An interesting approach to the Book of Mormon

[BYUChemAlum]

The fuss is that “eternal” to a Mormon does not carry the same meaning as “eternal” does to the Christian world. Pre-existing “intelligences”, from whence we came, and even matter itself, they believe, are co-eternal with God. In other words, they do not believe in a God who is the cause of all things. He did not create, rather he organized using already existing things around Him. God, in other words, is not all powerful, but rather dependant upon “things” in order to accomplish His purposes. This is considered absolute heresy by the rest of Christianity.

This is not logical. God can be all powerful and still have used pre-existing materials to create. To say that He is not all-powerful would be correct if we stated that God had to use pre-existing materials, and that He was unable to create from nothing. We do not say that. Saying that He did not create ex nihilo is not the same thing as saying that He is unable to create ex nihilo. This is no different than asking why does God use physical sacraments/ordinances to accomplish divine purposes. Is it that He is depend on them, or that this is how He chooses to operate? This is why it does not logically follow that because God created ex materia He is not all powerful.

 

[SteveVH]

This is incorrect. Please cite an LDS source that claims that we believe that we “understand Him in His fullness”. Believing that He is embodied or that He was once like us does not do away with the mystery of God, nor does it logically follow that because of such beliefs we can understand Him in His fullness. In fact, a quick Google search provides ample sources showing that we do not believe that we can understand God in His fullness.

Dallin H. Oaks wrote the following in his article “Apostasy and Restoration”:

"In the process of what we call the Apostasy, the tangible, personal God described in the Old and New Testaments was replaced by the abstract, incomprehensible deity defined by compromise with the speculative principles of Greek philosophy. The received language of the Bible remained, but the so-called “hidden meanings” of scriptural words were now explained in the vocabulary of a philosophy alien to their origins. In the language of that philosophy, God the Father ceased to be a Father in any but an allegorical sense. He ceased to exist as a comprehensible and compassionate being. And the separate identity of his Only Begotten Son was swallowed up in a philosophical abstraction that attempted to define a common substance and an incomprehensible relationship." (Emphasis added)

I will defer to your explanation, however, as reading it again he admits later in this article that Mormons do not claim to fully understand. I apologize for my misunderstanding, however it seems that his words are conflicting. If God is “tangible” and “comprehensible”, then how can we not fully understand him? I will not get into the rest of his statements but suffice it to say that his idea that we consider God to be our Father only in an allegorical sense is absolutely false and a complete misrepresentation.

In any event, thank you for your correction of my statement.

 

[SteveVH]

This is not logical. God can be all powerful and still have used pre-existing materials to create. To say that He is not all-powerful would be correct if we stated that God had to use pre-existing materials, and that He was unable to create from nothing. We do not say that. Saying that He did not create ex nihilo is not the same thing as saying that He is unable to create ex nihilo. This is no different than asking why does God use physical sacraments/ordinances to accomplish divine purposes. Is it that He is depend on them, or that this is how He chooses to operate? This is why it does not logically follow that because God created ex materia He is not all powerful.

No. You want to have it both ways. You claim that “intelligences” and “matter” are co-eternal with God, which means that he did not create everything in the heavens and on earth, and that these “intelligences” and “matter” have no beginning. That means that God was not necessary for their existence which means they came into being of their own accord. Did they create themselves? This is akin to saying the painting painted itself. It all depends to whom, from your faith, one is speaking. Other Mormon posters here have claimed that God is subject to the laws of physics, which is where the notion of co-eternal matter and energy (which can neither be created or destroyed) finds its origin. If you hold this belief then God cannot be “all-powerful” but rather is subject to eternal laws of physics.

It is not my position that is illogical. It is illogical to believe that unintelligent matter could, by its own power, come into existence apart from a Creator.

 

[Peter_John]

This is not logical. God can be all powerful and still have used pre-existing materials to create. To say that He is not all-powerful would be correct if we stated that God had to use pre-existing materials, and that He was unable to create from nothing. We do not say that. Saying that He did not create ex nihilo is not the same thing as saying that He is unable to create ex nihilo. This is no different than asking why does God use physical sacraments/ordinances to accomplish divine purposes. Is it that He is depend on them, or that this is how He chooses to operate? This is why it does not logically follow that because God created ex materia He is not all powerful.

If you believe you are an individual intelligence co-eternal with God, not something inherently created by Him, then you believe that some small part of you exists independent of God. As long as we believe that any part of us exists independent of God, we cannot completely trust in God’s omnipotence, because there is some small part of us over which he has no inherent authority or power without our permission – not because he wants it so out of his love for us, but because it has to be so. That part of us is not inherently his. That is not omnipotence.

 

[Peter_John]

They disagree that God is an “unfathomable mystery” and pretend to understand Him in His fullness. .

The first clause is correct, the second is not. They do not believe we understand Him in his fulness yet, but we understand that he is a glorified man. They do believe that we cannot fully worship a God we cannot understand. They do believe that someday we will understand him completely. I could be wrong, but I think that the mystery of God is an Eternal principle in Catholicism – however complet our communion, we will never completely understand Him.

 

[SteveVH]

The first clause is correct, the second is not. They do not believe we understand Him in his fulness yet, but we understand that he is a glorified man. They do believe that we cannot fully worship a God we cannot understand. They do believe that someday we will understand him completely. I could be wrong, but I think that the mystery of God is an Eternal principle in Catholicism – however complet our communion, we will never completely understand Him.

Yes, even more so when we see Him “face to face”. The more we understand, the more intense His glory and majesty will become and we will spend eternity in awe, in the incomprehensible mystery of His being. I think of it as looking at the stars from my backyard (which in southwestern Colorado is pretty awesome) and then looking through the Hubble telescope. While our understanding grows, so does the mystery.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Dallin H. Oaks wrote the following in his article “Apostasy and Restoration”:

"In the process of what we call the Apostasy, the tangible, personal God described in the Old and New Testaments was replaced by the abstract, incomprehensible deity defined by compromise with the speculative principles of Greek philosophy. The received language of the Bible remained, but the so-called “hidden meanings” of scriptural words were now explained in the vocabulary of a philosophy alien to their origins. In the language of that philosophy, God the Father ceased to be a Father in any but an allegorical sense. He ceased to exist as a comprehensible and compassionate being. And the separate identity of his Only Begotten Son was swallowed up in a philosophical abstraction that attempted to define a common substance and an incomprehensible relationship." (Emphasis added)

I will defer to your explanation, however, as reading it again he admits later in this article that Mormons do not claim to fully understand. I apologize for my misunderstanding, however it seems that his words are conflicting. If God is “tangible” and “comprehensible”, then how can we not fully understand him? I will not get into the rest of his statements but suffice it to say that his idea that we consider God to be our Father only in an allegorical sense is absolutely false and a complete misrepresentation.

In any event, thank you for your correction of my statement.

No problem.

I don’t see that Dallin H. Oaks was stating that we believe that God can be comprehended in His fullness, or that we do away with the mystery of God. As you mentioned, Elder Oaks says that same thing that I previously said, that “This belief does not mean that we claim sufficient spiritual maturity to comprehend God. Nor do we equate our imperfect mortal bodies to his immortal, glorified being. But we can comprehend the fundamentals he has revealed about himself and the other members of the Godhead. And that knowledge is essential to our understanding of the purpose of mortal life and of our eternal destiny as resurrected beings after mortal life.”

God has not revealed everything about Himself, and we do not claim to fully comprehend God. What we do believe is that what God has revealed about Himself is comprehensible, meaning that the Godhead can be revealed to us in a way that makes sense, since God is not a God of confusion. God is “tangible” meaning that He is embodied, just like Jesus Christ. So, Elder Oaks is not being contradictory, but is saying that while we do not have comprehensive knowledge about the nature of God, what He has revealed about Himself and the Godhead has been revealed in a way that we can understand.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

No. You want to have it both ways. You claim that “intelligences” and “matter” are co-eternal with God, which means that he did not create everything in the heavens and on earth, and that these “intelligences” and “matter” have no beginning. That means that God was not necessary for their existence which means they came into being of their own accord. Did they create themselves? This is akin to saying the painting painted itself. It all depends to whom, from your faith, one is speaking. Other Mormon posters here have claimed that God is subject to the laws of physics, which is where the notion of co-eternal matter and energy (which can neither be created or destroyed) finds its origin. If you hold this belief then God cannot be “all-powerful” but rather is subject to eternal laws of physics.

It is not my position that is illogical. It is illogical to believe that unintelligent matter could, by its own power, come into existence apart from a Creator.

Except that is not what LDS theology teaches. If it is, please cite a reference.

Latter-day Saints are not saying that matter created themselves. In your post, you say that we believe that intelligences and matter have no beginning, but then in the same post, you then ask if they created themselves (which wouldn’t make sense if they have no beginning). What Latter-day Saints believe is that “matter” is eternal, and that God used pre-existing materials to create. God being omnipotent is not affected by this, since we are not saying that God is unable to create from nothing (then it would be logical to conclude that God is not omnipotent in this scenario), but we are saying that He created from pre-existing material (which says nothing about His ability or inability to create from nothing, it simply is the way it is). God created everything in the heavens and the earth because He gave form and purpose to that which did not have form and purpose.

As an aside, a great discourse on the evolution of the doctrine of creation from nothing is found in the book " Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought" by non-LDS scholar Gerhard May.

 

[Peter_John]

Except that is not what LDS theology teaches. If it is, please cite a reference.

Latter-day Saints are not saying that matter created themselves. In your post, you say that we believe that intelligences and matter have no beginning, but then in the same post, you then ask if they created themselves (which wouldn’t make sense if they have no beginning). What Latter-day Saints believe is that “matter” is eternal, and that God used pre-existing materials to create. God being omnipotent is not affected by this, since we are not saying that God is unable to create from nothing (then it would be logical to conclude that God is not omnipotent in this scenario), but we are saying that He created from pre-existing material (which says nothing about His ability or inability to create from nothing, it simply is the way it is). God created everything in the heavens and the earth because He gave form and purpose to that which did not have form and purpose.

As an aside, a great discourse on the evolution of the doctrine of creation from nothing is found in the book " Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought" by non-LDS scholar Gerhard May.

D&C 93:33, “The elemnts are eternal”. In other sources Smith affirmed that that which is eternal has no beginning and no end. Throughout much of the 20th Century LDS leaders and scholars gave discourses affirming that the Law of Conservation of Matter attests to Smith’s gift of prophecy.

I have to point out that you do not believe God is omnipotent. You believe in a multiplicity of gods, and that there were gods before our god. You even have a prayer that suggests it impossible to learn “the generation when gods began to be.” You believe that of everything that exists God is only in charge of some unspecified part of it, as there are other Gods besides him.

That is not omnipotence.

 

[ParkerD]

D&C 93:33, “The elements are eternal”. In other sources Smith affirmed that that which is eternal has no beginning and no end. Throughout much of the 20th Century LDS leaders and scholars gave discourses affirming that the Law of Conservation of Matter attests to Smith’s gift of prophecy.

I have to point out that you do not believe God is omnipotent. You believe in a multiplicity of gods, and that there were gods before our god. You even have a prayer that suggests it impossible to learn “the generation when gods began to be.” You believe that of everything that exists God is only in charge of some unspecified part of it, as there are other Gods besides him.

That is not omnipotence.

Peter John,

I believe God is omnipotent, and I suspect that BYUChemAlum believes this also.

For you, does omnipotence mean God does everything that has ever happened in the universe, or is its “First Cause” and thus is ultimately responsible for everything that has ever happened or is still to happen? That doesn’t sound so much like omnipotence as it sounds like not allowing free will choice to occur, ultimately, and not allowing for progress in other beings in the universe. What if He really is the Supreme Ruler of the universe as Joseph Smith said He is, and yet really does allow free will choice and allow progress toward becoming like Him? How does that make Him less omnipotent?

I have never read where a Catholic describes what the Savior meant by being “one” in His great Intercessory prayer. I suggest that your comment about omnipotence means you don’t understand His prayer and don’t understand the omnipotence of the Father or of the Son because of not understanding His prayer to His Father and the word “one”.

Have a good day, and wishing peace to all readers.

 

[Peter_John]

I believe God is omnipotent, and I suspect that BYUChemAlum believes this also.

I know you believe you believe that, but what you call omnipotence is relative and compartmentalized, and is therefore not true omnipotence at all.

For you, does omnipotence mean God does everything that has ever happened in the universe, or is its “First Cause” and thus is ultimately responsible for everything that has ever happened or is still to happen?
.

Your assumption is that something besides God existed before God created it. God alone is self-existent. He created everything from nothing. It is correct to say that when he created Earth the matter he used already existed, but that was because he had already created it.

That doesn’t sound so much like omnipotence as it sounds like not allowing free will choice to occur, ultimately, and not allowing for progress in other beings in the universe.
.

If other beings in the universe were self-existent there might be something to that argument. Only God is self-existent. Nothing is co-eternal with God. Nothing exists that He did not create. He can do whatever he wants with them, including us.

What if He really is the Supreme Ruler of the universe as Joseph Smith said He is
.

If he is the “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” *as *(or in the manner) Joseph Smith said he is, than that only applies to this Universe, or to some portion of Creation. It also means that there are things he did not create, that exist separately from him, including ourselves. He taught that our *intelligences *exist co-eternal with God, and that he organized them into Creation, but that he did not create them.

, and yet really does allow free will choice and allow progress toward becoming like Him? How does that make Him less omnipotent?
.

You have it backward, like the pot telling the potter, “You made me not.”

Your approach means that he must allow free will because other beings, existing independently of him, are not his creations. He has no rightful dominion over them. Free will than becomes a superior principle to God’s omnipotence. If God has to allow free will, he is not omnipotent

Instead, He DOES allow us free will *because he wants to, not because he has to, because he Loves us. *We are his creations – completely. We existed as a dream in the heart of God until the moment of our conception. and only then did we have.a personal existence.

As long as we believe that any part of us exists independent of God, we cannot trust in God’s omnipotence.

I have never read where a Catholic describes what the Savior meant by being “one” in His great Intercessory prayer. I suggest that your comment about omnipotence means you don’t understand His prayer and don’t understand the omnipotence of the Father or of the Son because of not understanding His prayer to His Father and the word “one”.
.

Never read? We talk of the Trinity and Communion all the time. If you ignore even our most basic statements, why do we even try?

It means that Jesus and the Father are one and the same, and the intercessory prayer is an expression of God’s own internal dialogue. We cannot and never will be able to understand the nature of God, but he created us to share in the same kind of existence He has in Trinity (not to be like Him, but to share in His likeness). We call that communion.

We take the intercesory prayer quite literally, as much as human language could express what the Lord was sharing. You do not take it literally. How then do we not understand it?

You, however – to take it back to topic – reject what your own “most correct book” says. It affirms repeatedly that Jesus is the very Eternal Father – and even more so in the 1830 edition, which affirms that Mary is the mother of God.

I may start quoting that edition of the Book of Mormon which your Church started from to begin with.

 

[SteveVH]

Except that is not what LDS theology teaches. If it is, please cite a reference.

Latter-day Saints are not saying that matter created themselves. In your post, you say that we believe that intelligences and matter have no beginning, but then in the same post, you then ask if they created themselves (which wouldn’t make sense if they have no beginning). What Latter-day Saints believe is that “matter” is eternal, and that God used pre-existing materials to create. God being omnipotent is not affected by this, since we are not saying that God is unable to create from nothing (then it would be logical to conclude that God is not omnipotent in this scenario), but we are saying that He created from pre-existing material (which says nothing about His ability or inability to create from nothing, it simply is the way it is). God created everything in the heavens and the earth because He gave form and purpose to that which did not have form and purpose.

As an aside, a great discourse on the evolution of the doctrine of creation from nothing is found in the book " Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought" by non-LDS scholar Gerhard May.

 

[SteveVH]

Except that is not what LDS theology teaches. If it is, please cite a reference.

Latter-day Saints are not saying that matter created themselves. In your post, you say that we believe that intelligences and matter have no beginning, but then in the same post, you then ask if they created themselves (which wouldn’t make sense if they have no beginning). What Latter-day Saints believe is that “matter” is eternal, and that God used pre-existing materials to create. God being omnipotent is not affected by this, since we are not saying that God is unable to create from nothing (then it would be logical to conclude that God is not omnipotent in this scenario), but we are saying that He created from pre-existing material (which says nothing about His ability or inability to create from nothing, it simply is the way it is). God created everything in the heavens and the earth because He gave form and purpose to that which did not have form and purpose.

As an aside, a great discourse on the evolution of the doctrine of creation from nothing is found in the book " Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought" by non-LDS scholar Gerhard May.

I guess the simple question is why do you believe that matter is co-eternal? If God is omnipotent and without beginning, and has the ability to create out of nothing, as you agree he does, it is certainly not necessary that “matter” be co-eternal with God. You say that “simply is the way it is”. But no explanation is offered. We know from the physical world, of which matter is a part, that something doesn’t come from nothing. That is a truth that we can verify with our senses and our intellect. It is not a matter of faith, but of empirical knowledge.

The account in Genesis, while admittedly not intended to be a scientific account, nevertheless imparts the truth: "Then God said ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light." And it continues… “God said…” and it was. When it comes to the creation of man God says "Let us make man…". It says nothing of “intelligences” choosing to take on flesh, to become incarnate. We are creatures made by God, therefore we are not co-eternal with God. We had a beginning point and that is the moment of conception, or in Adam and Eve’s case, the moment He breathed on them. To believe that we are co-eternal with God necessarily means that we were not, at least not entirely, created by God. Sorry, but that notion is heretical.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

I believe God is omnipotent, and I suspect that BYUChemAlum believes this also.

For you, does omnipotence mean God does everything that has ever happened in the universe, or is its “First Cause” and thus is ultimately responsible for everything that has ever happened or is still to happen? That doesn’t sound so much like omnipotence as it sounds like not allowing free will choice to occur, ultimately, and not allowing for progress in other beings in the universe. What if He really is the Supreme Ruler of the universe as Joseph Smith said He is, and yet really does allow free will choice and allow progress toward becoming like Him? How does that make Him less omnipotent?

I have never read where a Catholic describes what the Savior meant by being “one” in His great Intercessory prayer. I suggest that your comment about omnipotence means you don’t understand His prayer and don’t understand the omnipotence of the Father or of the Son because of not understanding His prayer to His Father and the word “one”.

Have a good day, and wishing peace to all readers.

You state you believe that God is omnipotent. Do you believe that any part of you exists independently of God? Do you believe, as Joseph Smith affirmed, that we are all co-eternal with God? If so, you cannot completely trust in God’s omnipotence. If you believe yourself self-existent, as Joseph Smith taught we are, than you cannot believe God is omnipotent, as he only has any just power over you if you allow it. It means that our free-agency is required of God, instead of a gift from him.

 

[Peter_John]

I have just learned that some posts I have made have allegedly been removed from this thread, with portions out of context re=-posted on another site, with reponses which deny me any opportunity for rebuttal.

The site belongs to the Joseph Smith Fellowship. They consider my remarks significant enough to link to at the top of their home page. This is the link to the page where they have re-posted my remarks. One I do not recognize, but I have made a lot of posts. jsfellowship.com/catholic-answer-forums/catholic-answer-forums-peter-john-et-al.html/

Most of their responses are self-referntial, presumptive of the Book of Mormon’s validity, and presumptive of a Great Apostasy.

The one comment that deserves immediatei response part of their response to my statement:

“Unfortunately it [The Book of Mormon] also teaches that the 12 Apostles also came down from Heaven, which contradicts Jesus’ own words. The Bible supports pre-existence of nobody but Christ. The Book of Mormon affirms that Jesus not only visited the Americas and established 12 apostles here as well, also heretical.”

Most of their response to this is self-referential, but I respond specifically to their statement “A pre-mortal stewardship is not taught in the BoM.”

In general that statement is correct. Notice how they take a statement I made with a specific application and respond as if I gave it a general application.

I specifically stated that the pre-existence of the 12 Apostles is taught in the Book of Mormon, not a general pre-mortal existence – although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that as well.

I refer you to 1 Nephi 1:9-10, just paragraphs into the book:

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.
10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.
h

Judge for yourself. Did I misrepresent it? Why should they dislike my affirmation so much that they had to twist my words to refute them? You tell me.

 

[ParkerD]

You state you believe that God is omnipotent. Do you believe that any part of you exists independently of God? Do you believe, as Joseph Smith affirmed, that we are all co-eternal with God? If so, you cannot completely trust in God’s omnipotence. If you believe yourself self-existent, as Joseph Smith taught we are, than you cannot believe God is omnipotent, as he only has any just power over you if you allow it. It means that our free-agency is required of God, instead of a gift from him.

Peter John,

Hi, again.

The words “independently of God” would have any of a number of meanings. Of course I don’t believe I exist “independently of God”. Of course I also know that when God banishes Satan and the fallen angels to Outer Darkness for all eternity forward, then that does not mean they will then exist “independently of God”. It means they will be sent where God sends them, and they will then exist in a condition forever where they have no contact with God, so it could be said that they will exist “independently of God” in that He has no more to do with them forever, and yet it will be because their choices placed them in a permanently condemned situation where they still exist but have abject horror, and God will have sent them there.

To say that an “intelligence” was in existence before God created a spirit from that intelligence, certainly says that that spirit is dependent upon God for that spirit’s existence. God could have made a person out of a rock, and placed a spirit in that person and thus created life from the rock. The question you seem to want answered is “where did the spirit come from” and you assume that it came from nothing, just presto here it was by God’s hand. The Latter-day Saint view that an intelligence did not come from “nothing” doesn’t imply that an intelligence could progress by itself, create itself into a spirit, have progeny, or act in any way independent of God. It means God took something that was capable of enlargement, and did so–enlarged its possibilities and gave it free will choice to make progress if it chose to do so. God was still the Creator of the spirit in this enlargement, and Christ is still the Light and Life of the universe and the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the Holy One who makes the Father’s plan of salvation possible.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The Latter-day Saint view that an intelligence did not come from “nothing” doesn’t imply that an intelligence could progress by itself, create itself into a spirit, have progeny

How did God’s “intelligence” progress, how did His “intelligence” get a spirit and have progeny?

 

[ParkerD]

How did God’s “intelligence” progress, how did His “intelligence” get a spirit and have progeny?

In the eternity in which He has created us and placed us, He is omnipotent, the same eternal, unchangeable God from all eternity to all eternity, so there was not a “progress” needed nor a need to “get a spirit”. We don’t know how He “has progeny”, but the Bible is clear that He does.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have just learned that some posts I have made have allegedly been removed from this thread, with portions out of context re=-posted on another site, with reponses which deny me any opportunity for rebuttal.

The site belongs to the Joseph Smith Fellowship. They consider my remarks significant enough to link to at the top of their home page. This is the link to the page where they have re-posted my remarks. One I do not recognize, but I have made a lot of posts. jsfellowship.com/catholic-answer-forums/catholic-answer-forums-peter-john-et-al.html/

Most of their responses are self-referntial, presumptive of the Book of Mormon’s validity, and presumptive of a Great Apostasy.

The one comment that deserves immediatei response part of their response to my statement:

“Unfortunately it [The Book of Mormon] also teaches that the 12 Apostles also came down from Heaven, which contradicts Jesus’ own words. The Bible supports pre-existence of nobody but Christ. The Book of Mormon affirms that Jesus not only visited the Americas and established 12 apostles here as well, also heretical.”

Most of their response to this is self-referential, but I respond specifically to their statement “A pre-mortal stewardship is not taught in the BoM.”

In general that statement is correct. Notice how they take a statement I made with a specific application and respond as if I gave it a general application.

I specifically stated that the pre-existence of the 12 Apostles is taught in the Book of Mormon, not a general pre-mortal existence – although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that as well.

I refer you to 1 Nephi 1:9-10, just paragraphs into the book:

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.
10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.
h

Judge for yourself. Did I misrepresent it? Why should they dislike my affirmation so much that they had to twist my words to refute them? You tell me.

Not the first time this has happened, one poster who has been banned used postings by Catholics here to blasphemy the Holy Eucharist on his blog.

Mormons here act as though they are participating in an honest dialogue, but I think most of us know that it is nothing more than a front. They take what we write here and use it to their own purposes. It doesn’t matter to them if they are using it honestly or not.

 

[zaffiroborant]

In the eternity in which He has created us and placed us, He is omnipotent, the same eternal, unchangeable God from all eternity to all eternity, so there was not a “progress” needed nor a need to “get a spirit”. We don’t know how He “has progeny”, but the Bible is clear that He does.

What about the “eternity”(one of those words where LDS mean something different from others) where He was an “intelligence”?