LDS: Alpha and Omega, the nature of God.

[SteveVH]

Doesn’t matter. The Lord revealed D&C 50 to Joseph Smith precisely so that he and the church would not be deceived. The church never accepted the King Follett speech through the D&C 50 procedures that Joseph Smith established in 1831, therefore it’s not official church doctrine. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not; we simply don’t know.

So are you saying then that JS was deceived, since his words contradict the BoM? How do you know that he wasn’t deceived from the beginning?

When your Pope speaks at a funeral, do you write the discourse down in your bibles and declare it to be scripture? I don’t think so. Neither do we. Do you Catholics have arguments between you, with some folks pushing some quotes from various Popes and Carndinals, while others push other quotes, with most people trying to justify their previous political or religious views? If not, then congratulations, and may God continue to bless you. We mormons are human, we err, and God’s not done with us yet.

We don’t have any scripture apart from the scripture handed down to us by the Apostles. At the same time if we have a bishop or priest who teaches and maintans a postion contrary to our scriptures or doctrines he will be summarily excommunicated. If it was something that he just mis-spoke it would be corrected immediately.

If JS’s words found in the King Follett discourse, which are obviously contrary to the BoM, are incorrect, then why doesn’t your church just say so? I can demonstrate, just from the threads on this forum, that believing both contradictory statements at the same time is the norm among Mormons, at least the Mormons that regularly post here.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

You said speculate, we showed you where the founding “prophet” of Mormonism speculated. You’re welcome.

Um, Stephen? He said “an Earth.” He didn’t say Earth. “An Earth” implies not this Earth. So thank you, but no thank you.

So are you saying then that JS was deceived, since his words contradict the BoM? How do you know that he wasn’t deceived from the beginning?

Answering that question would violate the rules against Proselytizing, and I have agreed not to do that here.

We don’t have any scripture apart from the scripture handed down to us by the Apostles.

Neither do we as the Quorum of Twelve must approve all scripture.

At the same time if we have a bishop or priest who teaches and maintans a postion contrary to our scriptures or doctrines he will be summarily excommunicated. If it was something that he just mis-spoke it would be corrected immediately.

There are advantages to your way of doing things, and also disadvantages.

If JS’s words found in the King Follett discourse, which are obviously contrary to the BoM, are incorrect, then why doesn’t your church just say so?

Not everyone agrees with you and I that the contradiction with the BoM is obvious. The church doesn’t reject the theory, nor does it accept it. Funny thing is, Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon but he defends all his own theories from the Bible.

I can demonstrate, just from the threads on this forum, that believing both contradictory statements at the same time is the norm among Mormons, at least the Mormons that regularly post here.

I’m amazed personally at how long I got by without understanding the Section 50 procedure. Lots of Mormons still don’t understand it. But that’s the way the church has operated since 1831.

 

[Stephen168]

He said “an Earth.” He didn’t say Earth.

If God dwelt on an earth,

from where did he originate?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

For future reference, this is the sort of question that I’m going to usually not respond to, because it should already be clear from what I’ve said what the answers should be.

If God dwelt on an earth,
Quote:
Originally Posted by lax16 View Post
from where did he originate

You tell me.

I don’t think that the Father “originated” anywhere since he’s everlasting. And if he did, obviously I’d have no way of knowing.

(If you’re going to say “Kolob,” no , that’s discussed as a *star *near to where God resides; that says nothing about an “origin” for God.)

 

[SteveVH]

Um, Stephen? He said “an Earth.” He didn’t say Earth. “An Earth” implies not this Earth. So thank you, but no thank you.

Whether it is this earth or some other planet is beside the point. The theological premise is still there.

Answering that question would violate the rules against Proselytizing, and I have agreed not to do that here.

Excuse me? How does answering whether or not you believe Joseph Smith was deceived constitute proselytizing?

There are advantages to your way of doing things, and also disadvantages.

Maybe so, but the reason our Church guards against error, in matters of faith and morals, is so that the members of our Church are not left in a state of confusion as to the truth. This would be especially true in the face of such a blatant contradiction in belief. The Church is charged with guarding the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles and is protected by the Holy Spirit against error in these areas. We take it very seriously.

Not everyone agrees with you and I that the contradiction with the BoM is obvious. The church doesn’t reject the theory, nor does it accept it.

I’m amazed personally at how long I got by without understanding the Section 50 procedure. Lots of Mormons still don’t understand it. But that’s the way the church has operated since 1831.

I will say that your comments are in many ways refreshing, but you are literally the first Mormon poster that I have read that feels the way you do. But this very subject, these very words of JS, are published in Ensign in a manner that would leave one to believe that they are to be belived by the Mormon faithful.

 

[Stephen168]

Cowboy Pete:
Please explain if God was once a man like us, and still is, having a tangible body of flesh and bones, how is he not a created being?

Jesus is God. Jesus was once a man like us. Do you disagree?
Where we differ from you is that we believe that the Father, also, has an immortal body of Flesh and Bone.

So you believe the Father was born at some point like Jesus to get flesh and bone like Jesus?

If he dwelt on earth, from where did he originate?

You tell me.

If he dwelt on earth, as Jesus did, and Jesus is the literal Son of God and Heavenly Mother, who are the parents of God?

.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Excuse me? How does answering whether or not you believe Joseph Smith was deceived constitute proselytizing?

It doesn’t. The answer is, I think that Brother Joseph was deceived about many things, particularly about the trustworthiness of William C. Bennett.

The question that I cannot respond to without proselytizing is:

How do you know that he wasn’t deceived from the beginning?

I hope that on reflection you will realize that I’m not playing games; that I’m serious when I say that arguing the validity of JS’ prophetic mission could not be distinguished from proselytizing.

Maybe so, but the reason our Church guards against error, in matters of faith and morals, is so that the members of our Church are not left in a state of confusion as to the truth. This would be especially true in the face of such a blatant contradiction in belief. The Church is charged with guarding the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles and is protected by the Holy Spirit against error in these areas. We take it very seriously.

And as I’ve said on other threads, that’s something I’d really like us to learn from you. You’ve had centuries to refine procedures, to clarify doctrine, and over time, you’ve come up with some very rigorous methods of separating rumor from doctrine. Sometimes I shrug off some arguments as mere semantics, and get annoyed with the way some posters here emphasize form over substance, but perhaps we should be more preoccupied about form.

but you are literally the first Mormon poster that I have read that feels the way you do.

Really? Our last prophet, Gordon B. Hickley, said outright that “I’m not sure that we believe that.” with reference to the King Follet theories. Some LDS church members got hot and bothered about that, but I cheered, and I doubt I was the only one. The theory’s never been put through common consent, and I don’t think it’s actually passed the full Quorum of the Twelve, either.

I’ll try very hard not to confuse StephenVH with Steve168.​

Does anyone else want to answer Steve168’s questions? Seems like my answers to all those questions should be completely obvious based on what I’ve already said. And I get the impression that he’s only trying to annoy me.

 

[SteveVH]

It doesn’t. The answer is, I think that Brother Joseph was deceived about many things, particularly about the trustworthiness of William C. Bennett.

Well, I can’t comment on William C. Bennett’s trustworthiness, but thanks for your answer.

The question that I cannot respond to without proselytizing is:

Origninally Posted by SteveVH

I hope that on reflection you will realize that I’m not playing games; that I’m serious when I say that arguing the validity of JS’ prophetic mission could not be distinguished from proselytizing.

Yeah, I get it. From an outsider’s point of view, however, you may be able to imagine that when one is called a “prophet”, to have to pick and choose what may be true from what may not be true just seems a little strange. If I was contemplating following someone who claimed to receive revelation from God, but then found contradicting statements in his own beliefs, it would give me great pause. Was it truly revelation, or merely imagination? Just saying…

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Originally Posted by rock17 View Post
You are begining to sound like you believe in the trinity Cowboy Pete,

Pete:

If you don’t have a problem with my belief that the Father has a body of Flesh and Bone, then you’re quite right; your Trinity doctrine is really not very different at all from our Godhead doctrine.

okay now tell me where did God get his body and flesh? “this is not Catholic teaching” i dont have a problem with what you beleive it is when a church tells people of another church that they are almost the same is when i have a problem, that is why i bring this stuff up to bring to light the differneces.

Yes, except you forget that I’m the one who emphasized the flesh and bone difference, in response to your statement that I was beginning to sound like I believe in the Trinity. I’m not trying to snooker you into believing that I’m some sort of quasi-Catholic. I’m not. Traditionally, your church has called people like me (and with far less Orthodox opinions than mine) “Christian Heretics.” The new trend towards declaring us “not Christian” comes right from the Evangelical Protestant playbook, and thereby constitutes something of an heresy in itself.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Really? Our last prophet, Gordon B. Hickley, said outright that “I’m not sure that we believe that.” with reference to the King Follet theories.

I’m sorry, but “I’m not sure that we believe that” is just about the least “outright” statement I’ve ever heard a religious leader make. In fact, it’s the opposite of outright. A more accurate way of putting it would be, “Our last prophet, Gordon B. Hickley hedged, ‘I’m not sure that we believe that.’”

The more I learn about LDS doctrine, the more I’m starting to realize that no one (not even Mormon prophets themselves!) has any clue about what Mormon Doctrine actually is. And I’m not talking about fringe elements, either. This is foundational stuff - like, say, whether or not “Heavenly Father” is a created being.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

From an outsider’s point of view, however, you may be able to imagine that when one is called a “prophet”, to have to pick and choose what may be true from what may not be true just seems a little strange. If I was contemplating following someone who claimed to receive revelation from God, but then found contradicting statements in his own beliefs, it would give me great pause. Was it truly revelation, or merely imagination? Just saying…

That’s a reasonable position for you to take, at this point. I understand your reservations. Best I can do is:

Moroni 7:

11 For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the alight by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

Galatians 5:22

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, except you forget that I’m the one who emphasized the flesh and bone difference, in response to your statement that I was beginning to sound like I believe in the Trinity. I’m not trying to snooker you into believing that I’m some sort of quasi-Catholic. I’m not. Traditionally, your church has called people like me (and with far less Orthodox opinions than mine) “Christian Heretics.” The new trend towards declaring us “not Christian” comes right from the Evangelical Protestant playbook, and thereby constitutes something of an heresy in itself.

Actually, the Catholic Church does not consider Mormons heretics. Your beliefs are so far beyond Christianity that it considers Mormonism a different religion altogether. Here is a quotation from the “The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith” which arose concerning the validity of Mormon baptism:

"As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2."

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

The more I learn about LDS doctrine, the more I’m starting to realize that no one (not even Mormon prophets themselves!) has any clue about what Mormon Doctrine actually is. And I’m not talking about fringe elements, either. This is foundational stuff - like, say, whether or not “Heavenly Father” is a created being.

The answer to that is NO. That’s very clear. Heavenly Father is not a created being.

But then, in some respects, neither are you. Intelligences

 

[Crdl2Grv]

The answer to that is NO. That’s very clear. Heavenly Father is not a created being.

But then, in some respects, neither are you. Intelligences

Sorry, but official answer appears to be, “I’m not sure.” That’s your own description of your own prophet’s position. You’ve also said that “a great many” Mormons do believe it, even if you and others do not.

In short, the official Mormon answer is neither “clear,” nor “NO.”

 

[SteveVH]

That’s a reasonable position for you to take, at this point. I understand your reservations. Best I can do is:

Okay. You’ve lost me completely. How does this speak to a man who claims to be a prophet, yet by his own words displays contradiction in what he, himself believes. If you’re speaking of that “peaceful, easy” feeling (burning in the bosom) that Mormons claim to recieve as evidence of the truth of JS’s revelation, that is another discussion entirely, and one better saved for its own thread.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Sorry, but official answer appears to be, “I’m not sure.”

No; you have confused your own questions. Mortal body may be coterminous with being a created being in Catholic theology, but not in LDS theology.

“I’m not sure” is the official LDS answer to whether the Father was ever on an earth in a mortal body.

But you asked if God is a “created being” and the answer to that is NO. Established LDS doctrine is that intelligence itself is not created.

---

Okay. You’ve lost me completely. How does this speak to a man who claims to be a prophet, yet by his own words displays contradiction in what he, himself believes.

It doesn’t speak to the man; it speaks to the prophesies or putative prophesies.

If you’re speaking of that “peaceful, easy” feeling (burning in the bosom) that Mormons claim to receive as evidence of the truth of JS’s revelation

No, that one’s in the Doctrine and Covenants.

 

[rock17]

Yes, except you forget that I’m the one who emphasized the flesh and bone difference, in response to your statement that I was beginning to sound like I believe in the Trinity. I’m not trying to snooker you into believing that I’m some sort of quasi-Catholic. I’m not. Traditionally, your church has called people like me (and with far less Orthodox opinions than mine) “Christian Heretics.” The new trend towards declaring us “not Christian” comes right from the Evangelical Protestant playbook, and thereby constitutes something of an heresy in itself.

I am sorry some of your posts seem to agree with catholic doctrine and some disagree, so i am confused on where you stand but i guess we can use up another 1,000 posts to get an answer. Well according to what i hear it sounds like much of what you believe is heresy so how does one religion pointing out the non christian traits of another constitute heresy? i don’t see the how the evangelicals are in the wrong by trying to show how lds theology is not entirely christian.

 

[rock17]

Actually, the Catholic Church does not consider Mormons heretics. Your beliefs are so far beyond Christianity that it considers Mormonism a different religion altogether. Here is a quotation from the “The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith” which arose concerning the validity of Mormon baptism:

"As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2."

this answers it better than i did thanks SteveVH

 

[Telstar]

no; you have confused your own questions. Mortal body may be coterminous with being a created being in catholic theology, but not in lds theology.

“i’m not sure” is the official lds answer to whether the father was ever on an earth in a mortal body.

but you asked if god is a “created being” and the answer to that is no. Established lds doctrine is that intelligence itself is not created.

---

it doesn’t speak to the man; it speaks to the prophesies or putative prophesies.

no, that one’s in the doctrine and covenants.

Dang, I think I figured it out! The only way I can interpret the way Mormons view their version of God being ‘eternal’, is by thinking of him as just one in a long line (maybe billions) of other men that also become gods, in a never-ending “bloodline”. They believe that’s the only way that any god could be “eternal”. It’s not really god himself that’s ‘eternal’, it’s just their one big ‘family of gods’ that go on ‘for ever’. Since they believe we all had ‘spirit-bodies’ in a preexistence, not only are we are all “eternal”, but we’ve all existed “from the beginning” just like the entire trinity… :ehh:

:bigyikes:

PS: I have no idea wth you mean by the bolded text.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Please. This is certainly not the LDS view. Eternal means no beginning and no end. Your god began as a human being. Human beings are not eternal. We each had a “beginning”. The God of Christianity, on the other hand, is without beginning or end. God is eternally beyond any human and is the first cause of all that exists. This is not the Mormon view.

I think I got in the midst of a fight that came from somewhere. I did not even know what LDS was till I investigated.

No patience for these kind of debates. Anyhow, I hope they have micro-filmed my burth certificated so that I may go by jet to Heaven.