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!
