any former mormons out there?

[truthsilence]

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Oh how I love the Authenticity of this, the Catholic Church. Zerinus? You were saying?..

 

[Nan_S]

More **Catholicism **from Z’s favorite ECF.
Origen

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon. . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages”.

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages”.

Well, well… So I am backed up by Origen in my statements that God exists outside of time.

Thank you so very much.

Z, it’s not a deep or incomprehensible theology, at least not to a Catholic. But I do understand the difficulty you may have in grasping this idea if you have been taught that the universe is eternal and the spirits (one of which is God) are also eternal. Personal perspective shift is the problem.

Nan

 

[mjf001]

I can see that you are being “tutored” by someone, and I know by whom. Normally I shouldn’t be replying to your post at all; but I am going to make an exception on this occasion and reply. But if I perceive that you have been “tutored” again, I will refrain from reading your posts in the future or replying to them. I am here to debate with you; but not with your invisible “tutor” by proxy through you.

So, as to your question of why the Church has not disavowed that doctrine by an official declaration, the answer is that it is not the policy of the Church to do so. Rather, the Church’s policy, when such errors are discovered, is to simply refrain from teaching it until it dies of its own accord. As President Hinckley has pointed out in those newspaper articles, that doctrine is no longer being taught publicly in Church, and that is true. If you look at the preachings and sermons of the Church leaders from the pulpit during the past couple of decades, you will find that it hardly if ever gets a mention. It will eventually die out of its own accord.

There are at least two good reasons for this. The first is that the faith of some Church members is weak, and such sudden and drastic change in doctrine might have a negative effect on their faith and testimony. Remember what Paul taught about the “eating of meat” in Romans chapter 14. The same situation applies here. It is neither charitable nor wise to destroy someone’s faith over an error in doctrine. The second reason is a practical one. The hymn book is not the only place where this doctrine appears. It crops up in all kinds of Church publication. It would be a mammoth task, and an enormously expensive job to replace all of these (otherwise very good) publications merely because of an error in doctrine. Corrections and the necessary adjustments will be made over time as publications are revised and reedited. That is how the necessary corrections are eventually made.

zerinus

I hate to keep bringing stuff like this up, but if mormon doctrine’s are true, particularly the one’s taught by JS, why would they need to be changed or disavowed? I always kind of figured doctrine is doctrine, it’s either true or it isn’t.

Food for thought?

Michael

 

[truthsilence]

Well, well… So I am backed up by Origen in my statements that God exists outside of time.

Thank you so very much.

Z, it’s not a deep or incomprehensible theology, at least not to a Catholic. But I do understand the difficulty you may have in grasping this idea if you have been taught that the universe is eternal and the spirits (one of which is God) are also eternal. Personal perspective shift is the problem.

Nan

Hi Nan,

I thought of your earlier post when I read that.

God bless, and Goodnight!!

 

[Nan_S]

As far as I know. The deuterocanonicals, also known as the Apocrypha, were canonized by the Catholic Church in 1546. It was not a part of the canon before that time. The LDS Church has not canonized the Apocrypha, and does not consider it scripture.

The deuterocanonicals were part of the Latin Vulgate (vulgate means “common tongue”) back when Jerome translated it in the late 4th century. They were also part of the Greek-language bible maintained by the (now) Orthodox church, from the very earliest days of Christianity.

The councils of Nicaea and Constantinople in the 4th century, having already accepted the Septuagint canon (with its “extra” books) as the authentic Jewish scriptures, were concerned with determining what books were to be the New Testament. The canon of the OT was a non-issue by the 4th century, and stayed a non-issue until Martin Luther wanted to throw some books out because they did not agree with his beliefs. In response, the Council of Trent in the 16th century ratified the OT books that had always been in the Latin Vulgate.

Deuterocanonical means “second canon” (the Greek-language OT books). Apocrypha means “hidden.” Funny thing is, these books were, as I said, included in the 1611 KJB, and remained there until they were supressed by the Protestants in the mid-18th century. They were not “hidden” at all until after the reformation.

The “angel” in the book of Tobias also says that if you burn a fish’s heart on fire, the smoke will drive away evil spirits! (Tobit 6:5-7.) That sounds more like witchcraft to me than scripture. Do you honestly think that is the word of God?

This instruction wasn’t to us in general, but to the specific people involved for a specific demon. God has often told us to do things that seem to make no sense. I remember something about collapsing a city wall by walking around it seven times and blowing ram’s horns. I believe the city was named Jericho…

On the subject of angels, we believe there are two kinds of heavenly beings that can minister to mankind as God’s messengers or agents, hence His “angels”. The first kind are what the scriptures call “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23)…The second category are resurrected beings, which we have already described. So in a sense some of your arguments are valid. Angelic visitations in the OT were mostly or nearly always of spirit beings without any physical bodies; but they were still the spirits of men,

not of some other category of God’s creations.
zerinus
Interesting perspective and teaching. Obviously it is far different from Catholic perspective on angels. Mormon angels are spirits that either have had or are still awaiting human bodies. Catholic teaching is that angels are a completely different order of creation altogether. I see how your definition aligns with your doctrine of pre-existence, but I see no way to reconcile our two churches’ doctrines.

Nan

 

[christianley]

So, as to your question of why the Church has not disavowed that doctrine by an official declaration, the answer is that it is not the policy of the Church to do so. Rather, the Church’s policy, when such errors are discovered, is to simply refrain from teaching it until it dies of its own accord.

zerinus

Then it will be fun in the future to see the Church get out of its insistence the Book of Mormon is historical. The question is will they quit teaching out of the book altogether or simply quit teaching that Mormon, Lehi, Nephi and Moroni were real people? I guess they have done this to some extent – they no longer teach that all of the Native Americans are Lamanites like they did when I first joined the LDS Church when I was 19. I can well remember the Lamanite Generation musical group from BYU consisted of Native Americans, but now they have changed that name because they can no longer substantiate that North American Native Americans are actually Lamanites. I’m sure the teaching will eventually disappear that Mormons should take the Book of Mormon literally – it’s already begun to happen through some of the writings of FARMS.

 

[zerinus]

Well, well… So I am backed up by Origen in my statements that God exists outside of time.

Thank you so very much.

Z, it’s not a deep or incomprehensible theology, at least not to a Catholic. But I do understand the difficulty you may have in grasping this idea if you have been taught that the universe is eternal and the spirits (one of which is God) are also eternal. Personal perspective shift is the problem.

Nan

I never denied that God’s relationship with time and space could be different from ours. I even quoted you a verse from the Book of Mormon that supported that view. What I am saying is that we don’t know enough about either to be able to make the kind of precise and definitive inferences and deductions from it that you seem willing to make. Let me illustrate with an example. Is time travel possible? Would it be possible for God to transport me from the 21st century to the 16th century if He wanted to? I personally very much doubt it; but the real answer is that I simply don’t know; and I am not willing to make definitive assertions about someting that I don’t know. You seem to be willing to do that; but I an not. That is the difference between us.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I hate to keep bringing stuff like this up, but if mormon doctrine’s are true, particularly the one’s taught by JS, why would they need to be changed or disavowed? I always kind of figured doctrine is doctrine, it’s either true or it isn’t.

Food for thought?

Michael

No food for thought! I think that what I have already said in this thread makes the answer to that question clear. If that still does not help, then I am afraid I cannot help you any further than that.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Deuterocanonical means “second canon” (the Greek-language OT books). Apocrypha means “hidden.” Funny thing is, these books were, as I said, included in the 1611 KJB, and remained there until they were supressed by the Protestants in the mid-18th century. They were not “hidden” at all until after the reformation.

I am no expert, and have not sutdied the history of the thing, but my understanding is that the Apcypha has never been considered equal with the test of the OT canon.

This instruction wasn’t to us in general, but to the specific people involved for a specific demon. God has often told us to do things that seem to make no sense. I remember something about collapsing a city wall by walking around it seven times and blowing ram’s horns. I believe the city was named Jericho…

I don’t think that the two situations are quite comparable.

Interesting perspective and teaching. Obviously it is far different from Catholic perspective on angels. Mormon angels are spirits that either have had or are still awaiting human bodies. Catholic teaching is that angels are a completely different order of creation altogether. I see how your definition aligns with your doctrine of pre-existence, but I see no way to reconcile our two churches’ doctrines.

I think that the LDS doctrine of angels has a lot more biblical support than the Catholic one though!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Then it will be fun in the future to see the Church get out of its insistence the Book of Mormon is historical. The question is will they quit teaching out of the book altogether or simply quit teaching that Mormon, Lehi, Nephi and Moroni were real people? . . .

The Book of Mormon is historcally and factually and doctrinally true. There is no question about that; and the LDS Church will never abandon that doctrtine. You can rest assured that that will never happen.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

You can talk to yourself that you know Mormon doctrine better than Mormons do until dooms day, but you don’t. The leadership of the LDS church has always confirmed that the standard of LDS doctrine is always the standard works, and nothing else. zerinus

I’ve never made any claim that I know Mormon doctrine better than any Mormon. I’m sure you know more about Mormon doctrine than I do. I’m also certain that Bruce R. McConkie knows more about Mormon doctrine than YOU do. That’s why, when I want to know about Mormon doctrine, I go to the book by that name, by Mr. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine.

Reminding you, the 1966 edition, which I have, was done with the approval of the LDS highest leadership. It is sold in the Deseret bookstore, and this volume I have is the 20th printing, dated 2000.

Why is it that Zerinus thinks he knows more about Mormon doctrine than does Bruce R. McConkie?

McConkie is tells us that the apostasy was UNIVERSAL. The meaning of UNIVERSAL is easy to find in a dictionary. You’re backpedaling from Mormon doctrine as taught by approved theologians. I suspect the reason for this is that whenever you’re in Christian company, as you are now, you need to soften your approach. It just wouldn’t be a good idea to claim that we Catholics here are all apostates. But when you’re among your group of little missionaries, you undoubtedly chat it up: How utterly APOSTATE we all are. Right?

 

[Allweather]

The Book of Mormon is historcally and factually and doctrinally true. There is no question about that; and the LDS Church will never abandon that doctrtine. You can rest assured that that will never happen.

zerinus

Actually, there appears to be quite a bit of “question about that.” Right here, there are several very intelligent, educated former Mormons who are pointing out to you the inconsistencies and fallacies of Mormon thought and documentation. Even knuckleheads like me, who know very little about the details, can “sense” the wrongness of Mormonism.

Now, it may be true that the Mormon church will never abandon the BoM. But for sure, many individual MORMONS are abandoning it. This must be cause for concern among you missionaries. As the word gets out, and as the competition between you and the other door-knocker cult, the JWs, intensifies (they’re winning, BTW), the pickin’s get slimmer and slimmer, eh?

 

[zerinus]

I’ve never made any claim that I know Mormon doctrine better than any Mormon. I’m sure you know more about Mormon doctrine than I do. I’m also certain that Bruce R. McConkie knows more about Mormon doctrine than YOU do. That’s why, when I want to know about Mormon doctrine, I go to the book by that name, by Mr. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine.

Reminding you, the 1966 edition, which I have, was done with the approval of the LDS highest leadership. It is sold in the Deseret bookstore, and this volume I have is the 20th printing, dated 2000.

Why is it that Zerinus thinks he knows more about Mormon doctrine than does Bruce R. McConkie?

I think that I know Mormon doctrine better than Bruce R. McConkie does! I support everything I say with LDS scripture, which he didn’t always do.

McConkie is tells us that the apostasy was UNIVERSAL. The meaning of UNIVERSAL is easy to find in a dictionary. You’re backpedaling from Mormon doctrine as taught by approved theologians. I suspect the reason for this is that whenever you’re in Christian company, as you are now, you need to soften your approach. It just wouldn’t be a good idea to claim that we Catholics here are all apostates. But when you’re among your group of little missionaries, you undoubtedly chat it up: How utterly APOSTATE we all are. Right?

Yes, the apostasy WAS “universal,” meaning that the divine authority and the priesthood was COMPLETELY lost form the earth and from the Christian church, which is why it had to be RESTORED. But that is not the same thing as saying that there were no good Christians left in the world, meaning those who had a genuine saving faith in Christ. That simply is not the Church’s position, and never has been. No Church leader has ever said that. Bruce R. McConkie himself would have been the first to acknowledge that. “Universal apostasy” simply means the complete loss of divine authority form the church; nothing else. Talk to any Mormon familiar with the teachings of the Church, and they will confirm to you that that is the case. Allow me to quote you something from the History of the Church:

“nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…there was no possible excuse for the introduction of a new Christian sect. But if men through apostasy had corrupted the Christian religion and lost divine authority to administer the ordinances of the gospel, it was of utmost importance that a new dispensation of the true Christian religion should be given to the world.” (History of the Church, Vol. 1. p. XL)

That is what universal apostasy means. It means the complete loss of divine authority in the church; nothing more or less.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

I think that I know Mormon doctrine better than Bruce R. McConkie does! I support everything I say with LDS scripture, which he didn’t always do.

Pardon me if I doubt that you know more than McConkie did, but I’ll grant you that you probably do use Mormon “scripture” to support your claims, not that they are authoritative in the broad sense, but only in the narrow Mormon sense, and therefore cannot be taken seriously by us.

Yes, the apostasy WAS “universal,” meaning that the divine authority and the priesthood was COMPLETELY lost form the earth and from the Christian church, which is why it had to be RESTORED. But that is not the same thing as saying that there were no good Christians left in the world, meaning those who had a genuine saving faith in Christ.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what that is saying. Without a priesthood or valid sacraments, there is no way that the Catholic Church could have remained intact for 2k years. The loss of the priesthood would, in and of itself, have caused the disintegration of the Church. We can know this by the witness of Protestantism. Without the valid priesthood, Protestantism began fracturing IMMEDIATELY, and continues to do so today.

“nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…there was no possible excuse for the introduction of a new Christian sect. But if men through apostasy had corrupted the Christian religion and lost divine authority to administer the ordinances of the gospel, it was of utmost importance that a new dispensation of the true Christian religion should be given to the world.” (History of the Church, Vol. 1. p. XL)

That is what universal apostasy means. It means the complete loss of divine authority in the church; nothing more or less.

I understand, and I reiterate: words like UNIVERSAL and COMPLETE, which you and your source use, indicate that the LDS belief is that the Christian Church ceased to exist in the world.

We are to believe that apostate people built the great cathedrals in Europe and the Americas, that the Jesuits who sailed to America to convert the natives were apostates, that the great artists and musicians throughout the Christian centuries who created fabulous works of art (many of which can be seen today in the Vatican) to the glory of God, were apostates. That is simply ridiculous on the face of it. That is what I mean when I say that the lie of the UNIVERSAL apostasy is easy to see for anyone who wants to see it. One making great effort to avoid seeing this, I suppose, can avoid seeing it, which, it seems to me, you TBMs are doing.

 

[tundramom]

The Book of Mormon is historcally and factually and doctrinally true. There is no question about that; and the LDS Church will never abandon that doctrtine. You can rest assured that that will never happen.

zerinus

zerinus,
Have you read many of the FARMS papers? Have you heard of Daniel Peterson? He’s a contributing member of FARMS and a professor at BYU. This is exactly what he, and others, are starting to say. You need to talk to the professional Mopologists and see what they’re saying.

 

[Nan_S]

I never denied that God’s relationship with time and space could be different from ours. I even quoted you a verse from the Book of Mormon that supported that view. What I am saying is that we don’t know enough about either to be able to make the kind of precise and definitive inferences and deductions from it that you seem willing to make. Let me illustrate with an example. Is time travel possible? Would it be possible for God to transport me from the 21st century to the 16th century if He wanted to? I personally very much doubt it; but the real answer is that I simply don’t know; and I am not willing to make definitive assertions about someting that I don’t know. You seem to be willing to do that; but I an not. That is the difference between us.

zerinus

I hope you’re not suggesting that I’m making definitive assertions about things that I don’t know. I’m making such assertions because I do know, even though they are not in accord with the teachings and beliefs that you know. You do the same.

Another thing I do know is that for humans, forward-motion time-travel is possible, but backward-motion time travel is not. Forward-motion time travel has been proven by NASA in the space program. Astronauts in a spaceship accelerating to speeds above the normal rate of motion in space experience less passage of time than people on earth. At the speeds our spaceships travel the difference is only a few seconds, but it is enough to be measured with atomic clocks.

Backward-motion time travel is not possible, because God has given us a memory of the past, an awareness of the present, and a hope for the future. Backward-motion time travel would require the alteration of memory and completed events for everyone involved, encoutered, and affected.

God, of course, being both greater than time and outside of time to begin with, has complete control over his creation. He can enter and exit time anywhere He pleases, but once within it He obeys the rules that He established for the passage of time.

I realize that this does not square with Mormon ideas concerning the relationships of time, eternity, and God. So be it. I have the teachings of the Holy-Ghost-led Early Church Fathers and philosophers. You have the teachings and revelations of your own prophets, who also say they are under the revelation of the Holy Ghost. But the two differ so greatly that I see no point of reconciliation between the two, unless your teachings become some more of those doctrines that are no longer taught. (Obviously, I’m biased. )

Nan

 

[zerinus]

Actually, there appears to be quite a bit of “question about that.” Right here, there are several very intelligent, educated former Mormons who are pointing out to you the inconsistencies and fallacies of Mormon thought and documentation. Even knuckleheads like me, who know very little about the details, can “sense” the wrongness of Mormonism.

Now, it may be true that the Mormon church will never abandon the BoM. But for sure, many individual MORMONS are abandoning it. This must be cause for concern among you missionaries. As the word gets out, and as the competition between you and the other door-knocker cult, the JWs, intensifies (they’re winning, BTW), the pickin’s get slimmer and slimmer, eh?

Those are apostates from the LDS Church, and what apostates believe is of no consequence to us, and does not determine what we believe. That is like saying that the Catholic Church isn’t true because there are a whole bunch of very intelligent apostates from the Catholicism who bring very compelling arguments why it isn’t true. Well it is the job of apostates from any religion to bring very complling arguments for their own apostasy. That is neither here nor there.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Pardon me if I doubt that you know more than McConkie did, but I’ll grant you that you probably do use Mormon “scripture” to support your claims, not that they are authoritative in the broad sense, but only in the narrow Mormon sense, and therefore cannot be taken seriously by us.

They are “authoritative” as far as we are concerned; and they can be “taken seriously by” you as far as determining LDS doctrine is concerned. That is the source from which LDS theology and doctrine is derived.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what that is saying. Without a priesthood or valid sacraments, there is no way that the Catholic Church could have remained intact for 2k years. The loss of the priesthood would, in and of itself, have caused the disintegration of the Church.

First of all there is no logical justification for that assertion. A church or religion can survive intact without a valid priesthood or valid sacraments. Islam is a religion which does not even have a priesthood or sacraments; yet it has survived largely intact as a religious institution. Secondly, who says that Christianity has remained intact? First there was that great split between the East and the West; and then there was the split brought about by Protestantism. Protestantism is nothing more than Catholicism split apart. It didn’t appear from nowhere.

We can know this by the witness of Protestantism. Without the valid priesthood, Protestantism began fracturing IMMEDIATELY, and continues to do so today.

First of all Protestantism is nothing more than Catholicism split apart. Secondly, who says that Protestantism does not have a priesthood or sacraments? It has both. Even the Catholic Church recognizes a baptism performed by a Protestant priest.

I understand, and I reiterate: words like UNIVERSAL and COMPLETE, which you and your source use, indicate that the LDS belief is that the Christian Church ceased to exist in the world.

In some sense of the term that is true, and in some sense it is not. It all depends on how you want to define the word “church”. If you define “church” sacramentally, then yes, the church disappeared, because the divine authority was lost, and the sacraments were no longer valid. But if you define “church” as a body of people that believed in Christ, the answer is no, it did not cease to exist in the world. A church is not a building. It does not consist exclusively of the clerical hierarchy either. It consists of the body of people that compose it. That is the literal meaning of the word “church”. In that sense of the term, the Christian church did not cease to exist in the world.

We are to believe that apostate people built the great cathedrals in Europe and the Americas, that the Jesuits who sailed to America to convert the natives were apostates, that the great artists and musicians throughout the Christian centuries who created fabulous works of art (many of which can be seen today in the Vatican) to the glory of God, were apostates. That is simply ridiculous on the face of it. That is what I mean when I say that the lie of the UNIVERSAL apostasy is easy to see for anyone who wants to see it. One making great effort to avoid seeing this, I suppose, can avoid seeing it, which, it seems to me, you TBMs are doing.

First of all they were not “apostate people,” because as I explained, many of them were true believers in Christ. Secondly, building a great civilization, and great works of art and architecture (even to God) is not a sign of the sacramental validity of a religion. The ancient Greeks and Romans created magnificent works of art and architecture, even built great temples to their gods. The ancient Hindus, Buddhists, and Shintoists built great works of art and architecture, and religious temples, for their own civilizations, which we admire today. The Moslems during the time of the historical ascendancy built magnificent mosques and great religious art for their time. But none of this was an indication of the sacramental validity of their religions.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,
Have you read many of the FARMS papers? Have you heard of Daniel Peterson? He’s a contributing member of FARMS and a professor at BYU. This is exactly what he, and others, are starting to say. You need to talk to the professional Mopologists and see what they’re saying.

I am not aware of anything produced by FARMS saying that the Book of Mormon is not historically or doctrinally true. Even if it did, it would be false. It would not be expressing the Church’s position.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I hope you’re not suggesting that I’m making definitive assertions about things that I don’t know. I’m making such assertions because I do know, even though they are not in accord with the teachings and beliefs that you know. You do the same.

Another thing I do know is that for humans, forward-motion time-travel is possible, but backward-motion time travel is not. Forward-motion time travel has been proven by NASA in the space program. Astronauts in a spaceship accelerating to speeds above the normal rate of motion in space experience less passage of time than people on earth. At the speeds our spaceships travel the difference is only a few seconds, but it is enough to be measured with atomic clocks.

Backward-motion time travel is not possible, because God has given us a memory of the past, an awareness of the present, and a hope for the future. Backward-motion time travel would require the alteration of memory and completed events for everyone involved, encoutered, and affected.

God, of course, being both greater than time and outside of time to begin with, has complete control over his creation. He can enter and exit time anywhere He pleases, but once within it He obeys the rules that He established for the passage of time.

In this post you have just proved my point. You have made a lot of assertions for which there is no theological or scriptural justification. Where does it say in the Bible anything about “forward motion” or “backward motion” in time? Where does it say anything about God “entering and exiting time as He pleases”? How do you know that the nature of time and space is not such that God cannot exist in time and outside of time simultaneously? This is just science fiction, not theology.

I realize that this does not square with Mormon ideas concerning the relationships of time, eternity, and God. So be it. I have the teachings of the Holy-Ghost-led Early Church Fathers and philosophers. You have the teachings and revelations of your own prophets, who also say they are under the revelation of the Holy Ghost. But the two differ so greatly that I see no point of reconciliation between the two, unless your teachings become some more of those doctrines that are no longer taught. (Obviously, I’m biased. )

We have the Bible that is the source of traditional Christian theology; and we also have modern LDS scripture that, in conjunction with the Bible, forms the basis of LDS theology; and neither of them permit us to make the kind of definitive assertions about God’s relationship with time and space that you are making.

zerinus