Looks as if the song is equating the LDS prophets with the true prophets from the Bible....but their "prophets" unfortunately DID lead its membership astray--look at the "Adam as God" doctrine BYoung taught, which caused much division in the LDS church and was quietly dropped after Young's death. Should anyone in the LDS church have "followed the prophet" when Young was actively teaching that doctrine?Aaron, watch the Video in post #606 again, or if you haven’t yet.
He (Nelson) says clearly, with no hesitation that he speaks for God, and as God loves the child, he to also does…. equating it is the same breath.
This has nothing to do with counseling on survival storage or family home evening as you asserted. These kids look to this man, as God. The video is about following God Aaron, it is about following a man, who speaks for God.
If we take it further, we know he has a second anointing which according to LDS thought his exaltation is assured; or in other words he is a God already jr class.
I know this rubs you the wrong way Aaron, as it does me in a huge way, but it is LDS theology in video, real time.
Jeremiah 16:20 is a interesting verse in context to my point…Mormonism here make these men Gods. It is nothing more in my opinion as modern idolatry.
“Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?”
This video below makes me ill…it is basically mind control. Watch it from begging to end…you wonder why so many of us were screwed up, this is a perfect example.
Think hard on this video and its message to 5 and 6 year olds.
I am not joking, but making a point you as a trek fan will understand…The Morg collective in action.…”resistance if futile!”
Hmmm then my Temple prep teacher must have been a liar.
They are equating them with Christ. Basically the church creates a messiah syndrome. See link belowLooks as if the song is equating the LDS prophets with the true prophets from the Bible....but their "prophets" unfortunately DID lead its membership astray--look at the "Adam as God" doctrine BYoung taught, which caused much division in the LDS church and was quietly dropped after Young's death. Should anyone in the LDS church have "followed the prophet" when Young was actively teaching that doctrine?
Again, I don't know what you think you are trying to say. Let me ask you a question on point from your original question. Did I answer it?
Why allow misinformed Temple prep teachers since the Temple is extremely important and vital to the covenants necessary for salvation. And besides it was in the temple prep manual.
This kind of statement really cracks me up. Our critics assume that anyone that tells them something that might not be true is a liar.
I liar is a person who knows better and tries to present something that they know is not true as the truth.
Definition from a dictionary which you all should learn to use - "a person who knowingly utters falsehood; one who deceives by false report or representation."
If the person doesn't know better they aren't lying. You would need to prove that your "temple prep teacher" knew that what they were telling you was false. It could be that they just didn't know better.
I do not believe this part of what you claim we all believe.Further, I think it's funny that you all don't know who the father of Jesus Christ is, especially since you all think that the Holy Ghost and God the Father AND Jesus Christ are the same being. In that case, Jesus is his own father.
No one has said that their council is "basically worthless" if they're dead. That's clearly not true since we consistently refer to past presidents.
No absolutely not, you will not like Postum!A funny true story… we to a regional wrestling tournament in high school, sponsored by the church. We went up north in a motor home and stayed the night at the stake center parking lot.
In the morning our coaches got up and were playing mr mom, and made breakfast for us and made everyone a cup of Postum. After few sips our head coach, who was a former bishop just got a disgusted look and his face and dumped (threw) the Postum on the parking lot and said “this tastes like crap”…everyone in suit started cracking up and we all dumped our cups.
My mom drank it and I don’t know how. I’m tempted to buy some just to see if I would like it 45 years after last trying it?
No kidding. They are not indicators of sexual relations to produce spirit babies.Yes they describe the process, and these “speculations” are teachings.
I've already demonstrated you don't understand the law of progression. Eternal families actually have real physical children. They don't give birth to spirits.In context with the plan of salvation, progression, the eternal family, and the Law of Eternal Progression.
No. It doesn't. Maybe you should re-read my post. The mother and father in spiritual rebirth is symbolic, it is not sexual.The context demands a subject of a eternal father and mother
Your speculation isn't backed up with LDS teachings either. Try showing us one LDS teaching that states that spirit babies are produced through sexual relations.Your is a speculation in that you can’t back it up with any LDS teaching, while I have given you clear teachings the teach a literal birth.
Right there in John 3:6 Flesh is born of flesh, spirit is born of the spirit.Show me one LDS teaching that compare a spirit birth in th preexistence with Nicodemus and being Born Anew as in the Bible.
I have to ask, are we literally the sons and daughters of God now? Is an adopted son or daughter literally a child of the parents who adopted them? We can be literal children and not be biological children. Your unwillingness to see the connection is simply born out of your animus. Of course, you can't be wrong. As I stated, if God was "literally, biologically" the father of every single one of us, we'd all have very similar features, but we don't. We actually look like our "literal biological" human parents. This is common sense. You might need a GA to explain it to you, but I don't.Or as Christ depicted as a husband is what these GA and teaching manual mean when the teach this like this…literal means literal,
And again, I have no problem with that quote. It contains zero information that might lead one to believe that we become sons and daughter of God only through sexual relations. When you find a GA who said it was through sexual relations, then you might have a foot to stand on but so far, you have nothing.This quote is not in one modern teaching manual, but in two modern manuals, and on LDS . Org.
God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith , 335). And Gospel Principle chapter 2 (LDS .org)
You are simply making stuff up that has no place or teachings in the LDS church. See how that works?You are simply making stuff up that has no place or teaching in the LDS church
There is absolutely no teaching that I know of that being born to heavenly parents is through sexual relations... CFR or stop with these speculations. Let me catch my breath.... See how that works?There is absolutly no teaching I know of that being born to heavenly parents is a symbolic covenant…CFR or stop with these speculations
When a fallen world, it is inhabited by fallen beings ; when a redeemed world, it is inhabited by celestial beings, redeemed from the grave, and glorified, and made like unto the God who created and redeemed them, whose sons they are, and henceforth they are Gods, ordained to do the works appertaining to Gods ; and as their Father God has done before them, so will they do. Heaven, then, is a redeemed glorified world, inhabited by the Gods, and by their sons and daughters, who are the fruits of their own loins.
"The Father of Spirits," having filled one of the celestial kingdoms with his own Sons and Daughters— the fruit of his own loins, gave commandment unto His " First Born " to organize, out of the eternal elements, another world.
They are…begat means begat, Trees beget Trees, monkeys beget monkeys, people beget people, and Gods beget Gods. And spirits beget spirits.No kidding. They are not indicators of sexual relations to produce spirit babies.
I've already demonstrated you don't understand the law of progression. Eternal families actually have real physical children. They don't give birth to spirits.
Uh huh. Where do you see that these sons and daughters are spirits in this quote?
Also, I guess you decided not to provide the reference for your quote this time. Getting skiddish now?