The Theories of Two saints…

organgrinder

Well-known member
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.
Creation ex nihilo. God exists beyond space and time. The Mormon god-- whomever he is-- needed matter in order to make anything. The God of the Bible made that matter. Nothing existed until the God of the Bible spoke it into being. The Mormon god is impotent and nothing more than a created being who through some goofy theology, was exalted to godhood like his predecessors and so on before.

Somebody made matter. It wasn't the Mormon god. However the eternal God of the Bible made everything.


All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

(John 1:3-4 NKJV)

The Complete Jewish Bible translates it this way:


All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing made had being.
(John 1:3 CJB)


If you believe the written word of God-- and you certainly don't BOJ based on your many many statements on these boards-- "all things" include matter. You can't even get the most fundamental truth right.
 
Last edited:

Markk

Active member
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:

???why would I show a link that said Mormons appreciate something they know nothing about?

Your living prophet is accountable for nothing? Your prophets were womanizers, they owned distilleries and winery’s, a gambling house, lied about having multiple wives when it was against the law, one most likely ordered the massacre of incident women and children. How are they held accountable?

Name one gap in my understanding of orthodox LDS thought?

The link you gave is insulting…

All Mormonism in in English? CFR? And even if it was, which it isn’t or wasn’t, what does that have to do with hermeneutics and inductive study?

According to this link just a little over half of Mormons speak English….


By Bible is in English and I study inductively using basic hermeneutics…Herminutics is not about translating something from one language to another it is about interpretation of context…and letting scripture interpret scripture…not forcing a preconceived ideology into a text…as you and BoJ do.
 

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.

This is what I first wrote about Adam Sr and Jr. Clearly in a context of nonsense.

Markk wrote…If it was as you claim it would have been taught long ago, but your multiple Adam theory is just another attempt to make it work for ones testimony. 20 years ago there were a few Mopologists that tried to say that God was Adam sr, and the Adam in the garden was Adam jr. But like your theory it could not be backed up by any LDS teaching.

This was in response to your writing this…


brotherofJared said:
All Brigham Young was saying is that God, the Father, was once a man (Adam) on an earth the same as all of us and is now a resurrected being who sits in yonder heavens. There are Adams on both sides of the veil. They are not the same person. I believe that

Here is the thread we wrote this on.



A few posts later you doubled down and wrote…

BOJ wrote This same being can also be the father of all spirits that will be given bodies in a specific world. What we do not know is how those spirits become Adam Sr's offspring. We know they become his offspring and how ever that happens, it will be the same way that we became to be the offspring of God. You think God had sex with billions of wives to produce them. I think that spirits that already exist will come to the Father (Adam Sr, a resurrected and exalted being from some other world) and through their Christ, they will seek the privilege of becoming like him. IOW, this spirit family was formed in an instant without sexual relations but simply by word of mouth, "May I enter into your kingdom and be given an opportunity to become like you?", "Yes, you may. I will teach you what needs to be done". Along the way, some will decide they don't want to do it the way they are being taught and they will think they have a better way. These will be cast out of heaven for rebellion. The remaining spirits will wait for the day when Adam Jr will partake of the forbidden fruit and on that day, they will shout for joy and all the sons of God will sing together. https://forums.carm.org/threads/oops.4238/page-20

So this begs the question…are you now backing off and resigning your theory of two Adam’s?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
???why would I show a link that said Mormons appreciate something they know nothing about?
Then why are you bringing it up?
Your living prophet is accountable for nothing? Your prophets were womanizers, they owned distilleries and winery’s, a gambling house, lied about having multiple wives when it was against the law, one most likely ordered the massacre of incident women and children. How are they held accountable?
They are accountable to God.
Name one gap in my understanding of orthodox LDS thought?
Ummm...just off the top of my head, priesthood accountability, and the 3 degrees in the Celestial Kingdom.
Whenever you get stumped you're basically like "ah yeah, it's all just a jumbled mess full of contradictions anyway."
I can look up specific instances if you prefer.

The link you gave is insulting…
Why?
All Mormonism in in English? CFR? And even if it was, which it isn’t or wasn’t, what does that have to do with hermeneutics and inductive study?
I'm not aware of the LDS Church headquarters being located outside the US, so...

Anyway, this is the purpose of Hemeneutics in Christianity: "The primary need of Hermeneutics is to determine and understand the meaning of Biblical text. The purpose of Hermeneutics is to bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the Biblical writers through a thorough knowledge of the original languages, ancient history and the comparison of Scripture with Scripture". - https://phdessay.com/explain-the-purpose-of-hermeneutics/

Since the Church claims to be led by revelation and a living prophet. There is no need to research texts to get the accurate meaning.
By Bible is in English and I study inductively using basic hermeneutics…Herminutics is not about translating something from one language to another it is about interpretation of context…and letting scripture interpret scripture…not forcing a preconceived ideology into a text…as you and BoJ do.
That doesn't matter. I'd bet if the Biblical authors were still alive, and there was a church with single authority, hermeneutics wouldn't exist - because it wouldn't be necessary. You can't reinterpret revelation over the apostles and prophets.
 

Markk

Active member
Ummm...just off the top of my head, priesthood accountability, and the 3 degrees in the Celestial Kingdom.
Whenever you get stumped you're basically like "ah yeah, it's all just a jumbled mess full of contradictions anyway."
I can look up specific instances if you prefer.
How am I stumped…? Please be specific. My point is pretty clear…that a glorified body and a celestial body is the same thing, and a logical interpretation of The D&C on this…

76: 70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

Those in the lower kingdom of the CK have a different body that Gods and those exalted…they have a exalted body, they are Gods. Is the Glory of an angel the same as the Glory of God?

Do you really believe that a Gods body that is exalted, is the same of a mineristing angel. I say that is not LDS theology.

It is a mess in that all this stuff, whether I am right or you are right, or BoJ is right…it is all a lie, none of it is true. And the GA leave folks like you and BoJ just making stuff up, in that they are silent on core thought, and allow you to only believe what makes you happy and keeps the tithing envelopes full.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
How am I stumped…? Please be specific.
Having read through your posts you've post up to 10:30pm, I'll redact that I think your stumped. I think you just oversimplify things, forcing these contradictions where they don't have to be.
My point is pretty clear…that a glorified body and a celestial body is the same thing, and a logical interpretation of The D&C on this…
I'm not sure if I stated this, but all men are glorified to varying degrees.
Glory, in one sense of the word, is light and intelligence. Adding light and intelligence is to your being is being "glorified". The glory we receive is contingent upon our righteousness.

76: 70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.
True, however, "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees" (D&C 131:1)

Those in the lower kingdom of the CK have a different body that Gods and those exalted…
Agreed. If "exalted" means to be raised above others, then everyone is exalted in varying degrees. God is exalted to the highest degree, so yes, they will have different bodies than everyone else. Just as those in the lower degrees of the CK will have the ability to dwell in the presence of the Father, and everyone below will not.
they have a exalted body, they are Gods.
And, to be clear, to avoid confusion of lurkers, they will be "gods".
Is the Glory of an angel the same as the Glory of God?
No. I'm not making that argument.
The degree angels receive, is in the same class of degree god's will receive, which probably means they will dwell in the presence of God the Father. However, angels will not be able to have posterity (however that occurs).

Do you really believe that a Gods body that is exalted, is the same of a mineristing angel. I say that is not LDS theology.
No. Agreed.
Given my statements above, can you see why I think you're over-simplifying?

It is a mess in that all this stuff, whether I am right or you are right, or BoJ is right…it is all a lie, none of it is true. And the GA leave folks like you and BoJ just making stuff up, in that they are silent on core thought, and allow you to only believe what makes you happy and keeps the tithing envelopes full.
That blade cuts both ways. You're doing the exact same thing just in the opposite direction. Just as certain Mormons attribute "easy grace" to those who proclaim "faith alone", being over simplistic, and limiting definitions to make it seem contradictory.
To me, it seems pretty clear and rational.
And yeah, sometimes, when we get into "deep doctrines", we have gaps to fill, but faithful members discuss with the understanding that they are mysteries, the revelation is limited, and it's all postulation that doesn't really matter.
I only share my opinions because anti-mormonism demands it, approaching the gospel from the end to the beginning. And if I believed as you do, I would think it is a lie as well. You have to understand the basics first, not just in logic and definitions (study), but in application (faith) also, where you can see the actual fruits and become converted. (D&C 88:118)
 

Markk

Active member
Having read through your posts you've post up to 10:30pm, I'll redact that I think your stumped. I think you just oversimplify things, forcing these contradictions where they don't have to be.
A contradiction is a contradiction. Generally, my position is the orthodox position of the Church, not my personal view. I objectively teach what is generally accepted and taught…and more importantly what the plan of salvation, as accepted, demands.

You admit your own views are Aaron-isms, and BoJ is clearly going places that cannot in any way be considered orthodox, or we would have teachings supporting his skewed views. He has dug himself in such a deep hole ad Homs are his only rebuttals.

I also disagree I over simplify things, the GA do that by watering down the core doctrines. What I do, or try to do, is to take core LDS thought, backed up by majority teachings, and then take them to the logical conclusion…in this specific case…angels that are servants cannot possibly have the same body (glory) as a exalted God and by default HF and Jesus. I could also argue, with conflicting arguments that angels are spirits, but I don’t have the time or energy to go there with my current work load. But it would be a interesting exercise.

The AGT, is a contradiction to current orthodox LDS thought, and it was only doctrine while BY was president, which can objectively be proven.

You take (bits and pieces) what you need from LDS sources, whether in context or out, and then force them it to your preconceived ideology. I don’t, I welcome any teaching in context that would change my mind, and with the AGT, but you first have to show me where it is an orthodox LDS theology and I will certainly say I was wrong, and state it is a orthodox teaching.

The KFS is a different story, it is a core doctrine in that progression and eternal laws demand that view, the KFS has assimilated deep into LDS thought and doctrine…but the current GA want to mask it, so I tend to follow your view on that as a core teaching, but offer that is is a unorthodox thought that most younger TBM don’t understand how engrained it is in LDS doctrine, and th endowment.

When I say “mask” it is, IMO, that teaching out loudly that God was once a man, just like yo and me, and progressed to a perfect man/God, separates Mormonism from main stream Christianity…so saying this like “we can be like HF” is much softer than teaching the blunt truth tht the church teaches trains men to become Gods…capital G.

Right or wrong I believe this, and I equally believe I can systematically prove it, and have. You challenge me to think things out Aaron…and I can honestly say I believe I have challenged you, and taught, or maybe better put exposed you to core LDS theology you might not have had to deal with.

That said, I enjoy our talks and interactions..thanks
 

Markk

Active member
I'm not sure if I stated this, but all men are glorified to varying degrees.
Glory, in one sense of the word, is light and intelligence. Adding light and intelligence is to your being is being "glorified". The glory we receive is contingent upon our righteousness.

I understand that, you don’t hav to say that , but the verse and passage I pasted is speaking of bodies after the resurrection and final judgment.

You are doing exactly what the correct GA do most the time in saying … “The glory we receive is contingent upon our righteousness.” The glory one receives is based on merit and duty, and ones glory and righteousness is detrimental by what one merits. No way around this teaching, there are just too many teachings on this. Th watered down version is “endure to the end” and “after all we do”…the specific version are teaching by GA like these…Note you either accept these teachings, or you have a clear contradiction Aaron. You can have it both ways, and least honestly and logically.

“All must repent to be free. All must obey to gain gospel blessings. All must keep the commandments to merit mercy. (Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ, p.242).

“We believe in individual merit as a means of gaining salvation” – Lowell L. Bennion, Introduction to the Gospel (1955; LDS sunday school material), chapter 20, “The Way of Salvation”

The Lord has told us very plainly that all our blessings are predicated upon obedience to His laws and His laws are so plain. Faith, repentance, baptism, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost are the first principles. Then He offers other things, including Temple work, salvation for the dead and missionary work in all the world. In our great universities we have marvelous training, but I want to say that without the training of the Gospel of Jesus Christ those who graduate from the great universities of the world will be disappointed that they have not earned a place in the Celestial Kingdom” (George Albert Smith, Conference Report, October 1941, p.100).


This mortal life is granted us that we may be schooledproperly and trained through the plan of salvation to be worthy tobecome in very deed sons and daughters of God. Our Eternal Father wouldhave every soul saved if that were feasible. Salvation, however, isbased on merit and obedience to divine law and therefore is onlyobtained through compliance with divine commandments.” – JosephFielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., 5:, p.82

“Very gladly would the Lord give to everyone eternal life, but since that blessing can come only on merit-through the faithful performance of duty-only those who are worthy shall receive it.” – Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 2:, p.5


“The gospel of Jesus Christ has always been essentially a planfor living more abundantly. To do so requires righteous, worthwhileeffort and application. If we are to pattern our lives in accordancewith the divine example set for us by the Savior, we must attain tothat stature by releasing and developing our capacities to the fullestthrough devoted service. Only in this way may we become worthy examplesof the kingdom of God on earth and merit consideration for membershipin the kingdom of God in heaven. (“Power Through Service,” MillennialStar 118 [9 October 1956]: 298.) – Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.330

“The gift of the Holy Ghost grows with worthiness. If you arebaptized when you are eight years old, of course you are a child, andthere is much you would not be expected to know. But the Holy Ghostcomes to you as you grow and learn and make yourselves worthy. It comesa little at a time as you merit it. And as your life is in harmony, yougradually receive the Holy Ghost in a great measure. (75-40)” – SpencerW. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball, p.114

I can give yo many many more teachings like these upon request. Note: the quotes are from either a LDS Apostle or Prophet, it merits (no pun intended) the understanding as a teaching of the church.
 

Markk

Active member
And, to be clear, to avoid confusion of lurkers, they will be "gods".
No not even…How can one have the same power, knowledge, glory, and dominion as God, do everything HF and Jesus does, and be like HF and Jesus, who are Gods…and not be a God capital G. This is a perfect example of softening LDS doctrine. To any lurker I would direct them to the book of Abraham where the Gods created the earth, and where Gods create man in their image . Or do a simple search of BY discourses where he almost always used the Capital G.

But again the bottom line is all exalted men have the same power, glory, dominion, and knowledge ….as all God before them. All knowing is All knowing, All powerful is all powerful, all glory is all glory, and all dominion is all dominion.

You can water this down, as some LDS teachers do, but the burden of proof is on you to show what the difference is between a God and god in a LDS construct in regards to a exalted man. I have searched many times Aaron, and th truth is that all exalted men have th esame attributes and Glory…100% of the time.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
A contradiction is a contradiction. Generally, my position is the orthodox position of the Church, not my personal view.
Before you can make that claim, you must first prove the meaning of an "orthodox" position in the Church. That needs to be a thread all its own. Until then, saying "orthodox position" by extension, whatever you put under that label, by extension, is your opinion.
I objectively teach what is generally accepted and taught…and more importantly what the plan of salvation, as accepted, demands.
How do you know what's generally accepted? Are you running polls or something?
Moreover, how can you possibly have any confidence is what's "demanded" when the atonement, central to the plan, offers repentance.
You admit your own views are Aaron-isms,
I believe that's a sign of honest intellectual discussion. Anyone capable of critical thought has to admit they don't know everything, and owns it when they postulate on things when evidence is minimal. Having said that, I appreciate those that can look at my reasoning and explain what why it doesn't work. My goal isn't to win an argument, (other than ruling out utter falsehoods), but rather having edifying discussions toward truth.
I also disagree I over simplify things,
I've already highlighted how this is so. You're saying celestial = exalted, and we know God is there, so angels must be outside that. Therefore angels arent celestial or something.

the GA do that by watering down the core doctrines.
And why to you think they do that? Because people "skip lines" and see the plan of salvation, and think it's something earned on meritocracy alone.

What I do, or try to do, is to take core LDS thought, backed up by majority teachings, and then take them to the logical conclusion…
So, majority rules? What if the church produces less printed material now because they want the members to gain understanding on their own? Would newer approaches and paradigms be over-ruled because more is written on a given subject? Not only is this a logical fallacy, but it conflicts how the LDS determine their beliefs.

in this specific case…angels that are servants cannot possibly have the same body (glory) as a exalted God and by default HF and Jesus.
Agreed. But no one is making the argument that God and angels have the same type body. You're also ruling "body" is absolute equivalent meaning to "glory", and that's not true, especially when D&C 131 recognizes the CK has three degrees.
I could also argue, with conflicting arguments that angels are spirits, but I don’t have the time or energy to go there with my current work load. But it would be a interesting exercise.
That would be interesting.
The AGT, is a contradiction to current orthodox LDS thought, and it was only doctrine while BY was president, which can objectively be proven.
It's only a contradiction on the basis of appeal to authority. Brigham Young himself admitted that the Saints weren't ready for it. That doesn't mean there isn't more that could be said on the subject.
You take (bits and pieces) what you need from LDS sources, whether in context or out, and then force them it to your preconceived ideology. I don’t,
If I take something out of context, please let me know. I still own it as my own understanding.
I disagree that you don't. You'll gladly embrace D&C 76 without question, but you down play D&C 131, and call for Hermeneutic interpretation.
I welcome any teaching in context that would change my mind, and with the AGT, but you first have to show me where it is an orthodox LDS theology and I will certainly say I was wrong, and state it is a orthodox teaching.
Again, define "orthodox" in Mormonism, and then I'll be happy to do what I can.
The KFS is a different story, it is a core doctrine in that progression and eternal laws demand that view, the KFS has assimilated deep into LDS thought and doctrine…but the current GA want to mask it, so I tend to follow your view on that as a core teaching, but offer that is is a unorthodox thought that most younger TBM don’t understand how engrained it is in LDS doctrine, and the endowment.
Yet, it is central to anti-mormonism. Regardless, we can't take bits and pieces that fit our narrative. Either spirits are self-existent or they are not.
So, if it's unorthodox, but the principles are engrained, then we have to throw it out all together, and there should be other ample sources to cite. In addition, you have to explain what makes it unorthodox.
I can justify why Talmage made the changes that he did, but I also acknowledge that it leads to some problematic conclusions. Obscuring the Lectures on Faith in favor of the later sections of the D&C, is similar how you would overlook D&C 131, and thus find contradictions rather than nuance regarding the degree of glory for angels. By embracing both later sections and the LoF, we can say "physical" doesn't mean what we generally think it means, and thus dispelling the baseless belief of Heavenly Mother.

When I say “mask” it is, IMO, that teaching out loudly that God was once a man, just like you and me, and progressed to a perfect man/God, separates Mormonism from main stream Christianity…so saying this like “we can be like HF” is much softer than teaching the blunt truth tht the church teaches trains men to become Gods…capital G.
If the KFD is "unorthodox", then any other source that uses it must also be "unorthodox". Otherwise, the belief is orthodox, just stated more plainly.
Christianity isn't much different in accepting that we're made in God's image, and we can acquire divine nature's, but stop short in becoming God's ourselves.
Why do the majority of LDS agree with the Plan of Salvation, but disagree with the KFD?
Moreover, why do you say men will become "God's" capital "G", when the scriptures themselves consistently use a lower case "g"?
Why can't people simply be honest and accept what it says on both sides? Because everyone has their own story, and belief of what they want it to mean, because somewhere down the line these beliefs translate to life decisions and agendas, and people want to justify themselves and their actions.
To me, this isn't crap we need to argue about. If someone says they don't believe something, then believe they don't believe it. If you ask why they don't believe it, and they tell you they were never taught it, then that is a legitimate answer. Trying to then convince them that they SHOULD believe it, only to later condemn them for believing it, is destroying faith, intellectual bullying, and isn't loving others as you would like to be loved.

Right or wrong I believe this, and I equally believe I can systematically prove it, and have. You challenge me to think things out Aaron…and I can honestly say I believe I have challenged you, and taught, or maybe better put exposed you to core LDS theology you might not have had to deal with.
You haven't exposed me to anything new I haven't heard before. Though I appreciate the challenge on forcing me to be clear in my beliefs and definitions.
I believe you could also systematically prove your beliefs. But at the times I've exposed that when your wrong, you act contradictory to the systematic rules you apply. Maybe we should start a thread on systematically determining "orthodox" Mormon doctrine. Maybe then, you'd understand why Church leaders stick to the basics nowadays.
That said, I enjoy our talks and interactions..thanks
I do as well. Thank you!
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
No not even…How can one have the same power, knowledge, glory, and dominion as God, do everything HF and Jesus does, and be like HF and Jesus, who are Gods…and not be a God capital G.
Being a God with a capital G implies we do things for our own glory and self-aggrandizement. Jesus was fully God when he was on the earth, and yet, he submitted himself to the will of the Father.
This is a perfect example of softening LDS doctrine. To any lurker I would direct them to the book of Abraham where the Gods created the earth, and where Gods create man in their image . Or do a simple search of BY discourses where he almost always used the Capital G.
As most anti-mormons would recommend. And why accept Brigham Young on the capital G, but then ignore his other teachings? It's classic cherry-picking.
But again the bottom line is all exalted men have the same power, glory, dominion, and knowledge ….as all God before them. All knowing is All knowing, All powerful is all powerful, all glory is all glory, and all dominion is all dominion.
That's not in dispute. The Bible says that we receive all the Father has. The differences conceptually are why and how we do it.
You can water this down, as some LDS teachers do, but the burden of proof is on you to show what the difference is between a God and god in a LDS construct in regards to a exalted man. I have searched many times Aaron, and th truth is that all exalted men have th esame attributes and Glory…100% of the time.
The primary difference is capital G is selfish, lower g is selfless. Our power is relative to the degree of righteousness that we possess, of which most if not all is extended through the atonement. That should be self evident.

The only evidence is the fruits that come out of it. BoJ is actually in more alignment with you than me on this topic. I'd submit if an LDS TBM doesn't have charity, they probably don't understand their own fallen natures, and detached the Plan of Salvation from the atonement, and look forward to the capital G they strive to earn. If on the other hand, if a personally generally trusts in God regardless of the outcome, and is charitable and forgiving with others, yet believes God can endow them with whatever power is necessary to accomplish His will, then they're probably more in alignment with me.
 

Markk

Active member
Before you can make that claim, you must first prove the meaning of an "orthodox" position in the Church. That needs to be a thread all its own. Until then, saying "orthodox position" by extension, whatever you put under that label, by extension, is your opinion.
I have Aaron, it is what is accepted…you even admit your views are Aaron-isms. You don’t need to believe me Aaron, but I know what the basic tenants are of the LDS faith…and Ian back up what I wrote here systematically, while you can’t…you present Aaronisms
How do you know what's generally accepted? Are you running polls or something?
Moreover, how can you possibly have any confidence is what's "demanded" when the atonement, central to the plan, offers repentance.
The atonement is two fold…LDS 101. Th first effect of the atonement is that all mankind are saved from Adams transgression, and will be resurrected. The second effect is personal salvation, it give man a overt unity to work and merit the kingdom or seated they earn. There is absolutely no promise of eternal life to a person unless they merit that salvation my obedience to the Laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Read the LDS creed. And the AoF are orthodox.

If the atonement offers repentance is that enough?


“Immortality is assured to all of us through the atonement ofour Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. But eternal life is a personalresponsibility we must earn and be worthy of.” – Delbert L. Stapley,”The Path to Eternal Glory”, Ensign, July 1973, p.99


“[E]very man and woman will receive all that they are worthy of,and something thrown in perhaps on the score of the boundless charityof God. But who can justly expect to obtain more than they merit?” -Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 20:, p.30

This mortal life is granted us that we may be schooled properly and trained through the plan of salvation to be worthy to become in very deed sons and daughters of God. Our Eternal Father would have every soul saved if that were feasible. Salvation, however, isbased on merit and obedience to divine law and therefore is only obtained through compliance with divine commandments.” – JosephFielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols., 5:, p.82


I didn’t write this stuff, these pastes are from a apostle and two prophets…it would be like rejecting Noah, Moses, and Paul…
 

Markk

Active member
I've already highlighted how this is so. You're saying celestial = exalted, and we know God is there, so angels must be outside that. Therefore angels arent celestial or something.
No, my point is that angels don’t have celestial bodies. They can’t reproduce. BY said that Adam and some other men had a celestial bodies…BoJ becasue of the position he was married to with two Adams, that ironically now he denies, he had to take the position that a celestial body can be one that is not a exalted body or God, otherwise the Adam who procreated man in mortality would have be less that a God, becasue he died and Gods can’t die. It gets deep than this but this is a general view of this.

You jumped it and made it something else, I think…. I am not even sure if you know what the argument is.
 

Markk

Active member
If I take something out of context, please let me know. I still own it as my own understanding.
I disagree that you don't. You'll gladly embrace D&C 76 without question, but you down play D&C 131, and call for Hermeneutic interpretation.
Would it make you feel better if they both had celestial bodies, but that celestial bodies are all different? Too me that destroys the context of 76. 131 is the less clearer of the two, by far…
 

Markk

Active member
Again, define "orthodox" in Mormonism, and then I'll be happy to do what I can.
What is taught in teaching manuals, and what is accepted as doctrine. I can and have backed up what I have taught, you haven’t…the burden of proof is on you. If you can prove the AGT is a orthodox LDS teaching…awesome, I will stand down and say you are correct…100%.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Here is the problem... Mormonism simply ASSUMES that the "Imago Dei" ("image of God") is "physical"
Here's the problem... We're physical. What more evidence do we need that God, Himself, is physical? Do we need more? If we do, there is the fact that Jesus, who is God, is physical. He is not a spirit floating around in space and when he appears, he will still be physical. If that wasn't true, then we couldn't have any confidence in the concept of a resurrection.
if men are little sculpture lookalikes of God, when Scripture NEVER teaches that the Imago Dei is a "physical" Imago.
Actually, that's exactly what the scriptures do teach.
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?

1Sam. 15:29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.”

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I might answer him, that we should come to trial together.
And once again, we focus on 4 or 5 words and ignore the context. These are not physical descriptions of God, but characteristics. ie. God doesn't lie. God doesn't have regret. God isn't ignorant like men are.
God is Spirit (John 4:24), He is not a "physical entity".
And yet, God was standing right there as a physical entity. The lengths you guys will go through to ignore the obvious in order to support your theology.
And Gen. 1:27 does not say that "God created man in his PHYSICAL image".
According to the definition of image, it doesn't need to be specified. The context should make it clear and the context is talking about making bodies that looked like God or like the Gods, seeing as God created both male and female. We can safely assume there were at least two Gods, probably more.
" 'Image of God' is defined as the metaphysical expression, associated uniquely to humans, which signifies the symbolical connection between God and humanity. The phrase has its origins in Genesis 1:27, wherein 'God created man in his own image...' This biblical passage does not imply that God is in human form, but that humans are in the image of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual essence."
-- Christianity dot com.
Nice opinion, but I note that it comes from non-Mormon Christianity dot come. Notice the same verse does not say "God created man in his metaphysical image" either. But you are willing to assert that word.

Why does it have to be a symbolic connection? The fact is, the "biblical passage does, in fact, imply that God has a human form". Nothing in the passage indicates and the reality explicitly indicates that we are neither in God's moral, spiritual or intellectual essence, before or after the fall. There is no indication of the couple's moral, spiritual or intellectual essence that would be like God. In fact, they became more like God after the fall.

Christianity dot com is merely trying to sustain the unsustainable. They give no evidence to support their assertion. It is merely a statement of what they think is regardless of reality. We do that too, but there is support for our understanding. All one needs to do is look to Jesus who was verifiably a man.
Yes, because humans are "physical" creation, but God is NOT.
according to you, but not according to the Bible.
You are simply ASSUMING "physicality" to God, contrary to what Scripture EXPLICITLY teaches.
You are simply assuming the incorporeal nature of God contrary to what the Scripture explicitly teaches.
Remember, "God being a man" was nothing more than an INVENTION of Joseph Smith, 1800 years after Christ:
Remember, God being a man is nothing more than what the Bible explicitly teaches for over 1500 years. John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."
And not only does Smith NEVER given any "Scripture" to support his INVENTION [that God is a man].
Uh. Yea. Right. The whole New Testament is about God being a man. It's a little hard to crucify a spirit.
God himself was once as we are now,
And he was. He was born of a woman, raised as a human child of insignificant earthly means, taught the gospel and then was killed on a cross.
and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned
And now this being, who was human and is now resurrected is exalted and sits enthroned in yonder heaven. That is, unless you think the resurrection is a hoax and God was just playing mind games with his disciples.
If it were found in Scripture, it would not be "the great secret".
The great secret is right out in the open, plain as day. It has been masked and hidden by Christian schools of thought such as those who teach that God is a spirit without really understanding what they are teaching. The fact is, the idea that God is a spirit is a philosophical production where it is thought that anything physical is dirty and sinful. This, of course, creates a serious problem for the idea that God came among us as a man, nevertheless, the Catholics pushed it and the Protestants bought it but that doesn't make it true.
Of course.
John 4:24.
Num. 23:19.
1 Sam. 15:29.
Job 9:32.
None of which refutes the idea that God is a man, of course.

.... and shall we forget, one important reason is that Scripture NEVER TEACHES that it is "physical" image.
It never teaches that it isn't a physical image.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Here's the problem... We're physical. What more evidence do we need that God, Himself, is physical?

"We are physical".
"Therefore God is physical".

That's a fallacious "non sequitur".


Compare with a BIBLICAL analogy:

"The potter is human."
"Therefore the pots are human".

Do we need more? If we do, there is the fact that Jesus, who is God, is physical.

But He wasn't INHERENTLY physical.
He TOOK ON a body of flesh (John 1:14, Phil. 2:5-8).

He is not a spirit floating around in space

John 4:24 says God IS spirit.

And spirits don't "float around" in PHYSICAL space.
Your mockery is duly noted.

and when he appears, he will still be physical. If that wasn't true, then we couldn't have any confidence in the concept of a resurrection.

Another non sequitur.

Actually, that's exactly what the scriptures do teach.

... which is why you can't provide ANY such "Scriptures".

None of which refutes the idea that God is a man, of course.

ALL of those passages which EXPLICITLY teach (and I quote) "God is NOT a man", none of those refute the idea that "God is a man".

Whatever.... ;)
 

Markk

Active member
Agreed. If "exalted" means to be raised above others, then everyone is exalted in varying degrees. God is exalted to the highest degree, so yes, they will have different bodies than everyone else. Just as those in the lower degrees of the CK will have the ability to dwell in the presence of the Father, and everyone below will not.
Come on Aaron. Do you think the LDS teaching manual for twelve and thirteen year olds is called “preparing for exaltation,” is talking about preparing for the exaltation to telestial kingdom? Does it teach how to steal and rob people…exaltation =eternal life=becoming a God.


That is just a reach of a argument Aaron…do yo really want to go there?

So if the have a different body, a exalted and glorified body, then the AGT as taught by BY as to refer to one Adam, and not some nonsense about two Adam’s. BY‘s nonsense about one Adam can stand on it’s own merits as far as I am concerned.
 

Markk

Active member
You haven't exposed me to anything new I haven't heard before. Though I appreciate the challenge on forcing me to be clear in my beliefs and definitions.
I believe you could also systematically prove your beliefs. But at the times I've exposed that when your wrong, you act contradictory to the systematic rules you apply. Maybe we should start a thread on systematically determining "orthodox" Mormon doctrine. Maybe then, you'd understand why Church leaders stick to the basics nowadays.

When have I been wrong? Where? I don’t mean that I am 100% right here, this is really subjective and a mess, and I have told you several times I can argue different arguments by different teachers, The AGT is a perfect example, i could easily take BY position, but I couldn’t back it up with current teachings, and that is my point.

Let’s do this and I mean it. You take the opposite side of the AGT, and I will argue the AGT as taught byYoung? I mean this as a challenge. If you agree I will start the thread…I will 100% defend Adam God, and you have to 100% defend against it? I wouldn’t make this challange to any other TBM in that I trust you would do your homework and let the pieces fall where they fall, you have ing nothing to lose, but truth to gain. You could start with Elohim as HF, and I will start with Elohim as heavenly grand father. Or where ever you choose?
 
Top