It’s foundational to mormonism, and it’s false doctrine. It directly contradicts what God told us about Himself… that He has always been God. The only God there has been or will be, forever. To try to bring Him down to the level of humans is disrespectful and wrong.
Yep. Almost.
It's not about winning. It's about the truth and if you feel alienated because you don't accept that truth, then what else can we do? It doesn't appear that you believe what the church teaches. That's a huge problem.
Then why is Richard7 always trying to control me?
Sorry, I dont believe your opinion is "the truth". Have a little humility.
You are not "the church". The church does not teach what you teach. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
I disagree.
This statement just lets me know you've never actually found the garden of Eden, and what it means to enter into his rest.
I believe the "power" is the Holy Ghost, and you're no different than the creeds you mock.
I disagree. Knowing Jesus'mortality, the one that actually atoned for our sins, is sufficient.
Again, repeating your false premise doesn't make it true.
Well, since you're asking, I personally believe marriage helps us understand the relationship between the Father and the Son, so we can emulate them. See Eph 5.
Exactly, I am alone. You, Theo, Magdalena, Janice all believe God being mortal is foundational to Mormonism, and Richard is cheering it on. They also believe you're not Christian, but you fail to grasp why. I'm waiting for you to also start defending the purpose of existence is to have endless sex with our multiple goddess wives. Just admit your a posing as a Mormon just to make us look bad.
Hinckley didnt know if we teach the couplet. You can deal with him first. But I guess you think you have more authority than President Hinckley, right?
Lol. Ummm...ok. whatever.
Probably for the same reasons you try to control me.
Obviously, I believe God can and does lead people to the truth. That's not what this debate is about. You didn't answer the question, what else can we do? If you don't understand the context, I'll be happy to elaborate.
I didn't say I was.
Yes, it does. Again, as man is now, God once was... Do I need to tell you which prophet taught that? You may not believe it, but that doesn't mean the church doesn't teach it.
I agree.
Hinckley knew. He lied about it.
Neutered people? Where does the Bible teach this?
Watch how this works...
I know. But that doesn't make it false. It's what our church teaches. You think they are wrong. That is a major problem.
What you believe is irrelevant to this discussion. It is my understanding that the issue is about what the church believes. Even our critics seem to know more about that than you do.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not. Again, it's not about what you believe.
Sufficient for what? If it is to be saved, then your missing the message. But, of course, that is my point and you seem to have dramatically made it for me.
Again, repeating your false conclusions doesn't make it true. The fact is, that is what our church teaches. Your effort to overlook it doesn't mean it's not there. It just means you can't see it. You should consider stopping soon, you're embarrassing yourself (but probably don't know it). Most of our critics know this is basic LDS theology. Your denial of it doesn't make it disappear.
Funny, I ask a question and you answer some question I didn't ask.
There you go. How can the church be true and wrong at the same time? You don't even know our theology, I think you do, but you've decided to butter it up a little more think that'll make it easier for people who question these things to accept.
That's not as important as it is that you know it. It is what we teach, you just aren't reconciled to it.
No. I understand perfectly why they think I'm not a Christian. According to their definition, I'm not. But according to the English dictionary, I am. Words have meaning. Thankfully, I don't need to rely on them to understand the English language.
There's no reason to defend it, that's not our religion. I've already explained that there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage in the Celestial kingdom, where would we obtain these other wives? Sex does have an end. We will have other things to do. However, those in the garden won't have anything to do. They could probably engage in endless sex, but those in the Celestial kingdom have worlds to save. They will be too busy for endless sex.
????
He said he didn't know much about it. He didn't know that we teach it. He didn't say he didn't know it. We don't teach it. It's obscure but foundational. We don't know much about it, but that doesn't change the fact that we do know that is the plan that is being offered. We can only see the results of God's work, meaning the Father's work. Most of what we think we know is speculation. For example, we don't know how spirits children are made. No one has seen it done. There is very little about it in the scriptures but what we do know suggests that spirits can neither be made nor created. If that is true, then they must become children in some other way besides vaginal birth. Our concern isn't about where spirits come from anyway, instead, it should be about the salvation of those spirits who choose to follow us as we followed God. This is an ongoing work that does not require a recycled Christ.
I think that's your claim. You have authority to override Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Snow, why not Hinckley, right?
Please substantiate your claim of "It's what our church teaches" in the current curriculum:
If it's what the church believes, substantiate it.
So, I guess I'm just supposed to take your word for it?
If it's fact, then substantiate it using the source as directed in the Church Handbook. It's a rather easy request.
Thank you for admitting that you believe our critics know basic LDS theology. Now we know what side you're actually on.
Priesthood Keys can be conferred, but may not always have power. (D&C 121:37)
Just your worthless opinion.
Wow. No denial whatsoever. But hey you wear the Mormon label, so I guess that will buy you @Richard7 's loyalty.
Yep. Use the English Dictionary to justify your beliefs. Only further evidence that you believe in "philosophies of men mingled with scripture", but by the scriptural definition of a Christian you fail miserably.
You will have worlds to save not have children? Who can keep up with your endlessly shifting theology?
Thank you. I rest my case.
blah, blah, blah, blah
I'm not the one disagreeing with Hinckley. You are.
I don't see God's mortality being stated there. Notice the statement "as man now is, God once was" is omitted.
Aaron… he referenced Lorenzo Snow’s teachings. We all know what those are, and that they include “As man is, God once was.” Joseph Smith taught it too. So did other Mormon leaders for generations. It’s disingenuous to try to present it otherwise. Of course Hinckley knew about it.
I'm not denying it was taught. Certainly, it was taught.
Hinckley said “I don’t know that we teach it.” That was a lie. Of course he knew it was taught. He taught it too.
I've already provided that information. Why don't you show me where the church has denied that God was once mortal?
I don't think he lied. We really don't know much about it and we don't teach it, not in church anyway. I once quoted from the KFD in a priesthood class, just last year. a person in the class, who was once the Bishop of the ward, was completely unaware of the quote. So, no, I don't think we teach it and for sure, we don't know much about it. It creates a problem about where it all started - how did that person get His body?
It was in all your literature, manuals, magazines, classes, talks, etc., for decades since Joseph Smith. Until Hinckley decided to re-market mormonism. All of us who are older than you understood it just fine. So did he.
This is an argument from absence. Any argument can be made on this reasoning.
In other words, you're just going to act as the crowd heckler without adding anything enlightening to the discussion. Got it.
I'm not the one agreeing with them. You are.
We teach divine potential.