The Theories of Two saints…

brotherofJared

Well-known member
"God is not a man", means:
If that's all that it said, then you'd have an argument, but it clearly says much more than that. The passage specifies exactly what attributes that man has that God doesn't which doesn't preclude the idea that God is a man. That's your idea.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I have Aaron, it is what is accepted…
How do you prove what's accepted? Clearly, based on what you have told me, other Mormons you talk to don't accept your conclusions. So how do you explain the divergence?
you even admit your views are Aaron-isms.
Because we're talking about deep doctrines: spiritual procreation, and heavenly mothers, etc. - things where speculation is required.
You don’t need to believe me Aaron, but I know what the basic tenants are of the LDS faith…
Yes, but over simplifying those basic tenets, and then making claims like angels don't have celestial glory. You go from basic, to WAY deep.
and I can back up what I wrote here systematically
Ok. Please state your objective, systematic approach, so we can have a rubric to grade you by. I fail to see it.
you present Aaronisms
I guess I totally misread you.
Ok. You asked for my opinion on deeper doctrines, where little "official" doctrines exists, and now your going to beat me over the head with it that I know nothing about my religion.
Ok then. The conversation is going to get very dry from this point. I'll go strictly by the book.

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.
I believe the "official" phrase your referring to is salvation from "physical death."
The second effect is personal salvation, it give man a overt unity to work and merit the kingdom or seated they earn.
Hmmm... interesting. How does that work exactly? How is it measured?
Please provide an exact quote that salvation is earned and merited - seeing as how you're reading off the basic tenets of Mormonism.
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.
Yes. I agree. The 4th Article of Faith is absolutely orthodox. Now let's identify what it means.
What is the law of the gospel?
Can you define "salvation"? Or are you getting it confused with exaltation? Or does Mormonism believe there is no difference?
I predict, you're going to get very confused, give up and call it a mess, and use that as evidence of why it's false.

If the atonement offers repentance is that enough?
Yes.
How do you define "repentance"?
“Immortality is assured to all of us through the atonement of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. But eternal life is a personal responsibility we must earn and be worthy of.” – Delbert L. Stapley,”The Path to Eternal Glory”, Ensign, July 1973, p.99
Fascinating how you can't produce a quote generated in the last decade, isn't it?
Here's the link to the full article:

How does one earn and be worthy of salvation according to Elder Stapley? He references:
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:“Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.” (Matt. 13:45–46.)

This is the first commandment, Markk. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"
You think you're going to be saved by easy grace do you?

“[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 is why your systematic approach needs to be defined. I think it's fair to say that anything specifically says it's not a source of doctrine needs to be counted out. I'm happy to accept this quote if you can find it in an accepted manual, but I'm not going to scour the internet for every quote and put into context that you just pulled off of mrm.

"Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."

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
Answers to gospel questions is also not in the gospel library.
Clearly though, if you gave the anti-thesis of these statements, your clearly comfortable with God accepting the natural man. "Becoming holy" must be a foreign concept to you. Just say the magic prayer, and you're in, and sin no longer exists. Right?
I didn’t write this stuff, these pastes are from a apostle and two prophets…it would be like rejecting Noah, Moses, and Paul…
You clearly didn't pull them from the LDS website. And I doubt you read and held into memory the July 1973 edition of the Ensign.

You got frustrated, so you copied/pasted quotes off of an anti-Mormon website, with no context and understanding, and you back up you claim with an appeal to authority.

All this tells me is how much you lack understanding, Markk. Your systematic approach is reading off the anti playbook.

Yep. Easy gracism is a fallacy. Salvation does require that we forsake sin. Obviously, you don't want to post any quotes that refer to grace and you know - WHY we take the sacrament every week.

If this is the direction you're going. I have better uses of my time.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
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.
I'm just responding to the statements you're issuing to me. I don't know what BoJ is talking about, nor do I have a desire to.
You keep saying angels can't reproduce. Who is making the argument that angels can reproduce? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler? Stop bringing up this point.
If you live in the celestial kingdom you have a celestial body, one that can dwell in the presence of God. And there are three degrees in the CK. It's not that difficult.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
What is taught in teaching manuals, and what is accepted as doctrine.
How do you objectively prove what's "accepted"? You can't. Let's just stick to the text. Anything that says "this is not an official source of doctrine" or not found in the gospel library needs to be thrown out.
See the link under the section "Teach the Doctrine"
I can and have backed up what I have taught, you haven’t…the burden of proof is on you.
You cherry pick quotes. You disconnect the atonement from the plan of salvation, (not to mention the two great commandments), get contradicted, call it a mess, and then use that as evidence why it's false.
If you can prove the AGT is a orthodox LDS teaching…awesome, I will stand down and say you are correct…100%.
It's not. I never said it was. It's just my opinion. You're diving into deep doctrine, ignoring the scriptures, and then pretending it's central.
Typical Anti-Mormonism - looking beyond the mark.

 

Aaron32

Well-known member
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.
I'm totally lost on the point you're trying to make here. Yes. Clearly, the church is going to teach principles that lead to the highest degree of glory. That's part of your problem, and stuck with these absolutist views, and can't consider nuance if someone falls short of perfection.
FYI - this manual is no longer in use now.

That is just a reach of a argument Aaron…do yo really want to go there?
So be identifying that degrees of glory are actually degrees, not all or nothing, it's a reach argument? Sure. Let's 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.
I'm not going to talk about the AGT anymore. You seem to be impressed that my opinions on deep doctrine infer that I don't know the basic tenets of my religion. If I share my personal views, your just going to beat me over the head with it. So, back to the basics for you. (Spoken in my 'soup Nazi' voice)
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
When have I been wrong? Where? I don’t mean that I am 100% right here, this is really subjective and a mess,
There's your first clue. If it's a mess, and contradictory, then we can throw it out as "not true". Mormonism is truth.
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.
Right - Because you assume the Church is going to teach soup to nuts on the entirety of existence. That's not the purpose of the Church.
You're dwelling on mysteries with little "official" revelation to back it.

I recommend you take the counsel in this article seriously:
Finding Answers to Gospel Questions

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?
Sorry, dude! You burned my trust going full anti on me a few posts back, and then saying you know Mormonism better than I do. Because we talk about these mysteries you seem to think these are central doctrines, and you miss the entire point. I'm not going to be a participant of your delusion. I'll be happy to take on this challenge and discuss deep doctrine and have theoretical discussions after you admit the baseline of the gospel is the doctrine of Christ.
 

Markk

Active member
How do you prove what's accepted? Clearly, based on what you have told me, other Mormons you talk to don't accept your conclusions. So how do you explain the divergence?
GA’s and teaching manuals…people believe what ever they choose. You and BoJ, and other past TBMs that posted here believe different things. There is a orthodoxy in Mormon thought by the brethren, a understanding of doctrinal positions…if you don’t understand that and believe it, then I doubt there is anything I can say. We can go page by page of Gospel Principles and apply core thought and doctrine very easily.
Because we're talking about deep doctrines: spiritual procreation, and heavenly mothers, etc. - things where speculation is required.
Okay, these are discussed at LDS . Org, and we can logically breakdown the general teachings. And often when the answer is not clear, and can’t define the exact answer, we can certainly understand what the wrong answers are. I.E. The AGT is a accepted doctrine, which is where this all started.

Yes, but over simplifying those basic tenets, and then making claims like angels don't have celestial glory. You go from basic, to WAY deep.
I never said that in that context…I said they do not share the celestial glory that exalted beings share…that’s a big difference. And there bodies can not reproduce according to orthodox LDS thought. Which is where this started in regards to the AGT and then a two Adam theory, and then BoJ backing away from it, even going so far it was my invention. The latter in which is not orthodox LDS theology.
Ok. Please state your objective, systematic approach, so we can have a rubric to grade you by. I fail to see it.
I’ll start a thread, and we will go through Gospel Principles chapter by chapter.

I guess I totally misread you.
Ok. You asked for my opinion on deeper doctrines, where little "official" doctrines exists, and now your going to beat me over the head with it that I know nothing about my religion.
Ok then. The conversation is going to get very dry from this point. I'll go strictly by the book.
Come on Aaron, you are the one that honestly identify when you go off. The orthodox path…you penned the term Aaronisms, not me? I have no idea what you mean by the book…please explain?

I believe the "official" phrase your referring to is salvation from "physical death."
It is unconditional, and or universal salvation, both terms used by past GA. According to LDS theology Because of the fall, man dies physically and spiritually. But because of the Atonement mankind are saved from this. Adam died spiritually and physically from eating the fruit which is a orthodox teaching, that BoJ denied.

You are half correct. All mankind are saved “by” the atonement from Adam’s transgression. However, because mankind personally sin, there is a conditional salvation or personal salvation. This salvation is merit based. And mankind “may” be saved “through‘ the atonement.

This is a orthodox position of the church. While BoJ does not buy it, I think you would.

Hmmm... interesting. How does that work exactly? [Personal Salvation] How is it measured?
Please provide an exact quote that salvation is earned and merited - seeing as how you're reading off the basic tenets of Mormonism
Wow… I guess you do not buy into this, or at least understand it. JFS puts it like this

KINDS OF SALVATION SALVATION: CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL. Christ's sacrifice and death did two things for us: it brought unto us unconditional salvation and conditional salvation. Sometimes we refer to these as general salvation and individual salvation. I am going to read what Orson Pratt said in relation to this. It is one of the clearest statements I know about. It is very concise and well thought out. "The universal redemption of the posterity of Adam from the fall will be fully accomplished after the earth has been filled with its measure of inhabitants, and all men have been redeemed from the grave to immortality, and the earth itself has been changed and made entirely new." Christ's mission is not finished until that time comes. "But universal redemption from the effects of original sin, has nothing to do with redemption from our personal sins; for the original sin of Adam and the personal sins of his children, are two different things. The first was committed by man in his immortal state; the second was committed by man in a mortal state; the former was committed in a state of ignorance of good and evil; the latter was committed by man, having a knowledge of both good and evil.... "The children of Adam had no agency in the transgression of their first parents, and therefore, they are not required to exercise any agency in their redemption from its penalty. They are redeemed from it without faith, repentance, baptism, or any other act, either of the mind or body." Doctrines of Salvation

TSM taught…

Let us make our homes sanctuaries of righteousness, places of prayer, and abodes of love that we might merit the blessings that can come only from our Heavenly Father… How might we merit this promise [spoken of in Ezekiel 36]? What will qualify us to receive this blessing?” – Thomas S Monson, “To Learn, to Do, to Be”, October 2008 Conference (cf. “To Learn, To Do, To Be,” Ensign, May 1992, 47)

Neal Maxwell taught at GC…which is not by the atonement but through the atonement.

Thus, brothers and sisters, along with the great and free giftof the universal and personal resurrection there is also the personal possibility of meriting eternal life.” – Neal A. Maxwell, “Apply theAtoning Blood of Christ” Ensign, Nov 1997, 22; message from October 1997 General Conference


Other GA’s taught

“Mercy will not rob justice, and the sealing power of faithful parents will only claim wayward children upon the condition of their repentance and Christ’s Atonement. Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be fully earned. The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy.” – President James E. Faust, “Dear Are the Sheep That Have Wandered”, Ensign (CR), May 2003, p.62

“Peace is the precious fruit of a righteous life. It is possible because of the Atonement of the Savior. It is earned through full repentance, for that leads to refreshing forgiveness.” – Richard G. Scott, “The Path to Peace and Joy,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 25 (featured as the “Young Single Adult Gem” of April 28, 2010)




I can give you many more Aaron
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
If that's all that it said, then you'd have an argument, but it clearly says much more than that. The passage specifies exactly what attributes that man has that God doesn't which doesn't preclude the idea that God is a man. That's your idea.

So if someone said, "My cat is not a dog, that he should bark", you would conclude from that that my pet was some sort of "non-barking dog"? Ridiculous.

In the same way, "God is not a man, that he should lie" does NOT mean that God is some sort of "non-lying man", it means that He is NOT a man. And the reason He does not lie is BECAUSE He is not a man, just like the reason my cat doesn't bark is BECAUSE she's not a dog.
 

Markk

Active member
Yes. I agree. The 4th Article of Faith is absolutely orthodox. Now let's identify what it means.
What is the law of the gospel?
Can you define "salvation"? Or are you getting it confused with exaltation? Or does Mormonism believe there is no difference?
I predict, you're going to get very confused, give up and call it a mess, and use that as evidence of why it's false.

See post #170 Aaron. Here is 2,3,4, article of faith in the orthodox LDS creed. See my comments in red.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Universal Salvation….Hitler receives this salvation, mankind does not have agency here. You can make a argument they had agency to make a decision to come here, but that is another debate altogether. They have no agency here to accept or reject this atonement…even future SoP’s will be resurrected.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. “Through” the Atonement of Christ, and “may” be saved. This is conditional or personal salvation, and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. No promise of eternal life here, it must be earned and merited. The laws are eternal truths, and govern all truths. Article 5 teaches that it is by PH authority that this possible, in regards to administering. If you want to dig in a little, and do a little homework, you will find that the PH is a eternal truth and law that allows, or navigates authority in governing these eternal laws and ordinances.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. It must be noted that noted that these are just the first principles, of many…the list is exhaustive. Read Gospel Principles chapter 47 for a more complete list of requirements for eternal life, but even there the list is not complete.


Suggested reading… https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng This is a bit watered down, but if you want to dig deeper you can. Oaks gave a GC talk on this very topic, you can google it.

There are different terms for salvation in LDS thought…the main two are what I explained in post 170…mankind is saved from physical death and a spiritual death (separation from God)…for two reasons, Adams transgression and personal sin. The former is because of the atonment, the latter through the atonement.

This is all systematic orthodox LDS theology Aaron…and honestly, pretty basic stuff. Which lends to me always stating how the current GA’s water and fluff the teachings to th point, they don’t really teach.

Ponder on this before you respond, this is what the church teaches…and it is basic doctrine.

Take care.
 

Markk

Active member
Yes.
How do you define "repentance"?
In the Biblical sense in basically mean to turn from one direction and to go another direction. And true repentance brings a changes heart.

It is more complicated in a LDS construct.

Packer wrote taught this…

To those who wonder if they can repent and be forgiven of their sins, President Packer said the answer is yes.

“The gospel teaches us that relief from torment and guilt can be earned through repentance,” he said. “Save those very few, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no offense, large or small, which is exempt from the promise of complete forgiveness.”

“The demands of justice for broken law can be satisfied throughmercy, earned by your continual repentance and obedience to the laws ofGod… Through the Atonement you can live in a world where justiceassures that you will retain what you earn by obedience.” – Richard G.Scott, “The Atonement Can Secure Your Peace and Happiness,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 40–42. From General Conference, October 2006.

“Mercy will not rob justice, and the sealing power of faithful parents will only claim wayward children upon the condition of their repentance and Christ’s Atonement. Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be fully earned. The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy.” – President James E. Faust, “Dear Are the Sheep That Have Wandered”, Ensign (CR), May 2003, p.62

“Thus repentance is a gift of God conferred upon those who earnthe right to receive it. It comes by obedience to law. In order torepent, men must ‘do works meet for repentance.’ (Acts 26:20.) It iswith repentance as with all the gifts of God: they are bestowed uponworthy recipients and upon none others” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 217). – I Need Thee Every Hour


In light of this, how do you define it?
 

Markk

Active member
recommend you take the counsel in this article seriously:
Finding Answers to Gospel Questions



In one breath BRM tells you to openly search, then he gives you a list of things to do and not do? Read below slowly and carefully Aaron. This is such a insult to the membership, and remember BRM said this before the internet and truth like below were known. I am pretty sur ehe had his second anointing by then.


10. There Are No Private Doctrines.​

All of the doctrines and practices of the Church are taught publicly. There are no secret doctrines, no private practices, no courses of conduct approved for a few only. The blessings of the gospel are for all men. Do not be deceived into believing that the General Authorities believe any secret doctrines or have any private ways of living. Everything that is taught and practiced in the Church is open to public inspection, or, at least, where temple ordinances are concerned, to the inspection and knowledge of everyone who qualifies himself by personal righteousness to enter the house of the Lord.

I just did a quick search of “second anointing“ on LDS . Org…..and this was the first hit in a institute manual, in instructions to the instructor.


Introduction​

Caution: Exercise caution while discussing the doctrine of having our calling and election made sure. Avoid speculation. Use only the sources given here and in the student manual. Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel/chapter-19?lang=eng

This is so wrong I am almost at a loss for words…but I will just add this..

It reminds of the the movie Tombstone when Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday killed Johnny Ringo in a gun fight, and then took off his badge and threw it on the dead Ringo, and said to Wyatt Earp…”my hypocrisy only goes so far.“




How long did JS keep plural marriage from the folks…even Emma?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
And the verse teaches, "God is not a man, this is WHY He doesn't lie or change his mind".
LOL. That's a rather liberal assertion on the part of our Christian critics. The word "why" is not to be found in the passage at all. The context of the passage is that he will not change his mind and is able to make good on his word.

Plus, the word for man can be interpreted rather broadly depending on the context. Certainly, in this context, we can see that it refers to mankind and not to any particular man, but instead, what men do. Perhaps a better translation would have been, God is not like us that he should lie. It seems to me that in an effort to make claims that obviously can't be made from the passage, our critics are pretzeling themselves to make a point that doesn't exist. Clearly, God is a man. He came among us in the flesh and died on a cross. You can believe what you want, but the fact remains, God is a man and was resurrected as a man and remains to this day, a man.

Try to stick with the context of the passage and not read into it things that are not there.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You are mixing a poor understanding with LDS theology
You are mixing a poor understanding of LDS theology. :rolleyes: You must think that starting an argument by insulting my intelligence is somehow going to validate your argument.
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.
So what? They can't very well be servants to them if they aren't in the Celestial Kingdom.
Again according to LDS theology, a celestial body is a body that Gods has
False. Nothing in our theology states that no one but the gods will have a celestial body. That's something you made up all by yourself (I haven't heard it anywhere else, so I assume it's yours).
Jesus and the HG, both Gods before the were exalted, were spirits…
No, they weren't and neither were the gods in Ps 82. Clearly, what you think our definition is and even what you think the Bible's definition is are incorrect. But Christ, according to the scriptures and our theology was not exalted until after his resurrection. The Holy Ghost has not been resurrected, so - no, the Holy Ghost hasn't been exalted. We don't even know who or what the Holy Ghost is exactly. The Holy Ghost may be exalted, but we won't know that until we know more.
so if you want to try to use them as an example then that totally destroys BY’s AGT.
It doesn't destroy my understanding of the AGT and I could care less what it does to your understanding of the AGT. :rolleyes:
Angel according to Biblical theology are ministering spirits
Angels, according to Biblical theology are messengers sent from God. Some are embodied, some are not. That lines up with LDS theology pretty well.

The dictionary calls them spiritual beings, attendant spirit, white-robed winged figure in art, messenger, harbinger, a person who is like an angel.

That pretty much sums up the non-Mormon Christian theology on the subject. As Mormons, we understand that they are always spiritual, but not always spirits and that they are angels only in the performance of their calling. In the context of this argument, those who are not exalted will live in the presence of God or the gods, if you will, and be ministering angels. They will have resurrected Celestial bodies. They just won't be able to have children because they aren't married. You can't have children by yourself and that is the ONLY difference between the exalted in the Celestial kingdom and the rest who will dwell in the presence of God the Father.
In LDS theology they are folks not worthy to be like HF and Christ, so the will be servants forever.
Which is a ministering being. They aren't gods are they? I guess you don't see that there isn't any difference between them.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
GA’s and teaching manuals…people believe what ever they choose. You and BoJ, and other past TBMs that posted here believe different things. There is a orthodoxy in Mormon thought by the brethren, a understanding of doctrinal positions…
That's funny. You're the resident expert, and can speak for the brethren, but all other Mormons are clueless in your purview.
if you don’t understand that and believe it, then I doubt there is anything I can say.
You don't understand it or believe it yourself. And yet, you're the only person that seems to understand mormonism according to you. So...yeah, I guess there's not much to talk about.
We can go page by page of Gospel Principles and apply core thought and doctrine very easily.
Sounds good. Be sure to start from the beginning, and not the end.
Okay, these are discussed at LDS . Org, and we can logically breakdown the general teachings. And often when the answer is not clear, and can’t define the exact answer, we can certainly understand what the wrong answers are. I.E. The AGT is a accepted doctrine, which is where this all started.
I'm pretty sure when we started this discussion I called out that it would come to that conclusion. It doesn't matter what I'd say, you'd just blow it off because it wasn't official, and now you just want to rub my nose it. I'm not sure what your trying to accomplish here. Did BoJ get under your skin or something, and you need a cheap win or something?
I never said that in that context…I said they do not share the celestial glory that exalted beings share…that’s a big difference. And there bodies can not reproduce according to orthodox LDS thought. Which is where this started in regards to the AGT and then a two Adam theory, and then BoJ backing away from it, even going so far it was my invention. The latter in which is not orthodox LDS theology.
So, if that's not what you said, why were you making such a big point about angels not being able to reproduce? As far as I can tell, you were the only one fighting against that point, as evidence to prove only God can have "celestial bodies". But ok, I'll accept your backtracking. Let's just be honest about it, ok?
I’ll start a thread, and we will go through Gospel Principles chapter by chapter.
ok. Try and do so minus the condescension if that's possible. Otherwise, I have better uses of my time.
Come on Aaron, you are the one that honestly identify when you go off. The orthodox path…you penned the term Aaronisms, not me?
Yes. I can identify what I believe. I can't speak for the church, and neither can you. Thus, "official" doctrine needs to be identified. Not by your criteria, but by the church.
I have no idea what you mean by the book…please explain?
Meaning the only responses your going to get from me will be found according to Church authorized material.
It is unconditional, and or universal salvation, both terms used by past GA. According to LDS theology Because of the fall, man dies physically and spiritually. But because of the Atonement mankind are saved from this. Adam died spiritually and physically from eating the fruit which is a orthodox teaching, that BoJ denied.
Why are you explaining this to me? Maybe you should finish up with your discussion up with BoJ so you don't confuse me with him.
You are half correct. All mankind are saved “by” the atonement from Adam’s transgression. However, because mankind personally sin, there is a conditional salvation or personal salvation. This salvation is merit based. And mankind “may” be saved “through‘ the atonement.
Maybe you should read the whole post before responding. You don't need to explain this to me.
Lest we interpret this as a "works based" salvation, is faith a "merit"? How does man express that faith? Or does God save a man without faith?
This is a orthodox position of the church. While BoJ does not buy it, I think you would.
There we go again. "Orthodox position".
Wow… I guess you do not buy into this, or at least understand it. JFS puts it like this

KINDS OF SALVATION SALVATION: CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL. Christ's sacrifice and death did two things for us: it brought unto us unconditional salvation and conditional salvation. Sometimes we refer to these as general salvation and individual salvation. I am going to read what Orson Pratt said in relation to this. It is one of the clearest statements I know about. It is very concise and well thought out. "The universal redemption of the posterity of Adam from the fall will be fully accomplished after the earth has been filled with its measure of inhabitants, and all men have been redeemed from the grave to immortality, and the earth itself has been changed and made entirely new." Christ's mission is not finished until that time comes. "But universal redemption from the effects of original sin, has nothing to do with redemption from our personal sins; for the original sin of Adam and the personal sins of his children, are two different things. The first was committed by man in his immortal state; the second was committed by man in a mortal state; the former was committed in a state of ignorance of good and evil; the latter was committed by man, having a knowledge of both good and evil.... "The children of Adam had no agency in the transgression of their first parents, and therefore, they are not required to exercise any agency in their redemption from its penalty. They are redeemed from it without faith, repentance, baptism, or any other act, either of the mind or body." Doctrines of Salvation
Yep. Resurrection is a free gift. And?

TSM taught…

Let us make our homes sanctuaries of righteousness, places of prayer, and abodes of love that we might merit the blessings that can come only from our Heavenly Father… How might we merit this promise [spoken of in Ezekiel 36]? What will qualify us to receive this blessing?” – Thomas S Monson, “To Learn, to Do, to Be”, October 2008 Conference (cf. “To Learn, To Do, To Be,” Ensign, May 1992, 47)
You cropped out "We need His guidance in our daily lives."
What was the answer to the question? Here's some other notable quotes:
  • “Lay aside … sin … , and let us run with patience the race … set before us, Looking [for an example] unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.” (Heb. 12:1–2.)
  • it is only through the utilization of the divine power conferred on men that they may ever hope to realize the full import and vitality of this endowment.
  • “Priesthood is not given for the honor or aggrandizement of man, but for the ministry of service among those for whom the bearers of that sacred commission are called to labor. …

Or is that not your point? I'm a little confused on your stance. Is man required to do ANYTHING to receive a blessing?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member

Neal Maxwell taught at GC…which is not by the atonement but through the atonement.

Thus, brothers and sisters, along with the great and free gift of the universal and personal resurrection there is also the personal possibility of meriting eternal life.” – Neal A. Maxwell, “Apply the Atoning Blood of Christ” Ensign, Nov 1997, 22; message from October 1997 General Conference
Correct. Now couple that statement with "that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah,"
How is that different from the statement of Imputed righteousness - a concept in Christian theology proposing that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to [believers] — that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith."

Other GA’s taught

“Mercy will not rob justice, and the sealing power of faithful parents will only claim wayward children upon the condition of their repentance and Christ’s Atonement. Repentant wayward children will enjoy salvation and all the blessings that go with it, but exaltation is much more. It must be fully earned. The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy.” – President James E. Faust, “Dear Are the Sheep That Have Wandered”, Ensign (CR), May 2003, p.62
Yes. This is talking about "exaltation" not "salvation".

“Peace is the precious fruit of a righteous life. It is possible because of the Atonement of the Savior. It is earned through full repentance, for that leads to refreshing forgiveness.” – Richard G. Scott, “The Path to Peace and Joy,” Ensign, Nov. 2000, 25 (featured as the “Young Single Adult Gem” of April 28, 2010)
And what is the price to pay mentioned later in the talk? “He offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.” There must be humility and sorrow.

Does God save prideful and willfully rebellious people?

I can give you many more Aaron
Yeah, I'm sure there's many anti-mormon websites to draw from. And each quote will fail because you fail to see the context in which the statements were given because you're so anxious to prove your narrative. The thing is, you don't give a balanced argument. Do you wonder why Christians refuse to accept Christianity? Why would I want to join a religion that leaves me as it found me? You don't explain the role or works, or repentance, or the meaning of faith at all. You just search for the term "merit" in a quote - and its just bad, bad, bad.
 

Markk

Active member
You are mixing a poor understanding of LDS theology. :rolleyes: You must think that starting an argument by insulting my intelligence is somehow going to validate your argument.
LOL…you have insulted your own intelligence BoJ. You have dug yourself in such a deep hole in regards to the AGT, among other theories, you even went so far to say I brought up the theory of two Adam’s. You claim spirits have to ask heavenly parents for help to become mortal. And you state I have a poor understanding of LDS theology? Give me a LDS teaching on this…

This is one of your wacky theories… The decayed fruit theory.

Correct. So Adam Jr is a spirit son of Adam Sr. Again, we don't know how that happens, but we know that Adam Sr did not create the spirit we are calling Adam Jr. But it seems to me that Adam Sr gets the materials of the earth on which Adam Jr will be born from the fruits he is eating. He is not diffusing his body so that he can become mortal, as you suppose. But is providing the decayed fruit as the substance from which will make the body in Eve from the dust of that earth. We certainly know that the woman must death to nourish her growing child. But it is an interesting theory about how the dust of the earth becomes a mortal child. opps page 23, post 447.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
See post #170 Aaron. Here is 2,3,4, article of faith in the orthodox LDS creed. See my comments in red.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Universal Salvation….Hitler receives this salvation, mankind does not have agency here. You can make a argument they had agency to make a decision to come here, but that is another debate altogether. They have no agency here to accept or reject this atonement…even future SoP’s will be resurrected.
Yep.
Mormon 9:
13 And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.
14 And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them; and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is happy shall be happy still; and he that is unhappy shall be unhappy still.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. “Through” the Atonement of Christ, and “may” be saved. This is conditional or personal salvation, and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
Yep.

3 Nephi 27:
13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.
No promise of eternal life here, it must be earned and merited.
Ummm....no. I don't see the words "earn" or "merit" anywhere in the AoF. You added those terms.
Is having faith, "earning" salvation?
The laws are eternal truths, and govern all truths.
Yep.
Article 5 teaches that it is by PH authority that this possible, in regards to administering.
Yes. You need authority to administer ordinances. That doesn't mean by doing the works salvation is "earned".
If you want to dig in a little, and do a little homework, you will find that the PH is a eternal truth and law that allows, or navigates authority in governing these eternal laws and ordinances.
Why do homework? You're on a roll. Just make the argument and spill the beans, cite your references, and then we can know what the heck you're talking about. Do eternal laws need to be governed?

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. It must be noted that noted that these are just the first principles, of many…the list is exhaustive. Read Gospel Principles chapter 47 for a more complete list of requirements for eternal life, but even there the list is not complete.
So you have salvation and exaltation confused. Good to know.

Suggested reading… https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng This is a bit watered down, but if you want to dig deeper you can. Oaks gave a GC talk on this very topic, you can google it.
Who are you writing to exactly? You talk as if I'm a new investigator. Do you think I haven't heard of the articles of faith before?
By quoting something, do you honestly think you know what you're talking about? You think it's all a mess, remember? It makes no sense to you.

There are different terms for salvation in LDS thought…the main two are what I explained in post 170…mankind is saved from physical death and a spiritual death (separation from God)…for two reasons, Adams transgression and personal sin. The former is because of the atonment, the latter through the atonement.
Redundant.

This is all systematic orthodox LDS theology Aaron…and honestly, pretty basic stuff. Which lends to me always stating how the current GA’s water and fluff the teachings to th point, they don’t really teach.
I see no system defined or used.
Here's your system: 1) Treat the person your talking to as if their stupid. 2) Quote something out of context. 3) Despite what it says rephrase it to fit your narrative. 4) Anything that doesn't support your narrative call it watered down and contradictory to what it "really" means. That's basically all I'm seeing here.

Ponder on this before you respond, this is what the church teaches…and it is basic doctrine.
Why should I? You don't take an ounce of thought to what you post.
 
Top