Oops ...

Theo1689

Well-known member
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
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. :rolleyes:

I liar is a person who knows better and tries to present something that they know is not true as the truth.

Whether they were liars, or else incompetent teachers who had no clue what they were talking about, it's not any better.

Further, I think it's funny that you all don't know who the father of Jesus Christ is,

Actually, we know VERY WELL "who the father of Jesus Christ is".
But unfortunately for you, what we believe is OFF-TOPIC for the "Mormonism" forum.

But as usual, you are incapable of defending the bankrupt Mormonism, and so have to attempt to derail discussion and try to attack Christianity instead.

Take it to an appropriate forum.

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. :rolleyes:

We do NOT believe that "Jesus is his own father".
Once again, what Christians believe is OFF-TOPIC for this forum.
This forum is for discussing MORMONISM, so please stop trying to derail, just because you can't defend your bankrupt Mormonism.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The church has moved on from whatever you think Mormonism is. And by rejecting your own line of reasoning to justify your beliefs reveals you to be just as "Mormon" as anyone else. Whatever it takes as long as your theological beliefs are "true".

"The church has moved on...."

So you're saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that something can be true today, and false tomorrow.

That is a false church built on shifting sand...
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
So you have Orson Pratt here saying Job might be one of the wisest spirits in intelligence, eternal matter with God, and you condem that by taking sides with a man that taught…

Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands. But you who trifle with your covenants, be careful lest in judging you will be judged.”
Gaslighting. Try to keep the subject on point. I don't disagree with Pratt. He has his speculation and you have yours and I have mine.
And,

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.”
And, So, what's the problem. Denying it would be a problem if it actually is supposed to exist. right? That would be like denying the sun rises in the morning.
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
Under what law?
And,

No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.”
Still don't see a problem. It falls under the heading that no man will enter into the kingdom of God without the consent of Adam and after him Jesus Christ. Whenever God places a dispensation head on the earth, he is responsible to teaching the leaders in his dispensation the truth. If he does and they teach those they are responsible for, and it continues on down, then anyone who wishes to pass by them into the kingdom of God must have their consent. I know you don't like that. So sorry. Perhaps if you don't fix that problem in this life, you'll get a chance to in the next.
“What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? The success which has attended me in my presidency is owing to the blessings and mercy of the Almighty.”
I don't know anyone who could, do you?
And,

“So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.”
Prove there's no life there. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

You don't think he was referring to human life, do you?
My position they are both nuts
IMO, your position would be able to tell a nut from a fruit. From a position of ignorance, people sitting in the dark might think the guy striking two stones together is nuts. It remains that way until they discover that what he's doing can produce fire. All I have to do is wait for you to discover what they were talking about. That might take an eternity, but I think we have that much time.
Ironically most the stuff Pratt was belittled for, is now LDS doctrine.
women pregnant with spirit babies is not one of them, except in your mind.
So, am picking one nut who is relevant, over a nut that is protected yet ignored.
Most of the stuff that Brigham Young taught is now LDS doctrine. I'm thinking that you just don't understand what he was teaching. I think I do.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
LOL, any your theory is doctrine?…a bunch of spirits walking around asking Gods for help to be come Mortals?
That's not what I said. I said, asking to become like him. Is there any other way? I have to wonder... you must think there is.
Other the part about younger brethren helping with the creation, how does what you wrote differ from the current teaching of Elohim providing a plan of salvation to his first born spirit child?
I'm not sure that is current teachings or doctrine. It seems that you think that we believe that Jesus didn't exist before he became a "first born child". The fact that he did exist (as we all did), would indicate that He already had the plan. The plan hasn't changed since it was first implemented. You can't improve on perfection.
Paste what he wrote in context and lest go through it
I'm using your quote which you didn't source.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Plants and trees have certain ways of pro-creating, to produce saplings.
Right. :rolleyes: Do they have sex to do that?
Some, like most cherry trees need to cross pollinate…meaning there needs to be at least two trees to basically fertilize the flower and create a fruit, which has a seed, which in turn can become a tree.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
So, a lesson on the birds and the bees. :rolleyes: My question was do they have sex?
Do Gods have sex to produce God’s? …according to LDS theology yes, they teach eternal sex for a reason, and producing possible Gods is by generation, and they teach HF and HM produce by birth literal children that a reared to maturity.
I would agree with that statement. They do it just like we do.

So, do all these things have sex to produce offspring? Do trees? No. Do they produce offspring? Yes, but not through sex. Do Gods have sex to produce gods? Yes. I believe they do. And I believe their offspring can be gods as well if they keep their second estate. Do Gods have sex to produce spirits? Yes, but not through sex. Spirits could be the source of offspring among spirits, but again, that assumes that spirits have a beginning and according to Joseph Smith and the scriptures, they have no beginning. Like God, they are neither created nor made, neither, indeed, can be.

Then the gods have sex, they produce literal children that are raised to maturity just like we do here.
The church teaches spirts are eternal, so no they do not have sex, they need to be organized by a HF and a HM through a celestial relationship.
I agree with that statement too.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
"The church has moved on...."

So you're saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that something can be true today, and false tomorrow.

That is a false church built on shifting sand...
@Aaron32 has a way to go before he gets to solid ground on these subjects but he knows enough. It is unfortunate that he keeps insisting that we can find common ground by shifting our doctrines to appear to be like yours. I believe his philosophy is to accept what you can now and later the rest will fall into place. So, in this sense, polygamy is not an issue to worry about since we don't practice it today in mortality. And, he accepts polygamy in heaven because he doesn't believe that sex has anything to do with continuing the seeds. He seems to think that women there will accept a man's name as if that makes any sense. Plutonic relationships. In reality, no one will be married, we'll just share names.
 

Markk

Active member
What was that Adams name according to your theory?

Who knows?
The church teaches that Elohim is the Father of mans spirit…i.e. Heavenly Father.

The official church website, quoting Talmage, teaches…

The name Elohim … is expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is Jehovah—the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.” (Jesus the Christ,p. 38.)

Also…the Apostle BRM taught…

But the great message that was preserved for us is Jesus’ eternal relationship to his Father. ‘My’ Father and ‘your’ Father—Elohim is the Father of all men in the spirit, and of the Lord Jesus in an added and special sense. He is the Father of both Jesus’ spirit and his body. ‘My’ God and ‘your’ God—and again Elohim is the God of all men, but in Jesus’ case, though he himself is a God and has all power, though he is a member of the very Godhead itself, yet is he everlastingly in subjection to the same God who is our Father” (The Mortal Messiah: From Bethlehem to Calvary, 4 vols. [1979–81], 4:264–65).

My point is clear, I can give your scores of LDS teachings that Elohim is the name and title for Christs father, an the father of mans spirit, There is nothing I have read that Adam is Elohim, not even BY teaches that, in fact BY teaches that Elohim is the Adams father, and Christs grandfather so to speak.

So “who knows, “ at least in context with the church, is the church…there are countless teachings on who Elohim is in a LDS context.

BY teaches Elohim in basically the father of father of our sprits…or Adam your HF, and that Jesus the first begotten to Adam, which would make Elohim Christ’s grandfather, and our grandfather.

LDS orthodox theology is that HF’s name is Elohim…BY’s unorthodox teaching is that elohim is Adam’s father and mankind’s grandfather.
 

Markk

Active member
Gaslighting. Try to keep the subject on point. I don't disagree with Pratt. He has his speculation and you have yours and I have mine.
LOL…me gas lighting? You brought up what he wrote about Job, I just put it in context.

And no, I believe this is all garbage…I am objectively showing you, and correcting you on what the church teaches.
 

Markk

Active member
Again, the theory is false. Adam is not God the Father. I don't believe that was the message Brigham Young intended to convey.
Well, it is what he said, very clearly, he said Adam what the literal father of Christ. And he said elohim was Adams father. BY teaching or as SWK put it theory, is that BY taught Adam was God. He didn’t teach he was the Messiah, but God, and the only God in which Mormons are to do.

For a religion that claims to restore the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is surely a lot of confusion.
 

Markk

Active member
Actually, Markk is 100% correct.
But sadly, you will gainsay anything the critics post, as if by instinct.
Not to mention adding your insulting and childish 🤣 🤣 🤣 .
Actually this is a great example of his SOP. I could literally link scores of recipes for scalloped potatoes, and the same for funeral potatoes…and he would still insist they are the same…

He does the same for Mormonism, he will insist his theories are Mormon doctrine, yet ignore LDS . Org and and official teaching manuals that teach otherwise to his theories…and also fail to offer one teaching to back up his theory by a GA or teaching manual.

It does not matter that typically funeral potatoes are made of butter, cream cheese or sour cream, corn flakes or ritz crackers, cream of chicken soup, cheese, and frozen hash browns…and typically scallop potatoes are made of fresh sliced potatoes, butter, milk or cream, chicken broth and cheese…

He is a Mormon convert, whose married into the faith, from the south…he does not understand Mormon culture, and certainly Utah Mormonism, or Mecca. Could I be wrong, certainly, but I would bet green jello I’m not.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Well, it is what he said, very clearly, he said Adam what the literal father of Christ.
According to your interpretation of what he said and I've already stated that I disagree. That's not what he said.
For a religion that claims to restore the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is surely a lot of confusion.
The only ones confused here are our critics who still don't seem to know what we believe even though we tell them what we believe.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
The Seer is fine, the BY presidency objected to certain article in the Seer. For one Pratt insisted God was all knowing, BY and others insisted he was still learning and always would. They also reject some of his teachings on the pre-existence…and most is spelled out clearing in a newspaper article in the Millennial Star.

Pratt feuded with BY and JS from the beginning, and was actually in line to be prophet, I think even ahead of Young, but was demoted, along with Hyde, back in line a few spots in succession. Some claim, without proof, he was even ex communicated for a few months.

The first riff was that JS made a pass at Pratt’s wife, and was forced to take sides against the church or get kicked out. JS even called Pratt’s wife a whore, and said she was sleeping with the newly “retired” #1 councilor of Smiths, William Bennett.

I’m reading a book on this right now and it is very interesting. Bottom line is Pratt was stubborn and head strong and held a grudge against Smith and Young, at least that is what I seeing so far in my reading.
Thanks for that info. :) What is the name of the book, if I may ask?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
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. :rolleyes:

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.

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. :rolleyes:
Yes, we believe Father, Son, and HS are One Being, ONE God, but 3 distinct zpersons within that One Being...it is the BoM that teaches Jesus Christ is His own Father. Do you not believe what your own BoM says?
 

Markk

Active member
Thanks for that info. :) What is the name of the book, if I may ask?

What I am seeing is that some teachings that the brethren rejected of Pratt, are accepted teachings today, and some teachings that Pratt spoke out against, were confirmed to be wrong by the Essays.

After I finish reading the book, and digest my thoughts I’ll probably start a thread on it.
 
Last edited:

Magdalena

Well-known member
No, he did not. He said God REVEALED it to him, which makes it a "revelation" from God, and therefore, NOT theory. But doctrine. And it was referred to as doctrine.
Right. Early mormons understood that he meant it to be doctrine from God. Modern Mormons try to change, deny, or downplay it because it’s an obvious embarrassingly false doctrine. But it was doctrine.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
"The church has moved on...."

So you're saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that something can be true today, and false tomorrow.

That is a false church built on shifting sand...
Well, let's keep in mind, the purpose of the restored gospel was not to teach us how to become gods and answer all the mysteries of eternity.
We're talking about narrative, not the truthfulness of the gospel. The truth is if you follow Jesus, you are saved. The narrative is the underlying explanation to the bigger picture and meaning of existence, and the implications of what our lives will be like throughout eternity.
The Church grows in understanding together. God gives us commandments on the path to follow. It's the tendency of man to explain why. The lazy members of the Church who don't study the scriptures, use the tantalizing quotes to sustain their testimonies, they don't know why they do what they do, and then the culture becomes the religion. Then, the negative affects are seen of said beliefs (as Markk and I have discussed) and the head of the Church (prophets and apostles) recognize maybe the wrong thing is being focused on. So they get back to basics.

Markk defines Mormonism to the 1950's narrative - Gospel of the Ages by Milton R Hunter. If you read the Wikipedia article on Milton R Hunter, his non-religious scholarly work was criticized as "Fully imbued with the patriotism, the chin-up optimism, and the faith in progress held by Mormons and other Americans during the World War II period". I would say the priesthood manual he authored wasn't much different.
As the Church grows, new perspectives come into focus, and the narrative changes, but the punchline remains the same. This is all acceptable under our 9th Article of Faith: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God
 
Top