A study in contradictions

[Magdalena]

We teach divine potential.

We don't teach God was mortal. That's just cultural folklore.

If something gets repeated enough, because it's sensational, it does not mean it's automatically "doctrine". If cultural influences are to be confused with religious things, is the consumption of green jello also connected to our religion. Should the church have a cookbook of the orthodox method of making "funeral potatoes"?

Joseph Smith taught it. So did mormon leaders after him for decades. It was doctrine, not just folklore. Just because it’s embarrassing to you doesn’t mean it isn’t Mormon doctrine.

 

[brotherofJared]

This is an argument from absence.

Well, I agree, there is a huge absence of evidence in this matter because it doesn't exist. No one in our church, except you and many ex-members believe Joseph Smith was wrong. When you have the evidence, then we can talk about it.

 

[brotherofJared]

We don't teach God was mortal

We most certainly don't each it. It is our couplet that God once was what we are now. That seems pretty straight forward. Do you have any church leaders, besides yourself, making it clear that it doesn't mean he was mortal? Probably not.

 

[Aaron32]

Well, I agree, there is a huge absence of evidence in this matter because it doesn't exist. No one in our church, except you and many ex-members believe Joseph Smith was wrong. When you have the evidence, then we can talk about it.

I have the scriptures that's says God is unchanging.

 

[brotherofJared]

I have the scriptures that's says God is unchanging.

It appears that you get to decide when that applies.

It's obvious it wasn't intended to reflect on God's physical presence. If that were true then Jesus would never have been born. He changed from the ethereal God of Israel to a child, a human child. Before his birth, his physical form was seen in a cloud and in a pillar of fire (changing from one form to another). After his birth, he was human just like you and me. We know this because he died.

You're taking your "unchanging" point a little too far.

 

[Theo1689]

We most certainly don't each it. It is our couplet that God once was what we are now.

... which is nowhere to be found in LDS canonized Scripture.

 

[Magdalena]

It appears that you get to decide when that applies.

It's obvious it wasn't intended to reflect on God's physical presence. If that were true then Jesus would never have been born. He changed from the ethereal God of Israel to a child, a human child. Before his birth, his physical form was seen in a cloud and in a pillar of fire (changing from one form to another). After his birth, he was human just like you and me. We know this because he died.

You're taking your "unchanging" point a little too far.

Can you walk on water, raise the dead, heal the sick with just a thought, feed thousands out of nothing and walk out of your grave?

He wasn’t human “just like us.” He was God. He had the power to take on other forms. He didn’t have to die.

Not the same DNA. You don’t have that. And you never will.

 

[brotherofJared]

... which is nowhere to be found in LDS canonized Scripture.

Sorry, auto-complete is not good to me. We most certainly do teach it.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also" D&C 130:22. If there is any confusion about what that means, Joseph Smith cleared that up with the King Follet discourse which was immediately followed up with the couplet that as man is now God once was.

I don't think there can be any mistake a about it. What we don't have, anywhere, as far as I know, is how that is supposed to work for us. What exactly was God doing in his mortality. Joseph only explains that He, the Father, was doing what we saw His son do.

Now, one can say that there are spirits yet unborn and not of our dispensation (this round of mortality) that all saw what Jesus did. They, in their humanity, would not be lying if they used the exact same wording that Jesus used in this context. Jesus said, "the father", not "my father". The point being, our definition of God in this context is continuing the seeds. We don't have to be sinless to do that, we just have to meet the conditions God has established. I believe we will be sinless during that period of our lives (eternal lives). God, through Jesus Christ, has promised to fix that problem, washing away all sin in the sanctification of His blood.

Now, you can take that anyway you want to. You may say we don't teach that. It's not in any of our scriptures. The details aren't. I'm only speculating, but the high level view is. We do teach that we can become like the Father. It is possible that we can do everything He is doing and still saved worlds without end. There is an example to follow and as long as there is, the others who witnessed it can follow it.

 

[brotherofJared]

Can you walk on water, raise the dead, heal the sick with just a thought, feed thousands out of nothing and walk out of your grave?

I suppose I could if my faith were strong enough. You are asking about a principle of faith that has nothing to do with salvation. The first principle of faith is of action, that is that we do what we believe is true only having the assurance that it's true. That principle is the faith that saves us. Through it, we obtain grace unto salvation.

Your questions reflect faith as a principle of power which Jesus taught that having such faith the size of a mustard seed would enable us to say to this mountain be moved and it would be moved. I have healed the sick. I believe those instances were based on mutual faith and not contrary to the will of God. We can see from the Bible that two prophets contradicting each other is not wise. If I were to pray for rain and another prayed that it not rain, that would be a problem, would it not?

In any case, faith as a principle of power is not required for salvation. If it was, then very few would be saved.

He wasn’t human “just like us.”

Oh. I disagree. He was human just like us. He was born, just like us and he died just like we will. Was his life just like ours? Maybe not. But he had all the elements of mortality. He could be tempted. He could suffer. He could feel pain. And he could bleed. He was a human as a human could get. The difference wasn't in his body, it was in his spirit. Unlike us, IMO, his spirit managed his body and not the other way around as it is with us. Our body manages our spirit. We know a thing is wrong, but to satisfy our appetite, we choose to ignore what's right and do what's wrong. That was not an issue with Jesus. He was, apparently, afraid of the suffering that he would have to endure, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. His humanity, his body was as human as any of us. The same species as we are. Human DNA through and through.

 

[Magdalena]

I suppose I could if my faith were strong enough. You are asking about a principle of faith that has nothing to do with salvation. The first principle of faith is of action, that is that we do what we believe is true only having the assurance that it's true. That principle is the faith that saves us. Through it, we obtain grace unto salvation.

Your questions reflect faith as a principle of power which Jesus taught that having such faith the size of a mustard seed would enable us to say to this mountain be moved and it would be moved. I have healed the sick. I believe those instances were based on mutual faith and not contrary to the will of God. We can see from the Bible that two prophets contradicting each other is not wise. If I were to pray for rain and another prayed that it not rain, that would be a problem, would it not?

In any case, faith as a principle of power is not required for salvation. If it was, then very few would be saved.

Oh. I disagree. He was human just like us. He was born, just like us and he died just like we will. Was his life just like ours? Maybe not. But he had all the elements of mortality. He could be tempted. He could suffer. He could feel pain. And he could bleed. He was a human as a human could get. The difference wasn't in his body, it was in his spirit. Unlike us, IMO, his spirit managed his body and not the other way around as it is with us. Our body manages our spirit. We know a thing is wrong, but to satisfy our appetite, we choose to ignore what's right and do what's wrong. That was not an issue with Jesus. He was, apparently, afraid of the suffering that he would have to endure, but he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. His humanity, his body was as human as any of us. The same species as we are. Human DNA through and through.

Your/mormon lack of awareness and respect for God and His power is mind boggling and offensive.

 

[Aaron32]

It appears that you get to decide when that applies.

Yes. God gave that to us that ability. It's called "free agency".

It's obvious it wasn't intended to reflect on God's physical presence. If that were true then Jesus would never have been born. He changed from the ethereal God of Israel to a child, a human child. Before his birth, his physical form was seen in a cloud and in a pillar of fire (changing from one form to another). After his birth, he was human just like you and me. We know this because he died.

You're taking your "unchanging" point a little too far.

Or maybe Jesus always had the power, given by the Father, to lay down his life and take it up again, and exists in eternity to accomplish the Father's will. Clearly, he was celestial before and celestial after.
The fact is, we don't know. It's a mystery. It's given for man to know for himself by communing with God, and Mormonism permits us to live, believe, and worship according to the dictates of our own conscience, and not be limited to creeds or the philosophies of men. But there's some pharisaical narcissists that believe they get to decide and label who believes what and be ostracized if that label or definition is challenged.

I don't care if you believe God was mortal. But it is currently not found in the current curriculum led under the guidance of living apostles and prophets. So before you take umbridge, simply adhere to facts supported by evidence, and produce the evidence to support your conclusions before representing the Church and complaining with fellow Mormons that disagree with you.

 

[Aaron32]

Sorry, auto-complete is not good to me. We most certainly do teach it.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also" D&C 130:22. If there is any confusion about what that means, Joseph Smith cleared that up with the King Follet discourse which was immediately followed up with the couplet that as man is now God once was.

Here's the problem. God can have a body e flesh and bone, but there's nothing that forces rus to conclude that he HAD to be mortal in order to have that body.
There's nothing that prevents us the possibility of Him being perfect and glorified from the beginning, which Joseph Smith also stated in the King Follet Discourse. So it's really Joseph Smith contradicting Joseph Smith. And following leaders say in such a circumstance is to read the Scriptures and gain your own personal revelation.

Moreover, why was the King Follet Discourse not put into a section in the Doctrine and Covenants? It was never canonized. Joseph Smith can have his own personal ideas, but not all of those ideas are revelation.
Furthermore, D&C 130 is not found in the RLDS version of the D&C, so if we're going off of the core beliefs of what Joseph believed as a justification to sustain it, it's odd that the branch of mormonism that followed his posterity did not canonize the belief of God having a body of flesh and bone.
So, you claim of D&C 130 as evidence of God being once mortal is rather weak.

 

[brotherofJared]

Yes. God gave that to us that ability. It's called "free agency".

True. We are free to choose to follow the prophet or to reject him. We are not, however, free to decide for the church the doctrines that they teach.

 

[brotherofJared]

Or maybe Jesus always had the power, given by the Father, to lay down his life and take it up again,

I guess you don't see the problem with this statement. IF it was given, by anyone, that means he didn't "always" have it.

Clearly, he was celestial before and celestial after.

Sure, but before, he was without a body, now he has one. You might have a different idea about the resurrection, but if means to recycle our mortality over and over then we're not really ever immortal and never will be. This whole religion would be a joke. Why bother, were just going to do it again and if the number one guy has to keep doing it over and over then there is really no end to it.

The fact is, we don't know.

We don't know what? We don't know that Jesus was once a spirit who became a man? You are making a mystery that doesn't exist.

Mormonism permits us to live, believe, and worship according to the dictates of our own conscience

I have no problem with that. We also have a right to voice our beliefs and I don't object to that. I have never tried to stop you. I believe you are wrong and have offered my reasons for my belief. Your welcome to refute anything I say, but you cannot have your own facts. The church does, in fact, teach that God the Father was once a man, mortal, who died and being a resurrected being became what He is today. It doesn't matter that he might have once been a sinner or not. He is what He is. If a savior cleansed Him from sin, from that point, we can be assured that we to may be like Him.

That's what we teach. We cannot escape that very doctrine that we do teach. It is a fact. Joseph taught it. Brigham Young taught it. Lorenzo Snow taught it. And if you want to accept some of the arguments offered by our other critics, Hinckley also taught it. Your denial doesn't change it. You can't have your own facts.

 

[brotherofJared]

Here's the problem. God can have a body e flesh and bone, but there's nothing that forces rus to conclude that he HAD to be mortal in order to have that body.

LOL. To do so would require that admitting that Joseph Smith was wrong - wrong but true.

it's odd that the branch of mormonism that followed his posterity did not canonize the belief of God having a body of flesh and bone.

That's not odd at all. Just observe what a person who claims to be a member of the church claims to fall back on the scriptures and then refutes those very scriptures.

So, you claim of D&C 130 as evidence of God being once mortal is rather weak

I realize that. That's why I presented the teachings of prophets of the church which provides a foundation for the doctrine that God the Father was once mortal, like we are now.

You might not like the doctrine, but that doesn't mean it's not our doctrine. It's simply not your doctrine.

 

[Magdalena]

Here's the problem. God can have a body e flesh and bone, but there's nothing that forces rus to conclude that he HAD to be mortal in order to have that body.
There's nothing that prevents us the possibility of Him being perfect and glorified from the beginning, which Joseph Smith also stated in the King Follet Discourse. So it's really Joseph Smith contradicting Joseph Smith. And following leaders say in such a circumstance is to read the Scriptures and gain your own personal revelation.

Moreover, why was the King Follet Discourse not put into a section in the Doctrine and Covenants? It was never canonized. Joseph Smith can have his own personal ideas, but not all of those ideas are revelation.
Furthermore, D&C 130 is not found in the RLDS version of the D&C, so if we're going off of the core beliefs of what Joseph believed as a justification to sustain it, it's odd that the branch of mormonism that followed his posterity did not canonize the belief of God having a body of flesh and bone.
So, you claim of D&C 130 as evidence of God being once mortal is rather weak.

In that conference speech, Joseph Smith said he had inquired of God so he would teach the correct things. And then he immediately taught false doctrine. He claimed to be prophet of God’s church and God’s spokesperson on earth. Everyone believed that what he was saying was coming directly from God, and they still believe it.

Its just that some people, like Gordon Hinckley, deny it when things get uncomfortable for them.

I don’t believe that God would have “restored” His church on earth by giving false doctrines to His prophets. Therefore, false doctrines = false prophets = not His church.

It didn’t come from Christ. Choose to follow Him.

 

[Richard7]

Aaron32 said:
Mormonism permits us to live, believe, and worship according to the dictates of our own conscience

I have no problem with that. We also have a right to voice our beliefs and I don't object to that. I have never tried to stop you. I believe you are wrong and have offered my reasons for my belief. Your welcome to refute anything I say, but you cannot have your own facts. The church does, in fact, teach that God the Father was once a man, mortal, who died and being a resurrected being became what He is today. It doesn't matter that he might have once been a sinner or not. He is what He is. If a savior cleansed Him from sin, from that point, we can be assured that we to may be like Him.

That's what we teach. We cannot escape that very doctrine that we do teach. It is a fact. Joseph taught it. Brigham Young taught it. Lorenzo Snow taught it. And if you want to accept some of the arguments offered by our other critics, Hinckley also taught it. Your denial doesn't change it. You can't have your own facts.

I don't agree with Mormonism permits us to live, etc. etc. Actually that would be saying we sanctions anything our conscious can conceive.
I believe he means we can choose what ever our conscious can dream up, religion, beliefs etc.


"agency is absolutely central to our ability to learn and to make correct choices, making it possible to return to our Heavenly Father." Thomas E. Sherry

God nor the Plan of Salvation sanction anything other then finding truth, light and knowledge...

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.”

Whether He sinned or not does not change the basics of the Plan of Salvation and how we ourselves have to work out our own salvation. This is where speculation gets in the way of ones personal salvation... and as Aaron seems to think we are permitted and sanctioned by the Church to make dumb choices as if its not written we will suffer penalties... how can one believe Mormonism permits or teaches we can sanction or its permitted to do as one choose... we don't teach we permit anything other then obedience to the Gospel and its laws and covenants.

 

[Aaron32]

I have no problem with that. We also have a right to voice our beliefs and I don't object to that. I have never tried to stop you. I believe you are wrong and have offered my reasons for my belief. Your welcome to refute anything I say, but you cannot have your own facts. The church does, in fact, teach that God the Father was once a man, mortal, who died and being a resurrected being became what He is today. It doesn't matter that he might have once been a sinner or not. He is what He is. If a savior cleansed Him from sin, from that point, we can be assured that we to may be like Him.

That's what we teach. We cannot escape that very doctrine that we do teach. It is a fact. Joseph taught it. Brigham Young taught it. Lorenzo Snow taught it. And if you want to accept some of the arguments offered by our other critics, Hinckley also taught it. Your denial doesn't change it. You can't have your own facts.

I don't agree with Mormonism permits us to live, etc. etc. Actually that would be saying we sanctions anything our conscious can conceive.
I believe he means we can choose what ever our conscious can dream up, religion, beliefs etc.


"agency is absolutely central to our ability to learn and to make correct choices, making it possible to return to our Heavenly Father." Thomas E. Sherry

God nor the Plan of Salvation sanction anything other then finding truth, light and knowledge...

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.”

Whether He sinned or not does not change the basics of the Plan of Salvation and how we ourselves have to work out our own salvation. This is where speculation gets in the way of ones personal salvation... and as Aaron seems to think we are permitted and sanctioned by the Church to make dumb choices as if its not written we will suffer penalties... how can one believe Mormonism permits or teaches we can sanction or its permitted to do as one choose... we don't teach we permit anything other then obedience to the Gospel and its laws and covenants.

Very interesting. So why do you disagree with Janice or any of the rest of our critics? They believe Mormonism is exactly as you define it. We're all God's in embryo, we will all become God's one day, we'll each have Jesus to redeem our kids, etc, etc. 'The Godmakers' has it right, so what's the issue? Why debate? Just own it.

 

[Richard7]

Very interesting. So why do you disagree with Janice or any of the rest of our critics? They believe Mormonism is exactly as you define it. We're all God's in embryo, we will all become God's one day, we'll each have Jesus to redeem our kids, etc, etc. 'The Godmakers' has it right, so what's the issue? Why debate? Just own it.

I have no clue to what your talking about, read my response again and then comment on what I stated... as for the above it makes no sense as to what you getting at...

 

[Aaron32]

True. We are free to choose to follow the prophet or to reject him. We are not, however, free to decide for the church the doctrines that they teach.

Then please point to the source how one is to determine what is "doctrine" and what is not.