Archive | Questions RSS feed for this section

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 12

5 Sep

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

 

Q. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doctrine and Covenants 124: 56-60)

A. No quote is given, but I will here give the first verse in the citation given in the question.

And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation.

This is not a prophecy or a promise being made by the Lord. It is a commandment to built the Nauvoo house and to give it to Joseph Smith and his family. Just previous to this the Lord tells us “when [He gives] a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto [His] name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.” (verse 49)

The Nauvoo house did not stand forever because the enemies of the saints hindered the work and prevented the commandment from being fulfilled. As such, the saints were no longer under any obligation to build it.

This command was later fulfilled in the construction of the Hotel Utah in Salt Lake City.

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. I will address that in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

Q. How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon’s while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5: 13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17)

A. No quote is given, but I think we need to see 2 Nephi 5: 16.

And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the contruction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.”

Nephi states clearly that his temple “could not be built like unto Solomon’s” because the material was not available. However, the manner, or style of the construction was patterned off Solomon’s. So, Solomon’s temple was 60 cubits long, and Nephi’s was also 60 cubits; Solomon’s was 20 cubits broad, and so was Nephi’s; Solomon’s was 30 cubit high, and so was Nephi’s.

However, Solomon’s was constructed party using the Cedars of Lebannon, which had to be transported over great distances. This wood was not available to Nephi, so he used indigenous wood that was likely closer to the construction site (cutting down time). Solomon also used olive-wood and cypress. He also overlaid everything in gold, including the walls. These adornments may likely have been lacking when Nephi built his because he could not gain access to sufficient quantities at the time.

Finally, we are given no indication of how long it took Nephi and his people to construct their temple. From the time Lehi’s family arrived in the New World there is a space of 20 years that we are given no information as to the timeline, then another gap of ten years. It may have taken Nephi seven years, or maybe more. We simply don’t know. What we do know is that sometime after they arrived Lehi died, and shortly thereafter Nephi led the faithful members of the family away. It was after this that he built the temple. Since we don’t know how long it took, or how many people were involved, trying to make a comparison like this is impossible.

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. I will address that in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

Q. Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843, after he got his revelation in July, 1843, commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doctrine and Covenants 132, and History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, p. 324)

A. No quote is given, though I think quoting the section of church history would do us some good.

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives: for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.

As one can clearly see here, Joseph Smith was not preaching against the practice of Plural Marriage. He was condemning the unauthorized practice of it. As there is only one person at a time who can authorize such marriages (D&C 132: 7), as Joseph Smith rightly states in the above quote, those who are preaching, teaching, or practicing plural marriage without that person’s permission are in violation of the laws of the Lord. Thus those people are to be tried in the courts of the church and dealt with accordingly, just as Joseph Smith says.

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. I will address that in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

Advertisements

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 11

5 Sep

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

 

Q. If Mormons can become gods why does Isaiah 43: 10 say, “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.”

A. No quotes are given. While I prefer the KJV I see no need to give it here as it will not affect my answer.

This verse must be considered in proper perspective. God, as a title for the Supreme Being, is applied only to the Father. For us there is no other God. There was never one before Him, nor will there be after. We have but one, and always will. But this does not mean that others do not exist in a state of godhood, or Celestial perfection.

It is just like our earthly fathers. I have only one Father. I never had any other, and I never will have any other. So, before my father there was no father for me, and there will be no father for me after him. That does not preclude others from having their own fathers.

See my post regarding the Godhead for more information.

Q. Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12, 13).

A. No quote is given.

I like my mother’s answer to this question. It is always winter in my fridge.

People who ask questions like this are trying to “make a man an offender for a word” as they demand the letter of the law as the Pharisees did. Yet, they do not understand the spirit by which the law was given.

The Word of Wisdom is, first and foremost, a health code. The spirit of that law is to live well and eat healthily. When the revelation was given they did not have refrigeration. Meat putrefies very quickly when not frozen. So, in the 1830’s people were counseled by God not to eat meat except in dire need (famine) or when it could be effectively preserved (winter). In our day we have refrigeration and meat can be preserved very effectively for extended periods of time, even in the heat of summer. As such, in keeping with the Spirit of the law, we eat meat only in dire need (famine) or when it can be effectively preserved (refrigerated).

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. I will address that in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 10

5 Sep

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. Why is the French word “adieu” in the book of Mormon in Jacob 7:27?

A. No quotes are given, and it is not needed to quote Jacob. We concede that the word is used.

Adieu carries a special connotation of fondness; it is a fond farewell. In the early to mid 1800’s it also took on the connotation of a final farewell. So, Jacob, who knew he was making his last record on the plates and would likely die soon, was bidding a final and fond farewell to the Nephites and to whomever would later read his record.

Again, this word would have been a logical choice to convey the meaning of Jacob’s words for the time in which Joseph Smith lived. It is simply a good translation.

Q. Why should I become a Mormon if when I die, I go to the middle level of heaven when that is where most Mormons will go anyway?

A. No quotes are given.

That is like asking why you should get a Masters degree when most people will only graduate with a bachelors. Yes, most people will only attain the Terrestrial World, but is that any reason not to strive for the greater rewards of the Celestial?

Q. If the veil is rent by God after Jesus was crucified (Matt. 27:51), why do the Mormons put it back in their temples?

A. No quotes are given, and I do not feel the need to quote the verse in the scripture. The veil in the temple was rent.

When I read the rending of the veil at Jerusalem, I see God’s rejection of the Jews and thus their temple. He would no longer dwell among them, and thus that structure was no longer sacred.

Also, we build the temples according to the commands of God. It may have been God that tore the veil in the temple of Jerusalem, but it was also God that commanded us to build temples with veils.

See my longer reponse to this question here.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 9

4 Sep

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. If the book of Mormon is true, why have both National Geographic and the Smithsonian Institute rejected it as being archaeologically reliable?

A. Each organization cited in the question is quoted by the author.

Who cares. These groups are mortal scholars. They are not infallible, but are frequently guided and influenced by popular theories and trends. One might ask why they orient everything they do with evolution, since that is not true? The answer would be the same and just as meaningless.

Of course, one can take a religious point of view and say that they are being influenced by Satan. The devil will try everything he can to keep people from the truth. One of the best ways is to convince men that they are intelligent enough to know the truth themselves, and thus they reject God’s word as it doesn’t align with what they have decided is true. Then, in their pride, they set themselves up as the only authority and deride anyone who would seek truth from any other source. I have met people like this. I once had a friend who decided not to speak to me again because I told him I did not believe in evolution.

It is a common flaw of our modern age for people to think themselves too enlightened for religion or the truth that it contains. And, as the prestige of the person increases their rejection of the truth becomes more firm. There are few organizations that carry greater prestige in the world of the natural sciences than National Geographic and the Smithsonian, so is it any wonder that these organization would fall prey to this all too common temptation of Satan.

 

Q. Why is it that there have been no archaeological discoveries at all that demonstrate what Joseph Smith said is “reformed Egyptian”?

A. A quote is given, but it is not necessary to repeat it for the purpose of the question.

I am wondering what one would be looking for as a demonstration of Reformed Egyptian. Are you expecting to find Egyptian Heiroglyphics in America? Are they looking for a library of ancient records?

Mormon tells us that what he called Reformed Egyptian had been “altered by [them], according to [their] manner of speech.” (Mormon 9: 32) He also mentions that he could have written in Hebrew, but that that language had also been altered. He also says that “the Lord knoweth the things which [they had] written, and also that none other people knoweth [their] language.” (Mormon 9: 34)

So, I see three different languages here. Reformed Egyptian and the Reformed Hebrew being written languages that were used for the keeping of sacred records. Then there is the common language of the people. The written Egyptian and Hebrew were altered to match this common language to allow for better and more accurate records, with the Hebrew being more accurate than the Egyptian, but the Egyptian being simpler and thus taking less space.

Now, Mormon tells us that the Lamanites had a habit of destroying sacred records (Mormon 6: 6) and we know from history that the Catholic monks had a habit of destroying the records of other civilizations, including those of the America’s (only three records of the Aztecs survived). We then consider that God commanded Mormon to protect the sacred records (Mormon 6: 6) and that there was a divine protection on the Gold Plates.

As it is likely that Reformed Egyptian was used mainly, if not exclusively for the sacred records, and those records are hidden and protected by God, or destroyed by the Lamanites or others, it is not unlikely that we will never find another sample of reformed Egyptian until God wants us to.

 

Q. What is the book of Mormon contain the word “church” in 1 Nephi 14:3, 9, 10, 12 which was set around 600 BC, yet the word church was not used until the time of Jesus (Matt. 16:18)?

A. No quote is given, and I do not find it necessary to give the scriptures referenced.

The word church is a translation of the Greek word ‘Ecclesia’ which means “an assembly called together.” This is the same meaning of the word ‘Congregation,’ which is the word used in the translation of the Old Testament. It appears primarily in the books of Moses, but is also used twice in the Psalms (89: 5; 107: 32).

Today, the word church is more commonly used for the organization of faith and its adherents, such as the LDS church, or the Baptist church, etc. This was also the case in the 1800’s. The word congregation more commonly refers a local division of such an organization, and then only when they are actually gathered together.

So, when Joseph Smith was translating the Nephite record and came across a reference to the organization of faith and its adherents it would have been proper for him to use the word church.

Remember, this is a translation, and so the use of common words at the time of translation should come as no surprise.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 8

4 Sep

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon Church, said that the birth of Jesus was “the result of natural action,” (Journal of discourses, volume 8, page 115 – given on July 8, 1860). He also said, “When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218 – given on February 8, 1857). In light of this, how was Jesus born of the Virgin Mary?

A. No quote is given, except that which is in the question. However, I think a refresher of Isaiah 7: 14 is called for.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Mary was a virgin until she conceived, and that is all the prophecy says. A virgin conceived and brought forth a son. It does not say she remained a virgin, but that a virgin would be chosen as the mother of God. If you read in 1 Nephi 11 it shows that she was a virgin until the Holy Ghost rested on her.

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. I will address that in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

Q. In light of the previous question and Mormon doctrine saying that we are all literally the children of God, then wasn’t Brigham Young teaching that God had relations with his spirit daughter?

A. No quotes are given.

This is a difficult question to answer, and I am not going to try. The answer is something that is only for those who can learn it for themselves. It is a mystery of eternity, and it will remain such for all except those to whom God reveals the truth.

Q. According to Mormonism, Jesus was the one being married to Mary and Martha at the wedding of Cana in John 2. If this is so, then why was Jesus invited to his own wedding? Also, why was it not a temple marriage?

A. No quote is given.

Actually, the idea of Jesus marrying Mary and Martha at that wedding was the opinion of one man. That man was Orson Hyde, and his opinion is recorded in the Journal of Discourses, volume 2,  page 281. This discourse was delivered on October 6th, 1854. Now, there is some evidence that Joseph F. Smith later agreed with brother Hyde, but I have not been able to verify this. It is also true that many seem to have believed that Jesus was married to Mary and Martha. However, the question is addressing the wedding in Cana that is described in the second chapter of John, and so merely believing them married has no bearing on the issue.

Even if it is true the wording of the scripture does not necessitate Jesus being a guest. If it was an arranged marriage he would have been called to it, as the scriptures say (John 2: 2).

Lastly, at the time of this wedding there was no one on the earth who held the keys of sealing, and so what we refer to today as a temple marriage would not have been possible. These keys were restored by Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration (Matthew 17).

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 7

3 Sep

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. How did Joseph Smith carry home the Golden plates when the weight of the plates, if they had been pure gold, would have been over 200 pounds and no supernatural help was ever said to be involved?

A. The author gives no quotes, but he does explain that some theorize that the plates could have weighed as little as 50 pounds. He leaves the question as it is however.

Now, I personally think that they weighed about 50 pounds. Then I consider the many stories of Joseph Smith’s physical strength; that he could stick pull grown men as a young man, or two men when he was an adult. Then I think of the 75 pound packs that modern soldiers are frequently required to carry for many miles, even at a run. My dad did this in the army. So, when people question that a strong, grown man can carry 50 pounds over a few miles, and even engage in a number of altercations while doing it, I think they are simply underestimating the abilities that God has granted the human race.

*This question is answered in the response be S.H.I.E.L.D.S. I will address that in a later post, so keep an eye out for it.

 

Q. In Mormonism, the father is called Elohim and Jesus is called Jehovah. But in 1 Kings 8:60 it says that “The Lord is God.” Literally in the Hebrew, it is “Jehovah is Elohim.” How do you explain this passage that says Jehovah is Elohim?

A. No quotes are given.

First of all this question assumes that Jehovah is never referred to as God in the Old Testament, and that is not the case. On many occasions Jehovah is called God in the Old Testament. (Genesis 2: 4; Genesis 28: 13, 1 Samuel 2: 30, 2 Kings 9: 6, pretty much whenever you see LORD God the scriptures are using the word Elohim to refer to Christ).

The question also assumes that the word Elohim is always used to refer to the Father. This is also not the case. Take for instance Psalms 82: 6, in which the term is simply translated as gods (or angels in some translations).

So, when we realize that Elohim, while it can be a name, or title for the Father, can also be used in its literal meaning of gods, we can start to see the meaning of 1 Kings 8: 60 and other such passages. Jesus is God, or a member of the Godhead, which can also be referred to as Elohim (meaning gods). So, this verse is affirming both Christ’s Godhead as well as his unique roll as Jehovah.

 

Q. In Mormonism, God and his wife are exalted beings from another world. We know that life forms from another planet are called aliens. Therefore, isn’t it true that Mormons worship an alien from another world who they call their god?

A. No quote is given.

This is a question that is hard to take seriously. Actually, it is impossible. It is a play on words that attempts to twist our doctrine and mock our faith and is hardly worth a response.

My first thought was “We know that life from other countries are called aliens, so isn’t the author worshiping an alien (as Jesus lived in Israel)?” Of course that sounds just as absurd as the author’s question.

So, if one wants to play with the English language to convey a meaning and connotation that was never intended than one could say God is an alien. Of course, if you are going to take the doctrine all the way we are colonizers from a different planet, and thus we are all technically aliens colonizing a foreign world.

However, if you are actually going to listen to the doctrine without the mockery than the question would never have been asked; at least not seriously.

Response to CARM: Difficult questions, part 6

2 Sep

I have recently been pointed to a website called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry as an excellent location to learn LDS doctrine. On this website they have many pages dedicated to what they call exposing the truth of Mormonism. Most of what they present is well thought out, and they use many quotes and documents to support it. When they are simply giving a list of quotes they don’t do too bad. When they try to interpret those quotes and explain doctrine they fail almost completely. So I am starting a new series in which I will address a selection of pages from that website.

This next page is titled “Difficult Questions For Mormons to Answer.” It is a series of questions that are supposed to stump members of the LDS church. There are 32 questions total. Most are followed by a few quotes that try to establish the subject in question. The first part of my response will be a comment on the quotes given, and this will be in green.

Now, since there are so many questions and responding to all of them will take a long time, I will be dividing this into many separate posts, each answering 1-3 questions.

 

Q. If Elohim, which is God the Father in Mormonism, was a man, then he changed from being a man-to-man God. How is this possible when the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, that God is God from everlasting to everlasting?

A. No Quotes are given.

Doctrine and Covenants 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 to them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject to them.”

We too will be from everlasting to everlasting if we attain to the state of godhood. Everlasting here is describing a period of time within eternity; that is the period between one physical creation and the next. So, from one period, or one everlasting, to the next God is God. He continues, remaining the same God from one creation to the next, or from one eternal generation to the next.

This was answered by Bruce R. McConkie in his work “Mormon Doctrine.” You will find it on page 175, under the heading of “eternity to eternity”

 

Q. Joseph Smith said that he saw God the Father (and Jesus) in the first vision in 1820. Smith said that he received the priesthood in 1829. In the Doctrine and Covenants 84: 21-22, Smith said that you cannot see the face of God and live without the authority of the priesthood. How did Joseph Smith see God when he didn’t have the priesthood?

A. The author gives the verses in D&C, which I give here also.

And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.”

Notice that it does not say that one has to hold the priesthood to see God, only that the Priesthood must be present. This is explained in clearer detail in D&C 67: 11-12.

For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God. Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.”

Thus we see that the power of the Priesthood, which is the power of God, must be present for the Spirit of God to quicken a person, but that person does not have to hold the priesthood personally. Even in section 84 it states that Moses tried to prepare the Israelites to see God. That would have included the women, who did not hold the priesthood.

Also note that the context of this verse is the knowledge of God (verse 20) and the Mysteries of the Kingdom (verse 19). In verse 21 it says that the power of God is manifest in the priesthood. All this would suggest that what is being spoken of is the full truth and understanding of God and the Celestial word, which can be had only through the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Joseph Smith saw God because God brought the priesthood, as it is the power of God on Earth, and while that power was present the Spirit of God quickened Joseph Smith. However, until he received the priesthood for himself and partook of the ordinances the mysteries of the Kingdom and the Knowledge of God were not available to him.

 

Q. Joseph Smith said that he saw God the Father (and Jesus) in the first vision in 1820. But the Bible says that the Father cannot be seen (1 Timothy 6: 16). So which account is not true?

A. The author quotes the verse in Timothy, as well as John 6: 46. As the author does not use the KJV, I will give that version here.

1 Tim. 6:13-16, “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”

John 6:46, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, Save he which is of God; he hath seen the Father.”

The Timothy verse is speaking of the light of Christ. It is cross referenced with D&C 88: 12 that tells us “Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” The section continues to describe this light, but this is sufficient. We then read in D&C 130: 7 that angels “…reside in the presence of God…where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.” So, what Paul is saying no man can see is God in his glory in the Celestial World. This is his full glory, and can be viewed only by others who reside in the Celestial World.

The verse in John, as rendered in the KJV, says that “he which is of God” has seen him. Now, I realize that the translation the author uses says that “the One which is from God” has seen him, but I prefer the KJV. Many men are of God, having been purified by the blood of Christ and cleansed from their sins. So, anyone who is worthy to be called a saint may see God.