already old, and we don't know how much time passed while he was in the Garden of Eden. So, the term ancient fits well to him: a) He was already old (an adult) when he began his mortal existence; b) As a mortal, Adam was bound by time as anyone upon this earth, and therefore became old as anyone else. 4. In verse 22 we see that the "...Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High;" Notable here is the fact that the saints are referred as the saints of the Most High, clearly indicating that the Ancient of days is a different person, otherwise it would not be necessary to mention Most High. 5. According to the Trinity theory, Ancient of days could not possibly be God the Son because the passage says He is coming with the clouds to meet the Ancient of days himself. It could not possibly be God the Father either because, according to the Trinity belief, they are one in substance, so as the Son of Man is coming on the clouds so does the Father. If that theory was true God would be, at the same time, descending with the clouds and sitting on a throne on the earth. Even if you explain that God can split Himself in two, He would still be rendering account to Himself. So, if God (the Son of Man) is coming from heaven with the clouds, then the Ancient of days, that is already on the earth, has got to be a different person than God. 6.The scriptures don't really say that the Ancient of days is God Himself as you have mentioned. That, is an interpretation. And, unless you are a prophet called by God and are speaking on the condition of a prophet, by the Holy Ghost, then it is only an interpretation and is not true. On Doctrine Reply 1. There are thrones prepared or set up in verse 9, but there is no mention of the Son of Man until verse 13, when He comes with the clouds of heaven. Verses nine through 11 present the Ancient of Days sitting in judgment of which the Son is not a part at that time. In verses 13 and 14, the Ancient of Days gives to the Son of Man dominion "which is an everlasting dominion," and a kingdom "which shall not be destroyed." Adam does not have a dominion or a kingdom in relation to this earth or any other place that is His to give to any person. Only God has dominion and a kingdom and the power to grant it. This same action by God is seen in Psalm 2:6-9, Psalm 110:1-2; Matthew 11:27; 28:18; John 3:35. Daniel previously defines who the person is who grants a kingdom that will be forever: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." Daniel 2:44-45 (KJV) Daniel 7:13 states that "one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven," not that He descends with the clouds of heaven. He does not come with the clouds of earth but with the clouds of heaven which are clouds of glory, like the Shekinah that led Israel during the Exodus, and could very well include the heavenly host of angels. The scene takes place in heaven, where in verses 9-11 it is God who judges kingdoms of the earth. Adam has no place in a position of judgment over this earth. The idea that he does is not found in the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but is a product of the Living prophets, along with the claim that Adam is Michael the archangel, which was a claim made by Joseph Smith, D.& C. 107:54. However, Joseph Smith also claimed to have received a revelation, that has been canonized in the Doctrine And Covenants 137, which is the Vision of the Celestial Kingdom, and originally stated the following: "The heavens were opened upon us and I beheld the celestial Kingdom of God, . . . I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin . . ." The Diary of Joseph Smith, January 21, 1836 As canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, the revelation has been changed, but not by Joseph Smith, to read as follows: ". . . I saw father Adam and Abraham, and my father and mother, my brother Alvin . . ." Joseph Smith claimed to have seen two separate people, Adam and Michael, who are in fact the same person in Mormon theology. Adam is Michael and is also the Ancient of Days. The revelation as canonized is not the same as the original, the words "and Michael" having been deleted, but not having been changed by Joseph Smith as a correction and with no explanation being presented at the time of its canonization. The revelation was altered after 1852 under the watch of Brigham Young, who also taught that Adam was Michael, the Ancient of Days and also God Himself, so the two original foundational prophets of the Mormon church were unable to present a clear teaching on the issue. The current revelation has been canonized but is a falsified version of the original which should have been rejected, but even the original was false in relation to its definition of Adam and Michael being two different persons. Just another "error" by the Living Prophets in relation to the foundational description of Adam. 2, 3, 4. You state that the person being referred to as the Ancient of days was one "that was born a long, long time ago." But that is a presumption not supported in the text, because that concept is applied in relation to a definition of "ancient" as necessarily indicating old age that had a beginning as birth. In Mormon theology, every human being was born a spiritual being in the pre-existence, so you insert that belief into the verses, where it is not supported by the text. You have presented an eisegetical interpretation - which is the insertion into the text an idea that comes from outside the content of the text. Birth is not a necessary component of the term "ancient". By the same token, the term "old" does not necessarily mean a person of wizened stature who is visibly aged in relation to a specified period of time. You use those definitions in order to support your claim, but they are not entirely accurate. I realize that you adopt the teaching of the prophets, but those issues are their problems as well. However, the claim is rendered moot by Daniel 2:44-45 which defines God as the One who grants the kingdom to the Son of Man and is, by that very action, the Ancient of Days. I presume that you are looking forward to becoming old, wrinkled and feeble, so that upon your exaltation you will still retain that appearance for all of eternity. At this point your logic is flawed, because Adam was not the oldest person that has ever lived. Adam lived to be 930, but Jared lived to be 962, Methuselah lived to be 969 and Noah lived 950 years, so they were much more qualified from an age standpoint to be the Ancient of Days. If the qualification for "ancient" is old, then Methuselah was the best qualified in that respect for he was the most ancient in days of any human being and would have had the most aged appearance. Noah would be a much better candidate, as he was the restorer of the human race, corresponding to the Book of Mormon as the restoration of the Mormon gospel message. You do not know where Adam fit into the genealogy of his family, since you do not know whether he was the second or possibly even the last of God the Father's sons born in the pre-existence and you do not know how long he lived in that state. He could have lived for millions of years in the pre-existence, but like his brother(s) before or after him, they could also have lived for millions of years also. Since Mormon doctrine has no idea how long it took God the Father and his wives to procreate all the spirits of every human being there is no way to make a comparison to his age. Perhaps he was only a very young man in his teens when he came to earth. Jesus Christ, who was the first born of the spirit children is older, although His physical body is younger than that of Adam. But your implication is that the effects of time manifest themselves as signs of aging even in the spirit form. I would not want that idea to become public if I were hoping to make new converts. The Mormon doctrines state that unlike Jesus Christ, whose spirit came to earth in order to inhabit a mortal body, Adam did not have a mortal body when he came with one of his wives. They were both in their spirit bodies when they began their sojourn on the earth, but were gradually infused with the temporal nature of their earthly environment, by means of which they obtained their physical bodies. But, all of that aside, the reality is that it is claimed that Jesus Christ has already obtained His exaltation to godhood in the pre-existence and Adam has not, so, Jesus Christ has authority over Him and again, Adam has no kingdom or dominion to give to the Son. Nothing is said in the Book of Mormon or the Bible regarding Adam being Michael, and the Ancient of Days is not even mentioned in the Book of Mormon. You have the Living Prophets to present that belief, which you can only hope is correct, since the subject has been thrown into confusion by the two most important prophets of the Mormon church. 5. You apply the wrong definition of the Trinity to your arguments, so you will always come to the wrong conclusion. You apply the Mormon concept of God to the equation, but that only redefines the Trinity by the Mormon concept and you come to the wrong conclusion because the Mormon God is defined differently than the Trinitarian God. God is infinite in Orthodox theology, but He is not in Mormon theology, because He is restricted by His body. He is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. His physical nature restricts the nature of his attributes including that of knowledge, because He cannot apprehend information from all extents at the same time. He is ever increasing in knowledge, but never fully complete in knowledge. In Trinitarian theology, God is not splitting Himself in two and He is not rendering accounts to Himself, as I have previously noted in relation to the claim that Jesus Christ prayed to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane. [SEE: Previous Communication] 6. Daniel 2 makes it quite clear who is the Ancient of Days, so an interpretation is not the issue. The issue is simply where you wish to place the authority for your beliefs. You have chosen to place that authority in trust with those who claim to be prophets within the context of the Mormon church. When you vest authority within a person who claims to speak the words of God, but is later found to have spoken error or a lie, then it cannot be assumed that the same prophet can be trusted to have spoken any truth or to speak the truth of any correction or restatement of presumed fact or any new revelation. If a prophet is acceptable under those conditions, then you have effectively undermined any claim the it is necessary to accept the Mormon gospel as it is currently configured, because you don't know if it has been transmitted through the foibles of the Living Prophet or whether it has been truthfully presented. You hope that it has and you use the subjective response of you emotions as the validation that it is true, because it feels right in relation to what you wish to believe about yourself and how you wish things to be in the next life. Trusting the prophets who speak error or falsely, is trusting in human beings, substituting for the arm of God an arm of flesh: "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord." Jeremiah 17:5 (KJV) The Mormon Challenge Monday, July 28 Hi Gary, You have written: "2, 3, 4. You state that the person being referred to as the Ancient of days was one "that was born a long, long time ago." But that is a presumption not supported in the text, because that concept is applied in relation to a definition of "ancient" as necessarily indicating old age that had a beginning as birth. In Mormon theology, every human being was born a spiritual being in the pre-existence, so you insert that belief into the verses, where it is not supported by the text. You have presented an eisegetical interpretation - which is the insertion into the text an idea that comes from outside the content of the text. Birth is not a necessary component of the term "ancient". By the same token, the term "old" does not necessarily mean a person of wizened stature who is visibly aged in relation to a specified period of time. You use those definitions in order to support your claim, but they are not entirely accurate. I realize that you adopt the teaching of the prophets, but those issues are their problems as well."Comment: Some points to clarify: 1. In my explanation I didn't interpret anything as to the terms Ancient of Days. Rather, I used their current meaning and definition to show you that they cannot possibly be attributed to an eternal being. In other words my reading of the term is direct to the meaning and definition. The only being that fits that definition of the term is Adam, as he is the oldest of all men that lived upon this earth. You, on the other hand, make assumptions as to what the terms may mean. You affirm that Ancient doesn't really mean Ancient. That put you in the position of the one that is inserting different meaning because the Bible doesn't have an explanation of the terms anywhere else. So anything else that you attribute to the term is an assumption, or an extrapolation based on some beliefs. My explanation starts with the terms premise: To explain that something ancient is very old, is logical and accepted by anyone that has a reasonable knowledge of the English language. This is a FACT, not an interpretation. Your explanation starts with the attribution premise: To explain that ancient doesn't really mean ancient you need to be based on an assumption that the being which is receiving the attribution is not really an aged person. Therefore, your conclusion is based on the premise that, since God is not old or ages, the term cannot possibly mean ancient. As it pertains to the meaning of the term, your explanation is an interpretation, not necessarily a fact or a truth. In other words, because you believe that God cannot be old or very old, then the term cannot mean ancient. That seems to be a circular reasoning. By doing this you first attribute the term to God, then you explain what it is. You could only do that if you knew the mind of God and knew for sure that the term is attributed to Him and is what you say it is. Since there is no other explanation of the term in the Bible, and you are not a prophet, that makes it an interpretation based on your beliefs. Which may, or may not be true. Since the term is not explained in the Bible, that makes your explanation something made up. If you don't interpret the passages by your beliefs, you definitely cannot ignore the fact that the term Ancient refers to passage of TIME, aging. So, if you don't put your interpretation on them, you will have to use logic. Which logic, states: God, no matter how you picture Him, is TIMELESS. Therefore, He is NOT ancient because he is not bound by time. Someone that is ancient, is someone that aged. God is eternal, and, according to your own doctrine, God was not born, He has no beginnig of ending, therefore He cannot possibly be ancient, as he doesn't age. He is ever present. God is not old or young, these are adjectives are used to describe or qualify age. If the author of the term used Ancient of Days, he did so with a purpose. The purpose is to describe that person. And Ancient is not a description of God. The Bible doesn't say so. And if you say that it does, that is your interpretation. The fact remains that, as pertaining to this earth, Adam is the oldest of all human beings that ever lived upon this earth. That, with no shadow of a doubt, makes him ancient. The other point is that he is the father of the human race. THOSE are facts found in the Bible, they cannot be spun, or contradicted. 2. I don't think I wrote that Adam is giving the kingdom to anyone, that is your assumption. According to modern revelation from God, Adam is the Patriarch of the human family and, as such, He has some account to give to the Lord of His stewardship. He will sit in council and give that account to the Son of Man. Then, as the scriptures say, the kingdom will be given to the saints (the scriptures doesn't say by Adam, neither did I). And then the saints will reign over the earth under Christ the King of Kings (our High Priest after the ORDER of the Melchizedek Priesthood). Over whom they will be reigning? I will let you think about that. For them to reign, they will have to have power, or delegation of power given to them, which power is the Priesthood of God in which you don't believe. 3. I am sure you will try to spin this one, but see what Peter said: 1 Pet. 2: 9
On Doctrine Reply My point was that you used a meaning based on what you wished the verse to support, but that is not the only possible meaning. I don't deny that the term ancient can apply to a person of old age calculated from their point of birth, but in this situation, that is not the case, because Daniel 2:44-45 predefines who is referred to as the Ancient of Days and that is God Himself. All of the other discussion about Adam is irrelevant to the issue. Yes, I was jerking you around in relation to the other Patriarchs that I mentioned, but only to show you that the criteria you were using were selective based on what you wished the outcome to be. You selected the criteria and definitions that would support the pre-defined explanation provided by Joseph Smith, but you ignored the previous Scripture that provided the actual identification of the Ancient of Days. You did exactly what I have said all along that you are doing, which is to place your trust in the pronouncements of the prophets which now have been installed as more authoritative than the Scripture, and then you commence the search to find a foundation for what they say. Mormons wish to have it both ways, by claiming their scripture as their foundation, but then ignoring that scripture and running to the Living Prophets for new interpretations and new revelations. You claim that I don't accept the term "ancient" as being old, but you misunderstand what I said. I did not say that ancient did not mean of a long period of time, but I said it does not come with a necessary attribution of birth as the starting point. That is what you bring to the definition from outside the verse. Nothing is said in the verse about birth being the starting point as the definition of ancient or that ancient even applies to a time frame in relation to this earth. Not only do you bring the concept of birth into the equation, you apply that birth to this temporal life, so you presume that ancient must apply to Adam as the oldest of the human beings that have been born, but others are ancient also and you ignore that possibility. The verse notes a specific person who is ancient, but it does not necessarily refer to the most ancient. One issue that you have not considered is the fact that you are looking only at this life as the source of the Ancient of Days, while ignoring the most significant source of ancient age in your theology, which is the pre-existence. You believe that all human spirits were literally born in the pre-existence, so they all have a point of birth, that if known would result in an accurate calculation of their ages in relation to each other and all would be more ancient than the temporal body of Adam, who was not even born in this world but had his spirit infused by the temporal nature of this world resulting in the acquisition of humanity. I guess there was a certain point at which he was not a human being but then suddenly was, but it was not in relation to birth. I noted that you do not know where Adam fit into the sequential chain of births in the pre-existence, because he could have been the last to have been born, since the spirits do not come to earth in the order that they were born, Jesus Christ being the best example, who was born on earth after Adam came to earth, but was actually the first born in the pre-existence. If you look at the pre-existence as the defining factor in relation to the Ancient of days as being old, then Jesus Christ is the best definition possible, since He is the oldest, although He would be giving the kingdom to Himself. However, since the Book of Mormon defines a modalistic God who only appears as Jesus Christ and gives the appearance of fathering himself, then it would be no problem for Him to give the appearance of giving the Kingdom to Himself. However, none of the speculations can even be considered unless you ignore Daniel 2:44-45 as the biblical definition. The Orthodox God has as one of His attributes an infinite and limitless attribution of age which is the most consequential definition of ancient that can be applied, because it is ancient with no beginning to which a length of time can be applied. The fact that He is infinite from time past does not invalidate the reality that He is still ancient. He is just not defined as ancient based on a starting point such as birth. He is infinitely ancient. The Mormon God does not have that attribute in any sense of the meaning, because He has not always existed as God but was once a man. It might be claimed that he has existed eternally by means of the entities that make up the material used in the formation of the universe, as I noted in a previous communication, but that eternity was as unformed material not yet formed into a human spirit and not as a God which He had to become as a future event, and became only at a specific point in history. The Mormon God had a beginning, not only at a point of birth in His own pre-existence, but at the point he transformed from a physical human to a God of tabernacle. The Mormon God is not "timeless" because He has not always existed as a God therefore He cannot have existed from eternity as a God. He has existed from a very long time ago, but not from eternity as infinity. The Mormon God is from a specific point in time, not timeless. The fact that the Orthodox God is timeless in relation to His existence, because He exists outside the restrictions of time as a past-present-future state, does not mean that He is timeless from the viewpoint of His creation. His creation is subject to time, and the actions of God in relation to that creation are viewed from the perspective of time by the creation. You mention the issue of interpretation on my part, but you must also consider your own, because Adam is not mentioned in the verse and nowhere else is Adam connected with the Ancient of Days. The Book of Mormon does not even mention the term. Your definition comes solely from the claim of Joseph Smith, not from any Scripture. You place your trust in the Living Prophet. However, the issue is moot because God is identified as the subject in Daniel 2:44-45, which you ignore in order to place the authority in the hands of your prophets. It is only through the statements of your prophets that you define the priesthood as found in the Mormon church as being power. The priesthood and its elements, as defined in the Mormon church, is not the priesthood found in the Old Testament by even the most remote stretch of the imagination, and the imposition of the Melchizedek priesthood as a matriculation from the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood is not found in the Old Testament or Jewish history or the Book of Mormon. It is claimed that the Melchizedek priesthood was held by the sons of Moses, and the Mormon church teaches that the original name was the "Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God." Both of those assertions are not found in the Bible, but come from statements by your prophet Joseph Smith which he incorporated into the Book of Mormon. Why did God give Jesus Christ the Melchizedek priesthood (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20), if He already possessed it and it had been functioning under His name since the time of Moses? How could He be given the priesthood twice? The Scripture states the name once in Psalms and three times in Hebrews and then gives credit to the possessor in the following verses: "For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of most high God . . ." Hebrews 7:1 (KJV) ". . . and he was priest of the most high God." Genesis 14:18 (KJV) It is only the Book of Mormon through Joseph Smith that a different name for the Melchizedek priesthood is stated and places it within the religious liturgy of Israel, which is not part of the historical record of the Bible and is not part of the historical record of the Jews. It might be said that the knowledge of its existence has been lost or removed from the Bible and history, and that means an admission will have to be made that the Bible is not authoritative on the subject, however, that would be a claim without a foundation and would also be a belief without a foundation. There is not any reference in the Bible or the Book of Mormon regarding the concept of "priesthood power," the "power of the priesthood" or that the saints reign in the kingdom through the power of the priesthood. Those concepts come from your prophets, not from the Bible or the Book of Mormon. The priesthood was not part of the original organization of the Mormon church, and priests were not ordained in the church until the second year of its existence. High Priests, Seventies and Presidents were not offices in the church until that time, so the church was not established on the foundation or authority of the priesthood. You must ride a merry-go-round of spin to support your claims about 1 Peter 2:9. The verse says nothing about the saints reigning in the kingdom as priests by means of the power of the priesthood. You have said that I interpret according to my belief, but then you place the entire Mormon priesthood teaching into 1 Peter 2:9 - presuming by equivocation that it belongs there, because it "fits well with the concept that the saints will be reigning after the kingdom is given to them." But it only fits your theology based on the pronouncements of your prophets, after you have rewritten the Scripture to say and agree with the predetermined conclusion. You have your own issues of "spin" to deal with that you do not even realize, because you have granted to your prophets the entire spectrum of truth, including their own claim that they are the only arbiters of truth. In the case of 1 Peter 2:9, my "spin" starts with a problem that you must resolve in your theology, by explaining how the Mormon church could have been founded without the priesthood, before you can claim that the Mormon priesthood is even a legitimate part of Mormon belief or a part of 1 Peter 2:9 or any other reference in the Bible. There is an additional problem which you must also consider. A doctrine or belief is not just an application to a specific or special circumstance, because it has much broader implications that require that it be consistent with the elements of other doctrines so that there will be no conflict. Conflicts between doctrines or beliefs indicate that one or the other, or even both, are in error. A doctrine or belief always takes you somewhere apart from the issue with which it deals, and the claims of your prophets regarding 1 Peter 2:9 take you to a place that you do not wish to go. In the Mormon church, the Priesthood is the prerogative of worthy male members and includes the two Aaronic and Melchizedek divisions. The Aaronic or "preparatory priesthood" being held by all worthy males and the Melchizedek or "high priesthood" being held by only those who have qualified themselves. Possession of the priesthood authorizes the man to act on behalf of God in relation to spiritual matters over that which he has a responsibility, which in its most basic mode is himself, his wife, his children and his relatives if they are not Mormons and have not been baptized, which he can accomplish posthumously either himself or through another person acting as a proxy. This "priesthood authority" extends into the after life. Since the man is resurrected first, he acts according to his "priesthood authority" and is the one who has the power to call his wife to resurrection or to deny her resurrection. She will be resurrected, but not as his wife and not to exaltation. The woman does not have priesthood authority, since it is vested in the man. At the resurrection, if a person is a single male with no wife, then they will be resurrected but not achieve exaltation, and if the person is a single woman, they will be resurrected but, like the man, they will not be exalted, and both will be become "ministering angels" which means they will be servants to those who are exalted. The problem with which you must deal is that the Bible states that every believer is a royal priest, which you admit, but that includes both men and women. The men are not said to have priesthood authority over women and the women are not said to have priesthood authority over men. They are priests in their own right. Unless you redefine the priesthood in Mormon doctrine to be something other than what it is now, you have difficulty explaining how women are royal priests and the manner in which they function, because in today's Mormon world priesthood authority is only valid as transmitted through the man. Women are not priests in the Mormon church and they are not part of a royal priesthood. There is not one reference in the Bible or the Book of Mormon that says that Adam was a priest or that he was given the keys to the priesthood. The same is true of Peter. The Bible does not say that Peter received the keys to the priesthood, it says: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19 (KJV) Nothing is said by Jesus Christ about giving to Peter the keys to the priesthood. He would be given the keys to "the kingdom of heaven" and not the kingdom of earth. Again, you have unloaded the teachings of your prophets into the verse where nothing is said about those teachings, which means, like I have said all along, you consider the pronouncements of you prophets to be authoritative over the Scripture. The name of Peter is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the concept of the keys to the priesthood is not mentioned there either because the definition of keys being the priesthood is the product of your prophets. The prophets are very consistent by their insertion into verses doctrines that are originated from outside those verses, and completely change the meanings of the verses. Such is the case with Joseph Smith and his inclusion of Matthew 7:13-14 (Luke 13:24) and John 14:3 in his revelation on polygamy, Doctrine and Covenants 132:22, and the attempt to claim that the verses are descriptions of secular marriage and temple marriage; secular marriage which is for this life only, leads to death, and is defined as less than exaltation, and temple marriage which is for eternity, leads to exaltation, and is defined as godhood. It does not seem to matter that the passages in Matthew and Luke make no mention of marriage whatsoever and the subject to which Jesus Christ was referring was not marriage, and it does not seem to matter that marriages were never performed in the Jewish temple prior to the birth of Jesus Christ, during His lifetime on earth or after his death. It also does not seem to matter that the passage in John also has nothing to do with marriage and makes no connection with marriage being a necessity for being with Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith and the later prophets simply inserted their teachings into the verses, because it was convenient to take verses out of context in order to make things fit that would not otherwise. Even a later prophet, Harold B. Lee attempted to make the same connection when he stated: "Marriage for time and for eternity is the strait gate and the narrow way (spoken of in the scriptures) 'that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that fine it,' but 'broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat.' (Doc. and Cov. 132:22, 25.) If Satan and his hosts can persuade you to take the broad highway of worldly marriage that ends with death, he has defeated you in your opportunity for the highest degree of eternal happiness through marriage and increase throughout eternity. It should no be clear to your reasoning why the Lord declared that in order to obtain the highest degree in the Celestial glory, a person must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. If he does not, he cannot obtain it. (Doc. and Cov. 131:1-3)."Even prophet Harold B. Lee had to resort to his version of spin in order to make the point in the last sentence. He was using prophet Joseph Smith's revelation on polygamy as his foundation (D. & C. 132), but then he suddenly used D. & C. 131:1-3 as the reference to the eternal covenant of marriage "in order to obtain the highest" degree of heaven. He conveniently overlooked the reference in D. & C. 132:3-4, that states: "Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."It is a convenience to skip over the fact that D. & C. 132 superseded D. & C. 131, redefining the covenant of marriage as plural marriage. The "everlasting covenant" became polygamy, yet it is no longer commanded or practiced in this life but in the next, and a new "covenant" is temple marriage which takes the place of the old "eternal covenant". In relation to your last two statements, nothing is said in the Book of Mormon or the Bible about Adam giving an account of his works and then passing the priesthood keys to the Son of Man, just as there is nothing about Adam having ever been given the priesthood as defined in Mormon theology. Also, nothing is said in the Book of Mormon or the Bible about Peter being given the keys of the Priesthood by Jesus Christ. Both of your claims find their origin in the Living Prophets and not in the scripture, so, once again you place your trust in the prophets who have never provided prophetic credentials. That is where you stand and is also the reason why I cannot stand with you. The Mormon Challenge Monday, July 28 Gary, You have written: Adam lived to be 930, but Jared lived to be 962, Methuselah lived to be 969 and Noah lived 950 years, so they were much more qualified from an age standpoint to be the Ancient of Days. Comments: With all due respect, but you cannot possibly be serious when you wrote the above. Adam lived to be 930 but he had already lived a long time before his earthly age started to be counted. How long had he lived before he became a mortal man? When he became mortal, he was already an adult, he was never a baby like all the other human beings. He was already old. That makes him the oldest of all human beings. For God, one day is a thousand years. How long Adam lived under God's counting, before he became mortal? There is no argument, he is ancient. Furthermore, even though the lived longer, Jared and the others were all born AFTER Adam. Adam is the oldest because he was the first. No matter how long the others lived he will be always the oldest, because he was created first. Your seem to be spinning. On Doctrine Reply I wasn't attempting to make an actual case for any of the other patriarchs, because Daniel 2:44-45 defines who is the Ancient of Days. My comments were to show that you did not use the Scripture as your foundation, because you wish to accept your prophet as the authority and the Scripture does not support his claims. You applied selective criteria in order to come to your conclusion, because there are other definitions that can be applied to the term ancient and there are other criteria that can be applied in order to come to a definition. You selected one set of criteria to support your claim and you are still doing that by applying another criteria, that ancient is determined by how long it has been since a person was born in relation to another person, rather than how long they lived in relation to each other. The physical, human age is not really the defining factor in Mormon theology, because you must actually calculate the real age of a person based on the point of their birth in the pre-existence. Human age is actually irrelevant. If you wish to claim that the verse is referring to "days" as being existence on this earth, you must explain how that is indicated in the verse, because a more proper definition of "days" would be the time he spent in the pre-existence, a possibility that you have not considered. It is quite possible that Adam could have been the last spirit born in the pre-existence, therefore he could be the youngest spirit of the ancients. As I noted, you do not know when Adam was born in relation to other spirits in the pre-existence, so you are simply dealing with a speculation in order to support your point. You cannot assume that spirits are sent to earth based on the order in which they were born in the pre-existence, because Jesus Christ was the firstborn in the pre-existence but was not born as a human until long after Adam and the patriarchs, and his spirit is the most ancient in relation to days of all the other spirits. My point is, that you can select any criteria that you wish, if there is nothing that contradicts your selection, but you cannot claim a dictate of doctrine based on a supposition. However, Daniel 2:44-45 removes your criteria and supposition from the equation and the statements of the Living Prophets are not supported by the Scripture. The Mormon Challenge Monday, September 15 Hi Gary, You have written: "Mormons wish to have it both ways, by claiming their scripture as their foundation, but then ignoring that scripture and running to the Living Prophets for new interpretations and new revelations." I think you really don't understand at all what the LDS stands for. I have already explained to you the basis in which the LDS Church was organized and came about. I will give it another try. Joseph Smith, was in the middle of a protestant revival in the area where he lived. There were many churches claiming to be the true church, the true way. He was a young man that sincerely wanted to know the truth. He read the Bible but was confused by the several preachers that, at times, even contradict themselves. He wanted to do what was right. So reading the Bible he saw the counsel of James to seek wisdom directly with God. He says that that passage did impress him very much as never other scripture had impressed him before. So he decided to go to a grove near his home and ask wisdom directly from the Father. He wanted to know what church to join. Which one was the right one? God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and he was told that none of the religions had the truth. Jesus told him that they approached God with their lips but that their hearts were far away from Him. In time Joseph was instructed and commanded by Jesus Christ Himself to organize His church upon the earth. Joseph obeyed and organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints according to the laws of the State of New York. That is it! All the existing religions at that point had been created by a man that had read the Bible and conclude by himself that he needed to organize a church. So, some read the Bible and were impressed by the fact that the primitive church had Presbyters, so he gathered some followers and created the Presbyterian Church. Others, read the Bible and concluded that the primitive church enphasized baptism, so they founded a church called Baptist Church. Others, by reading the Bible concluded that there should be some sort of Method as to how to study and preach and live the gospel, so they created a church called Methodist Church. In other cases, churches were created out of political necessity as it the case of the Anglican Church. The Lutheran Church is based on the ideas of Martin Luther, who broke away from the Catholic Church by disagreeing with its practices and interpretations. And so by their names you can have a clue how and why those churches were created. As all of these are considered protestant churches, it implies that they protested against the established Catholic Church. In the case of Martin Luther, and perhaps the Anglican Church one could argue they had the authority to organize another church based on the fact that they had been priests in the Catholic church, and therefore they carried the authority with them to organize a correct church. However, none of the protestant churches had any authority from God to organize any Church or to speak in His behalf, as none of the creators of churches ever claimed that God had called and ordained them to do so. Many of them actually made clear that the true church of Christ was NOT upon the earth, and that they were waiting for it. One of them was John Wesley. However, the majority of the founders of churches needed to claim some sort of authority to start their churches. That is when they adopted the idea that the Bible itself gave that authority to them. And so it was that others claimed that authority too and organized their own churches. So protestant, Christian churches proliferate throughout the world with many others coming up almost in a daily basis. Obviously, all founders of churches, preachers, etc, claim, like you do that one doesn't need to have any authority to organize a church because they read in the Bible that Christ told people to go and preach the gospel and, according to them and you, that is more than sufficient. However, when you ask hard questions to them like for example: where man comes from, what are we doing here, where do we go after this life, with no exception, none of them can be authoritative, all they can do is refer back to the Bible and give some interpretation as you do. Now, that interpretation is what you call to be founded on the scriptures. However, judging by the proliferation of Christian churches, which one is the one that can really take someone to the path of salvation? Which one can really claim it was organized by Jesus Christ Himself? (Your answer will, obviously be you are right because you are orthodox.) Which one of the founders of churches can claim without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus has instructed him or her to organize the church he preaches? All they can say is believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Well the Apostle said even the devils believe this. So, are they going to be saved? In answering these questions you will be hard pressed to go back to the Bible as you don't have an answer of your own, all you and the founders of churches have is what they think the Bible is saying. But the Bible is only a book, it doesn't realy speak to you. God does, however, but you would no go to Him because you interpret that He already gave His word. There are some more radical that by being more strict and literal, or "orthodox," think they are the holders of the truth because they hold to some old traditions. But the problem becomes apparent when you ask the hard questions. Then they have to appeal to scholars, who on their turn can only give their opinion and theories. Others, write long arguments try to prove the others are wrong and only they are right. So here it is once again, the message: Jesus called Joseph Smith and ordained him to restore His church upon the earch once more. Joseph didn't read anything and decided on his own to create a church because he read some passage in the Bible. In that sense the LDS church doesn't exist because of the Bible per se. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not based on a text, it was not founded based on a text. It was organized because Jesus Christ called a prophet, Joseph Smith, and commanded him to do so. Therefore, your arguments that the LDS is not based on the scriptures are out of sinc because this is not a protestant church that was formed because a pastor, well or not well intentioned, read the Bible and felt he should organize a church. This church isnot base on text read by some preacher. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is based on direct revelation from God. Therefore, your criteria will not apply. The only way you can refute this church as incorrect or wrong is finding out for yourself if Joseph Smith truly saw the Father and the Son as he said he did. If you can absolutely prove that he didn't see God in the grove, then you can say the this church has no basis on the truth. Until then, your arguments don't apply, because this is not a protestant church. So, we come back to your dilemma: Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God or not? He says he was, and about 13 million of other people, myself included, say they have a testimony that he was. We offer the message that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and commanded him to restore His Church once again upon the earth. It is up to you to take the challenge. You don't need to take my word for it, you can go straight to the Father and ask in humility. He will reveal the truth to you. On Doctrine Reply I am aware that the Book of Mormon did not establish the Mormon church, it was supposedly the restoration of the "fullness" of the gospel message. I am aware of Joseph Smith's history of the "First Vision" and the manner in which he organized the Mormon church and the way in which the Mormon church today states a claim to authority through the priesthood. I discussed that particular detail in a previous reply, when I noted that Joseph Smith claimed priesthood authority that is invalid by Mormon doctrinal standards, since he improperly received the priesthood from John the Baptist who failed to baptize Joseph Smith before conferring the priesthood on him, making his claim and all subsequent claims to the priesthood by all members of the Mormon church to be invalid. My point in the comment was that the Mormon church claims that its foundation of doctrine and the fullness of the gospel message is found in the Book of Mormon, when it is not. The foundation of the church is through its establishment by Joseph Smith, and the Mormon gospel message as taught today in the church is not found in the Book of Mormon at all, but in the pronouncements of Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets. The Book of Mormon is now just an appendage, like the Bible, that is used within the church structure, but contains a radically different gospel message than taught in the church today and teaches about a God who is profoundly and fundamentally different than defined in Mormon doctrine today. The "restoration" of the gospel message in the book of Mormon is not the gospel message taught in the Mormon church today. That is the contradiction that Mormons choose to ignore. Why did God reveal a gospel message and a definition of Himself in the Book of Mormon that would be changed by the prophet less than 14 years after the Book of Mormon was published? Why did the gospel message change, and why did God change His nature from that found in the Book of Mormon, and why did all of those changes originate from the person of Joseph Smith? Everything that the Mormon church holds dear has its origin in a single individual, Joseph Smith and his claims. It is no wonder that your testimony must include the statement that you know that Joseph Smith is a prophet, because virtually everything that you believe is connected to his statements. One of the major errors that you assert in relation to Orthodox churches, is the fact that you are looking at them from the point of the definition applied to the Mormon church, which is a physical organization, with the authority to act on behalf of God that is granted through the priesthood. So, you are assuming that Orthodox churches are making the same claim to authority. That is true in the Catholic church, because the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ or Jesus Christ's personal representative on earth. However, that is not what Orthodox Christianity claims. Authority is not the issue, because Orthodox church organizations are not the only churches, and they have no authority as a mediatorial entity to which a person must belong in order be right with God. It is not Orthodox churches that have authority, it is the Bible and the message of the gospel that is the authority and it is the acceptance and application of that gospel that brings a person into a relationship with Jesus Christ, completely apart from the organization of a church. The thief on the cross was granted standing in the presence of Jesus Christ after his death, without baptism, without church membership, without the priesthood and without works confirming anything about his sincerity or acceptability to receive remission of sins. The church that Jesus Christ is building is not a physical organization on earth, it is a spiritual association of individuals who have been called out of the world and exist apart from any physical organization. There is a difference between churches, that are associations of believers, and The Church that Jesus Christ is building which is the combined association of all believers apart from the individual groups where they may associate and worship. It is inconceivable to a Mormon that a church could be anything else but what is represented by the model of the Mormon church. That particular model is not found in the Book of Mormon or the Bible, but is the product of your prophets, primarily Joseph Smith. It is not even the model of the Mormon church for the first two years of its existence, because during that time the priesthood did not even exist. Your comment about the Bible being just a book because it "does not really speak to you," tells me exactly what you really believe about the authority of the Bible. The Bible represents revelation from God, but apparently either you do not accept the revelation presented in its pages or else you believe it is revelation that is of no particular consequence. As I have mentioned before, if the Bible is not authoritative, then it is not Scripture and it cannot be said to be such by including it with the Standard Works. How you would assume that the words of God do not speak to me or to you is beyond my understanding. You have the Book of Mormon which now carries on its cover the phrase, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ," so the Mormon church wished to give the impression that it is a testament the same as the Bible. However, that is not a true claim, because the church does not consider the Bible to be the same as the Book of Mormon and you do not either. The phrase is used for a public relations effect but not as a point of truth. You must also apply your standard to the Book of Mormon as well, because it does not speak to the gospel message taught in the Mormon church today, but it was supposed to contain the fullness of the Mormon gospel message. Are you willing to do that? I don't think so. You have a dilemma that you must face, because you must apply the test of truth to your church that you claim that I must apply in order disprove the church. You cannot absolutely say that the Mormon church is true, because you cannot prove that Joseph Smith went to the grove and had a vision, yet you believe he did. You cannot prove that he translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates that he dug out of the hill, yet you believe that he did. You cannot prove that he received the priesthood from John the Baptist and the apostle John, yet you believe he did. You cannot prove that Joseph Smith received any legitimate revelation from God or that he told the truth regarding his various encounters with Deity, yet you believe he did. You cannot prove that Joseph Smith set up a church by revelation from God, rather than simply setting up his own church, but you believe he did. Your proof is only yourself and the subjective nature of your testimony, which is meaningless to anyone but you. Once again you assert your testimony in order to avoid dealing with the issues and evade the factual details about your prophets and the changing doctrines that they have taught, that are known from your own history. I have noted previously, that criticizing the number of various Christian churches will not help your cause, because you must deal with the various Mormon off-shoot sects that present the same problem to you. They all claim to be the true church, so how do you make a decision on which is right? All of those questions that you ask in order to discredit the biblical authority, are questions that can be directed back to you and the various churches that trace their heritage back to the Mormon church itself. I make the decision based on the Bible, but you make the decision based on your testimony which is measured by your feelings of well-being in relation to what you wish to believe, and is defined as the witness of the Holy Ghost. Since you assert your testimony, then the other isssues are of no consequence to you, since you happily trust yourself to be a correct judge of truth. I don't understand your claim that arguments don't apply because you believe that the Mormon church is not a Protestant church. What does that have to do with anything? Actually the Mormon church is a Protestant church, because it opposes (or protests) Catholic doctrine, which is the definition of Protestant. The Mormon church claims to be a Christian church, but it is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox Eastern church because of doctrinal differences, which is another definition of Protestant. If you want to play the numbers game, then you must contend with 2 billion Christians who have a completely different belief system. Then there are 1.5 billion Islamics, 900 million Hindus and 376 million Buddhists, all of whom reject the God and Jesus Christ that are found in the Mormon church and they all have testimonies that their religious beliefs are true. I would never point to the number of people who hold to a specific belief as a measure of the truthfulness of what they believe. That is a false criteria. There is no security in numbers, because whether there is one believer or a trillion, the measure of truth is within itself not defined by those who hold to a specific belief. Jesus Christ said: "I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of Man cometh, shall He find [the] faith on the earth?" The Mormon Challenge Monday, September 15 Hello Gary, You have written: "My point is, that you can select any criteria that you wish, if there is nothing that contradicts your selection, but you cannot claim a dictate of doctrine based on a supposition. However, Daniel 2:44-45 removes your criteria and supposition from the equation and the statements of the Living Prophets are not supported by the Scripture." You seem to be spinning again. You assumed that I claimed a dictate of doctrine because I am an LDS. I have not even mentioned Joseph Smith in my text. Plus, I am not supposing anything, I am applying what I think is a clear reasoning: Ancient cannot be God because God doesn't age. You have to agree that this is logical. Even if I had never read what Joseph Smith talked about the Ancient of Days, just by the name Ancient I would make the argument it cannot possibly be applied to God Himself as God has no end or beginning (or I would be puzzled by the title not knowing for sure what it meant). God is not bound by time. This earth and everything in it will die one day because it is bound by time. The earth has a time that has been assigned by God Himself. Therefore, anyone bound to this earth ages and become old or ancient. That is the effect of the fall of Adam. God, however, is not bound by this earth. He is not affected by the fall of Adam. He is from eternity to eternity, He is infinite, no beginning, no ending, He doesn't age. So if you apply the title of Ancient to Him you are misinterpreting the scripture. In the scriptures every title has a purpose, they are not only poetic licenses, they describe someone or something characteristics, specially in the Old Testament. Every name given in Israel has a meaning, and so it is with a title such as Ancient of Days. For example Melchizedek means King of Righteousness which indicates he was one of the most righteous kings that ever lived. Other examples of meaningful titles are Abraham, Israel and all the titles given to Jesus Christ. Even Satan is a title that describes the characteristic of Lucifer. Satan means Rebel, or One that rebels. They all have a meaning that describe the characteristic of the person to whom the name or title was given. Therefore, Ancient of Days is not a title that describes God's characteristics, or any of His characteristics. So, independently of whether Joseph did or did not say that Ancient of Days is Adam, the title cannot be applied to God, as God cannot be ancient, that is not one of His characteristics. It cannot be applied to Jesus either, as the scriptures says He is coming down to earth to meet the Ancient of Days (It would be the same as saying that the Son of Man is coming down to meet the Son of Man, that is nonsense.). So, that leaves you only with the possibility that there may be one other person that received that title. The only one that I can think that fits it is Adam as the title describes his characteristics to a "t." But I withdraw my affirmation so you can conclude yourself that the title cannot be applied to God, otherwise it would make Him an old man. Yes, Gary, you will have to come up with another interpretation because God is not a very old man. You use the term "not supported by scripture," but what you really mean to say is: it is not supported by your interpretation of the scriptures. Lets make that clear. As for me, I am not interpreting anything, I am just reasoning that the title Ancient of Days cannot possibly be applied to God, as it would be the same as calling God a very old man. Furthermore, I have read the whole chapter in Daniel and there is nothing whatsoever there that supports your affirmation that God is the Ancient of Days. I believe you are reading more than what it is in there because you have read the scholars opinions about the attribution of the term to God. But those are only their theories, there is none that can give you a definitive answer that Ancient of Days refers to God. On Doctrine Reply You are LDS because of Joseph Smith, who is the entire foundation of the Mormon church, and is the reason we are having this discussion. You did not develop the Adam-Ancient of Days doctrine on your own, because you heard it in the Mormon church as a result of Joseph Smith's teaching. You are now simply trying to provide a logical defense of what he claimed, because he did not provide any other foundation other than his own pronouncement. You cannot use your logic or reasoning on this issue, because you claim that to do so is to use "human reasoning" which is not allowed in the Mormon church. Any "logical reasoning" is actually interpretation, so you cannot claim that you are "not interpreting anything". You must use the statements of your prophets who have already defined the Ancient of Days, and is the definition that you accept, although in the case of Brigham Young you should be very careful of what you accept, because Brigham Young takes you on a journey into Mormon heresy. "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, He came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken - HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do" "And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days . . ."The dictate of doctrine was established by your prophets as I noted, and you assert the same statement. You are trying to make a logical connection, but as I have already noted, you choose the criteria that support your belief because you think it is logical, and ignore the definition presented in the Scripture that pre-defines the Ancient of Days. As I have said all along, you do not consider the Bible to be authoritative, and this is the classic example. I have already noted that the term ancient is not necessarily connected with a starting point, such as birth. The term ancient as applied to God is the most comprehensive meaning of the term that can be presented. Names may have meanings, but those meanings do not necessarily describe the actual character of the person who is named. If that were the case, then everyone would have names based on the best definitions. You make a very weak case using the definitions of names, because you limit the term ancient to a very narrow definition that I have shown you cannot support. However, I will cut you a little slack on this issue. The only criteria on which I insist, is that you stay with your definition of ancient as to actual age, with a starting point such as birth, which you apply to Adam, although that should actually be in relation to origin, (because Adam was not born as a human but was infused with the temporal nature of this world and became a human at some specific point in time). BUT, if you wish to use birth or origin as the start of a calculation in relation to ancient, then you must apply your criteria to the oldest person in the universe who had a point of origin, since you are already claiming Adam as the oldest person that fits your criteria. Unfortunately, for your definition, the oldest person in the universe who had a point of origin is the Mormon God, because He was not always God, but was once a man who was born to real parents, but became a God at a specific point in time. The Orthodox God does not age, because He has always been without beginning and has always been who He is now without change, but the Mormon God does have an assignment of age, because he has not always been a god since at one time he was not God but just a human being like you, hoping to become exalted to godhood after reaching the Celestial Kingdom. So, you are trying to do a major spin by claiming that the Mormon God is eternal, when He is not. Joseph Smith himself stated the case against your claim in the King Follett Discourse: "What sort of a being was God in the beginning? . . . First, God himself, who sits enthroned in younder heaven, is a man like one of you. . . If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form ofa man . . . it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel - to know for a certainty the character of Go, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible."As we have discussed previously, the Mormon God is eternal only as a man in relation to the eternally existing entities that compose His spirit which is the same criteria that defines you as being eternal although you are not eternal as a God which you hope to be some day. He was born as the spirit of a man in his preexistence, and then conceived and born on an earth as a man, but was then changed into a God as a result of His exaltation. His godhood was not from eternity, because it was a result of a process that occurred at a specific point in time that could be calculated backward from any specific point onward from that event if the data were known. Prior to that specific point, He was not God and not from eternity as God. Joseph Smith explained in the King Follett Discourse: "But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. Moreover, all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement."If you wish to claim that the Mormon God is not bound by time, then you must also claim that you are not bound by time either, because, like the spirit of the Mormon God, your spirit is self-existing as a human being, and like He once was hoping, you are hoping to become a God in the future. So, do I presume that you do not have an attribution of age either or that y ou are not bound by time? If you wish to assert a definition, then you must be prepared to deal with the logical conclusion to which your definition points. You limit your logical definition to an end with Adam, but the logical end of your definition defines the Ancient of Days as God Himself, since He is the oldest person born as a man in relation to and associated with this universe and the oldest person exalted to godhood. In fact, the true logical definition of the Ancient of Days is the first Mormon god of which all other beings and Mormon Gods trace their origin. As I have mentioned previously, when you adopt certain doctrines they take you somewhere theologically and when you use certain criteria they also take you to a certain end. Many times that end is not where you wish to go. You use criteria that you believed ended with Adam, but you did not take that criteria to the logical end, which you must do if you are going to be consistent. |
|
 COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE Bible | STORE |