The Theories of Two saints…

Theo1689

Well-known member
To clarify, Mormonism teaches that man is the child of God, essentially made of the same essence and image of God to become like him.

... which contradicts the Bible, which teaches that man is a CREATION of God (cf. the clay pot made by the Potter), and is only a child of God through ADOPTION (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5).

Every time you bring up a Mormon teaching, we see it is a contradiction from the word of God, the Bible.

Scripture doesn't specify with exactness. That's the problem.

But it does DENY that God is a man (ie. human).

Even in Mormonism, the term "physical" is up for interpretation, since "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter"

More Mormon nonsense and psychobabble.

Yes. God is superior to man in terms of honest, single-mindedness, and keep his word. That doesn't mean he can't be a perfect man.

Num. 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:29, and Job 9:32 aren't about being a "perfect man". They simply teach that God is not "anthropos" ("human").

Since Jesus is "fully-man and fully-God", should we see God as superior to Jesus?

We're not talking about Jesus (who TOOK ON a body of flesh, since deity is NOT inherently physical, fleshly, or human).

We're talking about the FATHER.
Unless you're claiming that Jesus is "Heavenly Father", then to bring up "Jesus" at this point is to intentionally muddy the waters, since you can't prove your false teachings.

I can think of one regret God had: "the LORD regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved." - Gen 6:6-7 (New American Bible (Revised Edition))
I only make this point to show how "Sola Scriptura" is not a perfect methodolgy.

We're not talking about "regrets".
And we're not talking about "sola Scriptura".
If you want to try to attack Christianity, please do so in an appropriate forum.
This forum is for discussing MORMONISM.

And every time you try to (off-topic) attack Christianity, you PROVE that Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible, otherwise you wouldn't have to constantly try to derail discussion AWAY from Mormonism.

However you want to describe it - Mormonism believes man is the same as God:

And the Bible contradicts that Mormonism falsehood.

D&C 93: 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

More Mormon falsehood that contradicts the Bible.

Yet, I do wonder if Christians belief if Jesus kept his body or not after he ascended.

Then ask your question in an APPROPRIATE forum, and stop trying to DERAIL discussion away from Mormonism, since by constantly doing so you only continue to PROVE that Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible.

I think the underlying point upon which we can agree is that man received all of his attributes from God, and not the other way around.

Yes, because God is CREATOR, and man is His CREATION.
Contradicting Mormonism.

The concept of God is of infinite perfection. Man can't comprehend it. I don't think it means that we should rule out than God is of a different species than man, or that it's impossible that we can become like Him:
Gen 3:22 "“The man has now become like one of us",

.... KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL.

Why did you intentionally IGNORE the part which SPECIFICALLY defined what was meant?
We all know why.
You want to TWIST this verse to try to make it teach Mormonism.

and you assume on a rationalize on a priori protestant Christian doctrine. So what?

False, irrelevant, and OFF-TOPIC.

But every time you go off-topic, you PROVE that Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible. That's why you have to constantly try to run away from trying to defend it.

I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough to give absolute answers, and smart enough to recognize that you don't either.

Then you should go with the Bible, and reject the evil that is Mormonism.

Because our religion is distinct from the others allowing to be led by revelation, and the religions above do not. ;)

Thank you for proving that "God being a man" isn't "Scriptural", but a man-made invention by Joseph Smith.

But Mormon "prophets" are false prophets, since they contradict God's word, the Bible.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Well, this traces back upon which foundations our beliefs stand on. You believe in the Bible alone, I don't.

Off-topic red herring.

Even if someone believed in "Bible plus...", it STILL proves Mormonism false.

This is the precise difference of where I draw distinction from my own beliefs and the beliefs of my fellow mormons.

God is not the author of confusion.
So you need to reject the false "God of confusion" that is Mormonism, and instead believe the Bible.

While Joseph Smith said this, he also gave the Lectures on Faith:

Attempt to run away from Smith's KFD duly noted...

Talmagites want to dispose of the Lectures on Faith. Yet, as you review my discussions with Markk, I believe this can lead to a more corrupt doctrine.

Yep, because Smith and Talmage were both FALSE "prophets".
Are you beginning to understand, yet?

Having any knowledge of quantum physics, or physics in general E=Mc2, all matter is energy.

Sorry, but I teach modern physics, and you have no clue what you're talking about.
Einstein's equation does NOT teach that "all matter is energy".

I find the argument between physical and spiritual a false dilemma and rather immature.

So you believe God and the Bible to be "immature".
Good to know.

Especially, if you subscribe the AGT that Christ is the God of Creation,

AGT is NOWHERE near the same thing as "Christ is the God of Creation".

"AGT" is false Mormon nonsense.
"Christ is the God of Creation" is true Biblical doctrine.

Adam was a CREATION/creature of God, not God himself.

This assumes that the Bible teaches "all there is to know about God" vs. "all we need to know about God"

No, actually, it doesn't.
Stop trying to derail discussion away from Mormonism and trying to attack sola Scripture. All you're doing is proving Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible, when you keep RUNNING AWAY from discussion of Mormonism, and instead trying to attack Christianity.

How does it not follow?

Nice attempt to try to shift the burden of proof.
YOU don't have to prove that it "does" follow.
But I allegedly have to prove that it "doesn't"?
Double standards much?

I don't see "defending Mormonism" the same as "attacking Christianity".

It's not.
So you should stick to "defending Mormonism", instead of RUNNING AWAY from "defending Mormonism", and trying to "attack Christianity" instead.

Just I don't believe you're an "anti-mormon", but rather "pro-Christian". I consider myself both Christian and Mormon.

1) Please learn to write correct English.

2) You're not a Christian. You deny the Christ of the Bible.

We'd probably be in agreement if I believed in the Bible alone,

I don't know why you are so obsessed with "the Bible alone".
I have NEVER brought up "the Bible alone".
YOU are the one who constantly brings it up, to DERAIL discussion away from Mormonism, because you know Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible, so you want to attack the beliefs of the critics instead, and hope nobody notices.

You don't have to believe in "the Bible alone".
You only have to believe that the Bible is TRUE.
But you don't even believe the Bible is true, since you know it contradicts your false and bankrupt Mormon beliefs. That's why you have to constantly attack it.

Anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible is true, can NEVER be a Christian.

but God has shown me otherwise.

Charles Manson said the same thing.
I don't believe his false claim, either.

Adolph Hitler said the same thing.
I don't believe his false claim, either.

I don't attack Christianity,

Yeah, you do.
You're simply in denial.

just narrow-mindedness, which I believe exists in some subscribers of both Mormonism and Christianity.

Personal attack duly noted.

As it has been said,

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-- Richard Dawkins

"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
-- Terry Pratchett.

"An open mind is not an end in itself but a means to the end of finding truth."
-- Peter Kreeft.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Theo1689 said:
Num. 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
Yes. God is superior to man in terms of honest, single-mindedness, and keep his word. That doesn't mean he can't be a perfect man.

"God is not a man", means:

"God is not a perfect man";
"God is not an imperfect man";
"God is not a tall man";
"God is not a short man";
"God is not a rich man";
"God is not a poor man";
"God is not a Black man";
"God is not a White man";
"God is not an Asian man";
"God is not a Hispanic man";
"God is not a smart man";
"God is not a stupid man";

It means God is not ANY type of a "man".

And the verse teaches, "God is not a man, this is WHY He doesn't lie or change his mind".

If a similar verse said, "Bossie is not a dog, that she should bark", it means that Bossie doesn't bark, and the REASON she doesn't bark is because she's "not a dog" (she's actually a cow). It does NOT mean that Bossie is some strange kind of "non-barking dog", which is how YOU seem to be twisting these "God is not a man" passages.

Theo1689 said:
Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together.
Again, the verse are to prove God doesn't share in the imperfect attributes of man.

The reason he doesn't share "the ... attributes of man" is precisely BECAUSE He is "not a man".

These do NOT say, "God is not an imperfect man".
They say "God is NOT a man." PERIOD.
 

Markk

Active member
Again, an angel is a messenger, it is not a class of being. If they have been resurrected then their bodies can be celestial. If not, then they are simply spirits that wouldn't have a celestial body. Satan is not a resurrected being.
You are mixing a poor understanding with LDS theology…section 132 reads that those that do not enter into the ELC, marriage, will be angels and servant to those that did accept the everlasting covenant. Again according to LDS theology, a celestial body is a body that Gods has, and to be a God it means to be exalted. Jesus and the HG, both Gods before the were exalted, were spirits…so if you want to try to use them as an example then that totally destroys BY’s AGT.

Angel according to Biblical theology are ministering spirits, and created beings. In LDS theology they are folks not worthy to be like HF and Christ, so the will be servants forever.
 

Markk

Active member
You don't seem to realize that you added "are the same as God's". Again, section 132 amplified section 76. At the time of Section 76 there was no discussion about eternal marriage. In section 132, we discover the conditions upon which Celestial beings can become like God. In Section 76, all who obtain a Celestial glory have celestial bodies period. In Section 132, we discover that there are three different classes of people in the Celestial kingdom, those who accepted baptism and nothing else, those who accepted the priesthood, and those who accepted the priesthood and are married. All of them are in the Celestial Kingdom and have Celestial bodies.

But does Section 132 limit the Celestial kingdom to those three classes? No. There is still another class implied in the fact that those who are married will continue the seeds. Can you guess who those beings will be? As I have demonstrated, these beings will also have bodies of flesh and bone. They are neither baptized, married nor do they have the priesthood. They are there because they are the offspring of Celestial exalted beings, but unlike their parents, these newborns can die if they choose to do so.
This is just nonsense…why not just start your own religion. There is absolutely no rational in your argummet…LDS theology teaches and I will go as far to say it demands, that exalted people are like HF. Angel are not like HF. God in LDS theology has a celestial body and as the heading description D&C 76 reads…”The glory and reward of exalted beings in the celestial kingdom is described;”

Section 76 reads that those that receive a celestial body are those that are just and true and of the “new covenant”…what do you mean there is no discussion of eternal marriage?…again you have no idea what you are even saying…read verse 69 on the church website …D&C and when you see the blue letters that read “new covenant” click on those two words and tell me what pops up?
As I have demonstrated, these beings will also have bodies of flesh and bone. They are neither baptized, married nor do they have the priesthood. They are there because they are the offspring of Celestial exalted beings, but unlike their parents, these newborns can die if they choose to do so.

LOL noted…CFR on any sort of LDS teaching on this. I will certainly file this one next with you statement about spirits approaching HF and asking fo help…tagged.
 

Markk

Active member
I didn't know Mormonism had Hermeneutics.
Well, I have no idea what you mean by that, but inductive study is surely not taught.

Ummm....I already told you - they're not in the everlasting covenant of marriage.
Why would you think bodies of the highest degree would have the same bodies of the lowest degree in the Celestial Kingdom?

LOL, again I do not believe any of this stuff, I am just stating what the church teaches…I’m stating on those that enter into the the highest kingdom where God is, and those that are like him…have celestial bodies and they are exalted. It is you and BoJ that disagree with that. And now BoJ is asserting these folks with celestial bodies…can choose to die. Where you guys come up with this stuff is beyond me.
 

Markk

Active member
Gospel Principles manual:
"Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59)."

Why is exaltation IN the Celestial Kingdom, and not exaltation TO the Celestial Kingdom. Maybe, because there will be several stages or estates to pass through.


Well, you stopped short…way, way short Aaron…

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings . The Lord has prom- ised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59) . These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:
1 . They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62) .
2 . They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23) .
3 . They will be united eternally with their righteous family mem- bers and will be able to have eternal increase .
4 . They will receive a fulness of joy .
5 . They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20) . President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments . They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp . Bruce R . McConkie, 3 vols . [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original) .


The text you pasted, 100% out of context, and 100% supports my assertion. It is speaking of becoming a God with the same “glory” that HF has…Glory meaning a body and being like HF’s, a celestial body and being.

The “in” the CK, discussed here is where HF lives, the highest level were only those that enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage can go.

One does not pass thorough other kingdoms according to LDS theology…cite me any GA that states that and I will certainly enjoy reading about it.
 

Markk

Active member
Joseph F. Smith would need to defend this "spirit offspring" belief against Joseph Smith:
"We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.”
“God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge." (Joseph Smith, KFD)
No, JS, is older that JFS (his uncle)…so by yours and BoJ the new prophet trumps the older. Remember when I used a older teaching you said the newer was more correct? (Sorry I could not resist).

That aside…I can give you many other LDS prophets and apostles that teach this. I am surprised you would challenge such a basic teaching.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Well, I have no idea what you mean by that, but inductive study is surely not taught.
If you know a Mormon Hermeneutics class, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
LOL, again I do not believe any of this stuff, I am just stating what the church teaches…
I hope our critics recognize that. Maybe the reason you don't believe it is because you don't understand it.
I’m stating on those that enter into the the highest kingdom where God is, and those that are like him…have celestial bodies and they are exalted. It is you and BoJ that disagree with that.
And the sources I have cited would prove you wrong. Only some in the celestial kingdom are exalted. You can't escape that.
And now BoJ is asserting these folks with celestial bodies…can choose to die. Where you guys come up with this stuff is beyond me.
That's an interesting assertion by BoJ, but technically he's not wrong if the AGT is true.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Well, you stopped short…way, way short Aaron…

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings . The Lord has prom- ised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59) . These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:
1 . They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62) .
2 . They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23) .
3 . They will be united eternally with their righteous family mem- bers and will be able to have eternal increase .
4 . They will receive a fulness of joy .
5 . They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20) . President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments . They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp . Bruce R . McConkie, 3 vols . [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original) .
You completely ignored the point I was making. Notice it's says "Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom" not just "those in the celestial kingdom"
The text you pasted, 100% out of context, and 100% supports my assertion.
You've done nothing to prove that.
It is speaking of becoming a God with the same “glory” that HF has…Glory meaning a body and being like HF’s, a celestial body and being.
No. I disgree. The scriptures teach it specifically. Yes, of those who keep ALL of the commandments, including marriage. Those who get married enter the highest degree of the CK, those who don't become angels. This is basic stuff, Markk.
The “in” the CK, discussed here is where HF lives, the highest level were only those that enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage can go.
Uh...yeah. Oops. I should have just read one more paragraph. It looks like we're in agreement.

One does not pass thorough other kingdoms according to LDS theology…cite me any GA that states that and I will certainly enjoy reading about it.
"It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase." James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith [1899 edition]: 420-421.

"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 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." JS, KFD

Moreover, consider the progression of the Earth. The garden of Eden was terrestrial, after the fall it became telestial, in the millennium it will return to Terrestrial, then it will become Celestial.

Why would man be any different? Why would it be eternal progression, if there was no progression in eternity?
 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Well-known member
No, JS, is older that JFS (his uncle)…so by yours and BoJ the new prophet trumps the older. Remember when I used a older teaching you said the newer was more correct? (Sorry I could not resist).

That aside…I can give you many other LDS prophets and apostles that teach this. I am surprised you would challenge such a basic teaching.
Ummm...ok. Lol. If you honestly believe that, and remain consistent in your reasoning,
then Joseph Fielding Smith should shut down the argument entirely:

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203.)

If we can't find it in the scriptures, whether it be Adam God or Heavenly Mother/spiritual procreation, then I get we can all just set it aside!
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Yes, and why they do not have celestial bodies like HF’s!!!

Joseph F. Smith

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for he is one of them. He is the Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation. (First Presidency Statement: "The Father and the Son," Messages of the First Presidency, 5:34; also Gospel Doctrine, p.69)
So what's your point, again, nothing here discusses celestial bodies.
Joseph Fielding Smith

Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase.
And some will gain celestial bodies without all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase.
Why should I believe you if I was a investigator, over the teaching of two LDS prophets?
Because the two LDS prophets don't say what you apparently think they are saying.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
The LDS first presidency wrote…

What calling do you all hold that would trump a teaching from the first presidency?
I call that a big nothing burger. He didn't say how they would become parents. The idea of how they become parents exists solely in the theories of our critics.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Just be be clear, I don’t buy any of this, But..
Just to be clear, you are still ignoring anything that doesn't happen to agree with your animus.
Your position is that there are two Adam’s on every earth
Nope. My position is that there is a resurrected being who fathers physical offspring who will inhabit an earth after they fall by eating forbidden fruit. You're the one who posed the idea that there are two Adams, I just picked up on it. One of those is a resurrected being and he fathered offspring who inhabits the earth. That's my position and that's what Brigham Young taught.
one is a exalted being with a celestial body
Yep
and is the parent of spirits
Father of spirits - that much is Biblical and LDS doctrine.
because these spirits who existed came to him and asked for help to be placed into mortal bodys.
:rolleyes:
Pay attention. 1. They exist and have always existed and therefore cannot be created or made. 2. The only way they can advance to become like God is through God's plan of happiness. They need Him to become like Him. "God, finding himself in the midst of spirits and glory ... saw fit to institute laws whereby these might be able to become like him" (KFD). How he came to find himself in the midst of these beings who have eternally existed is anyone's guess. I hypothesize that they came to him and they did so for a reason. It was not for mortal bodies. It was to become like Him.
And the other Adam, has a celestial body
After he is born. It seems likely that he would have the same kind of body that his parents have. When we're born in mortality, we have the same kind of body our parents have. It's not hard to see the relationship, parents to children.
came from a terrestrial world, and was born also on the earth and yet not born on this earth…depending on what post we read from you.
I never said what earth he was born on unless I was referring to what Brigham Young said. I personally don't see what difference it makes where they were born. I don't believe God goes anywhere to eat fruit to produce offspring (as Brigham Young alluded). I believe he stays right there at home in his celestial world and has kids right there. And there, they raise them to maturity. They find a companion and marry them in a terrestrial setting. It's not difficult to see the descent from heaven to the garden and the from the garden to the earth. Or, IOW, from celestial to terrestrial and from there to telestial or earth.
And I am ignoring a lot?
Yea. You obviously missed the point. You ignore the fact that the Celestial Kingdom will be the dwelling place of God and those who are baptized only, those who are baptized and received the priesthood and those who are baptized, received the priesthood and were married by the holy spirit of promise for eternity. The first two groups are not exalted beings, but they will dwell in the celestial kingdom with celestial bodies living with God in his presence. These are clearly discussed in D&C 132. So, you missed those.

In addition, those who can continue the seeds who also have celestial bodies will produce offspring who have celestial bodies and guess what? They won't be exalted beings along with the baptized alone and those who have obtained the priesthood.
 

Markk

Active member
If you know a Mormon Hermeneutics class, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
I’ll give you one…I can walk you through it , or get you started…I have taken several inductive Bible study classes, even at a Bible College…it is a method of using hermeneutics in study. Why do you need Mormonism to teach you basic study methods? I use hermeneutics in reading specifications for building for contract interpretation everyday. The Supreme Court is supposed to use hermeneutics to interpret the constitution, and look what is happing there when they force self perceived ideology into a document that just doesn’t allow it.

One of the first rules is let scripture interpret scripture.…so if one verse was to say that a house was painted, another reads that a house was a wonderful color, and yet another said a house was red…we can interpret the message was this house was painted red.

So when LDS theology teaches there is eternal sex, that eternal marriage is a requirement, that God has sex, and that spirits are offspring, born, begotten, infants, children, reared to maturity…etc…and that in the pre-existence all mankind were spirit children…one can safely assume what? That LDS theology teaches that the HF and HM, through sexual relations give birth to spirit children.
 

Markk

Active member
Nope. My position is that there is a resurrected being who fathers physical offspring who will inhabit an earth after they fall by eating forbidden fruit. You're the one who posed the idea that there are two Adams, I just picked up on it. One of those is a resurrected being and he fathered offspring who inhabits the earth. That's my position and that's what Brigham Young taught.
LOL, I have to go to work…I will go back and referees you memory a bit on what was said and in what context…this will be very interesting.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I’ll give you one…I can walk you through it , or get you started…I have taken several inductive Bible study classes, even at a Bible College…it is a method of using hermeneutics in study. Why do you need Mormonism to teach you basic study methods? I use hermeneutics in reading specifications for building for contract interpretation everyday. The Supreme Court is supposed to use hermeneutics to interpret the constitution, and look what is happing there when they force self perceived ideology into a document that just doesn’t allow it.

One of the first rules is let scripture interpret scripture.…so if one verse was to say that a house was painted, another reads that a house was a wonderful color, and yet another said a house was red…we can interpret the message was this house was painted red.

So when LDS theology teaches there is eternal sex, that eternal marriage is a requirement, that God has sex, and that spirits are offspring, born, begotten, infants, children, reared to maturity…etc…and that in the pre-existence all mankind were spirit children…one can safely assume what? That LDS theology teaches that the HF and HM, through sexual relations give birth to spirit children.
I was hoping that you'd share a link that shows where Mormons appreciate Hermeneutics. All mormonism is in English. It's really not necessary for Americans. And we have a living prophet held accountable to priesthood keys to resolve all confusion. Moreover, you've demonstrated that you have gaps in your understanding and you don't believe it, and your reasoning is inconsistent, therefore why would I accept coaching from you?

This is the current instruction given to members:

 

Theo1689

Well-known member
If you know a Mormon Hermeneutics class, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Um, why does it have to be a "Mormon" Hermeneutics class?

That's actually a sign of a cult, when you have to get everything from "inside" the organization.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
What's the alternative? Spiritual image?
We learn about God creating man in His image at time of physical creation:
Right. There are many problems with the non-Mormon Christian view. 1. Creation ex nihilo. The only thing created from nothing is nothing. 2. The idea that God is an incorporeal nothingness. What imagine would that look like? Of the 9 definitions, one is completely unrelated (mathematical equation), 1 is a concept and one is a figure of speech (which I believe most closely resembles the non-Mormon Christian view. Effectively, this means it isn't really true). All the rest are visual, what it looks like.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Right. There are many problems with the non-Mormon Christian view.

This is redundant.
There is no such thing as a "Mormon Christian" view, since "Christian" is NON-Mormon, BY DEFINITION.

1. Creation ex nihilo. The only thing created from nothing is nothing. 2. The idea that God is an incorporeal nothingness.

And as usual, Mormons RUN AWAY from trying to defend Mormonism, since they know they can't, since they know that Mormonism is bankrupt and indefensible.

So they try to "derail" discussion, RUNNING AWAY from Mormonism, trying to attack Christianity instead, hoping that they can then "win" by "default", without having to prove their indefensible beliefs.

And they mock and misrepresent what we believe ("incorporeal nothingness"), which is called a "straw-man" argument.


Mormonism teaches, "God is an (exalted) man".
The BIBLE teaches, "God is NOT a man" (Num. 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:29, Job 9:32).
And Mormons can't handle it, so they either run away from Scripture, or attack Scripture, and resort to mocking instead.
 
Top