LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[ParkerD]

So, you believe in predestination?

What do you think about Saul of Tarsus?

You’re kidding, of course. The Sadducees had Christ in front of them, felt His love, had the full opportunity to listen and understand what He was teaching–and rejected it. I have no idea why you would equate predestination with having a full opportunity to hear the gospel and rejecting that opportunity and thus receiving the consequences of rejecting Christ.

Saul did not have Christ in front of him, and was rejecting the gospel message based on traditions he had been taught. His case is far different than the Sadducees to whom Christ was speaking when they asked the question about who would have “her” in heaven. They had already rejected Christ, despite being in His presence and being taught by Him personally. They could have changed, but were choosing not to change. There is a similarity in that they were rejecting Him and His message based on their traditions, but the difference is that the Light was right in front of their face.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Do you believe St. John the Evangelist is still alive? I read some Mormons believe that as well.

Kathleen,
I know of a certainty that he is not only still “alive” (which is the case for spirits in the spirit world, of course), but is a translated person who still lives on this earth, just as the book of John says. “If I will that I tarry until I come, what is that to thee?” the Savior asked Peter.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Quotes for KathleenGee–Part 1 of 2

I welcome correction of any misquotes.

4th President and Prophet of the Mormon Church, Wilford Woodruff (Served 1887–1898):
“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” ( The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham [1946], 212–13.)

Your god isn’t from eternity…vs. Yahweh, I am Who am…

**JD 6:3, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844: **
“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.”

God is an exalted man who has a wife on or near the star Kolob…

See quotes by Apostle Orson Pratt regarding the wives of God.

JD 6:3, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret.”

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM, Chapter 3 (scriptures.lds.org/abr/3)
(I enclosed reference letters in parentheses)
“3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is (a)Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. 4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its (a)times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a (b)day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand (c)years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s (d)time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. 16 If (a)two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore (b)Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.”

Mormons can become gods. . . .

JD 6:4, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844:
"Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all the Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, - from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead. . " (JD 6:4, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844)

the Messiah was a polygamist

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, in his book titled, The Seer, page 172:
“…the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion was a Polygamist.the Messiah chose to take upon himself his seed; and by marrying many honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that he approved the plurality of Wives under Christian dispensation… The son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings’ daughters and many of the honorable Wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time…”

God the Father had Mary as His wife in some way, and then gave her to Joseph,

Mormon Apostle, Orson Pratt, in his book titled, The Seer, at page 158:
". . .Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife. .

Mormon Apostle, Orson Pratt, in his book titled, The Seer, at page 158:
. . .hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father. Inasmuch as God was the first HUSBAND TO HER (Mary), it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity…"

Adam stands at the gate, holds the keys of everlasting life & salvation

Discourse by Second Mormon Prophet Brigham Young, 1873:
“Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.” (The Desert News, Discourse By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873)

Adam helped make the earth;

Discourse by Second Mormon Prophet Brigham Young, 1873:
“Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth.” (The Desert News, Discourse By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873)

Continued–Part 2 Next Post

 

[Anna_Scott]

Quotes for KathleenGee–Part 2 of 2

Adam is Michael the Archangel, Ancient of Days, and God

April 9, 1852, Mormon Prophet, Brighan Young:
"Journal of Discourses Volume 1:50-51
"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. . . .

When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. . .

. . .It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

. . .What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

. . .Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.

. . .Treasure up these things in your hearts. In the Bible, you have read the things I have told you to-night; but you have not known what you did read. I have told you no more than you are conversant with; but what do the people in Christendom, with the Bible in their hands, know about this subject? Comparatively nothing." (Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1)

More than 20 years later, BJ still claimed Adam is God.

June 8, 1873, President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City:
"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth.

Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith."(The Desert News, Discourse, By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.)
(© THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH | J. Willard Marriott Library 295 S 1500 E SLC, UT 84112-0860)

Christian Churches worship A DIFFERENT JESUS CHRIST than is worshiped by the Mormons

LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, June 4, 1998:
“The traditional Christ of who they speak in not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak had been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.”(Church News, June, 20 1998, p. 7.)

LDS Church’s 147th General Conference, General Authority Bernard P. Brockbank:
“…It is true that many of the Christian churches worship A DIFFERENT JESUS CHRIST than is worshiped by the Mormons…” (“The Ensign,” May 1977, p. 26.)

Catholics and Protestants portrayed as the “whore of Babylon”

Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255:
". . . .Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act. . . .

 

[Anna_Scott]

Posts 440 & 441 were for KathleenGee. I have discussed and debated these issues on a number of Mormon Threads in the past. I have no desire to discuss them again. So, I will not be responding to comments.

Thank you,
Anna

 

[Marie5890]

LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, June 4, 1998:
“The traditional Christ of who they speak in not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak had been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.”(Church News, June, 20 1998, p. 7.)

1998 was past my LDS time and I am stunned to see Hinckley admit this.

Thanks for the information.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’re kidding, of course. The Sadducees had Christ in front of them, felt His love, had the full opportunity to listen and understand what He was teaching–and rejected it. I have no idea why you would equate predestination with having a full opportunity to hear the gospel and rejecting that opportunity and thus receiving the consequences of rejecting Christ.

They were not living, they had the rest of their lives. Would the LDS baptize them by proxy?

Saul did not have Christ in front of him, and was rejecting the gospel message based on traditions he had been taught. His case is far different than the Sadducees to whom Christ was speaking when they asked the question about who would have “her” in heaven. They had already rejected Christ, despite being in His presence and being taught by Him personally. They could have changed, but were choosing not to change. There is a similarity in that they were rejecting Him and His message based on their traditions, but the difference is that the Light was right in front of their face.

Yes, you are saying Jesus judged them as though their life was over, with no chance for repentance.

 

[soren1]

You’re kidding, of course. The Sadducees had Christ in front of them, felt His love, had the full opportunity to listen and understand what He was teaching–and rejected it. I have no idea why you would equate predestination with having a full opportunity to hear the gospel and rejecting that opportunity and thus receiving the consequences of rejecting Christ.

Saul did not have Christ in front of him, and was rejecting the gospel message based on traditions he had been taught. His case is far different than the Sadducees to whom Christ was speaking when they asked the question about who would have “her” in heaven. They had already rejected Christ, despite being in His presence and being taught by Him personally. They could have changed, but were choosing not to change. There is a similarity in that they were rejecting Him and His message based on their traditions, but the difference is that the Light was right in front of their face.

On one point you are quite correct: Saul did not have the same level of culpability as the Sadducees, and for the very reasons you give.

Yet you are mistaken about the nature of Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees and his teaching on marriage. While you rightly note that the specific case that the Sadducees mention to Jesus involves a woman of their own, the Sadducees are using this example to insinuate a universal argument against the Resurrection of the dead. Their argument has the form of a reduction to the absurd: they want to show that Resurrection would result in polyandry or at least in a hopeless muddle of Hebrew marriage laws. Because the same absurdities would result from the resurrection of any woman in the same state as the one the mention, this argument is applicable universally.

Accordingly, Jesus’ answer is universal in scope, because only a universal answer can respond to the implicit argument posed by the Sadducees. Otherwise, Jesus would have failed to refute the Sadducees’ arugment, and they could retort by citing another case, real or hypothetical, involving one of Jesus’ followers. Your interpretation of the text, therefore, makes Jesus into a very poor debater, and a question-doger, even though his answer confounds the Sadducees and he always answers questions by adressing them head-on.

That there is no marriage in heaven does not mean that we are separated from our families. In fact, we will be closer to them there than here – precisely by means of the marriage covenant. The purpose of marriage in this life is to prepare us for another marriage that we will experience in heaven, which is the wedding of Christ and his Church, in which all humanity joins in a nuptial feast, espoused to the Lamb of God. Rather than lose our families, we shall covenantally expand our families to include all those who live in Christ, even those not born. The family unity of heaven is one of life’s greatest consolations, and it contains all the joy and personal community of earthly marriage and family. It isn’t really that our family relations are lost, but that they are assumed into something larger.

One of the limits of human life is that love is not as infinitely sharable as truth. We can share truth with everyone, but our power to love is so weak, that for it to maintain its integrity it is necessary for us to restrict our deepest loves only to those closest to us. This limitation is overcome in the marriage of the Lamb.

 

[soren1]

Kathleen,
I know of a certainty that he is not only still “alive” (which is the case for spirits in the spirit world, of course), but is a translated person who still lives on this earth, just as the book of John says. “If I will that I tarry until I come, what is that to thee?” the Savior asked Peter.

Your reading of this verse misunderstands the KJV translation, as one might suspect by reading it with the verse that immediately follows:

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? (Jn 22:22-23)

What v.23 tells us is that we should not be hasty to interpret what Jesus said to mean that John would not die. It seems to have been written precisely to point us away from such an understanding, and to invite us to seek another. It’s like John is waving a little flag that says, “Don’t take these words at face value!”

So how should we take those words? The Greek verb translated as “tarry” is meino, which is usually translated as “abide” but also as ”remain, stay, dwell, or tarry.” Alas, no translation I know sticks with any one of these words, so it is impossible to recognize every usage from a translation. Meino is one of the strongest thematic words occurring throughout John’s Gospel, and it indicates “remaining” in the sense of man resting in God, or God resting in man, or sin abiding, etc. In short, it describes the endurance of spiritual states often through representational physical states. For instance, “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (1:33) and “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (3:36) and “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (6:56) and “And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son *abideth *ever” (8:35) and “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone…” (12:24) and … the list goes on.

In John 22, the KJV use of “tarry” adds to meino an unnecessary (but possible) connation of “wait behind,” and that is how the brethren who spread the rumor that John will not die understand it. But the way is it actually to be understood, is that John will abide in grace until his death when Christ comes to him peacefully. The clue that can help to see this is that throughout the Gospel, there is a contrast depicted between John and Peter, which comes to its climax when Christ is crucified. Peter flees and denies him while John alone of all the disciples stands at the foot of the cross, suffering with him: John “abides,” you see. Then in the last Chapter, Jesus walks with John and Peter on the Sea of Tiberias, where he reconciles Peter to himself, and then tells Peter, who was afraid to suffer with him, that he will himself die by crucifixion. This is not a punishment, but rather a blessing, an opportunity for Peter to embrace the suffering in Christ’s name the he once was unwilling to endure. Yet because John has already shared in Christ’s passion, no martyrdom awaits him as the other Apostles. Having already borne supreme witness, he is already prepared for death, and he abides in that witness until Christ comes to take him. It does not mean he will not die physically, only that he never dies spiritually. (Note: Meino in this sentence has no verb tense. It is in the infinite and applies both to past and future, literally “What if I will him to remain until I come.” It applies to the entire life of John in contrast to the entire life of Peter who does not “abide” at all times.)

 

[KathleenGee]

Anna,

Thank you for your courage and sharing…what you brought forth was amazing and also quite clear.

I think with what has been shared here tonight, nearing the closing of the year, I am closing as well…

There is too, too much difference in belief, in reason…and other points to clear up.

God bless you!

kathleen

 

[ParkerD]

They were not living, they had the rest of their lives. Would the LDS baptize them by proxy?

Yes, you are saying Jesus judged them as though their life was over, with no chance for repentance.

No, they would not be baptized by proxy because in the first place, the Sadducees were presenting a hypothetical situation–not a real one; and in the second place, the Jews already had the practice of baptism among them, so baptism for the dead would not apply to them.

Jesus was answering the question about men who had hypothetically gone to the spirit world, but were Sadducees and therefore had the tradition of rejecting the resurrection, which is clearly taught in the Old Testament and thus they were rejecting light and truth that was available to them. They would qualify to be “as the angels”, but not to inherit the “joint throne” promised to those who are faithful to the testimony of Jesus and seek sanctification through the Holy Spirit.

The Sadducees to whom Jesus was responding, could obviously repent, change, and begin to believe in Him and thus not have the consequences from unbelief that those “brothers” from their hypothetical example would receive, since their hypothetical “life” on earth as mortals was already over.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, they would not be baptized by proxy because in the first place, the Sadducees were presenting a hypothetical situation–not a real one; and in the second place, the Jews already had the practice of baptism among them, so baptism for the dead would not apply to them.

Jesus was answering the question about men who had hypothetically gone to the spirit world, but were Sadducees and therefore had the tradition of rejecting the resurrection, which is clearly taught in the Old Testament and thus they were rejecting light and truth that was available to them. They would qualify to be “as the angels”, but not to inherit the “joint throne” promised to those who are faithful to the testimony of Jesus and seek sanctification through the Holy Spirit.

The Sadducees to whom Jesus was responding, could obviously repent, change, and begin to believe in Him and thus not have the consequences from unbelief that those “brothers” from their hypothetical example would receive, since their hypothetical “life” on earth as mortals was already over.

sad ParkerD, the lengths you have to go to, assumptions, when what Jesus is saying is very clear…there is no marriage in heaven.

 

[KathleenGee]

I might add, that I did read that post by Hinckley that he believes in a different Christ…read it during that time a number of years ago…there were a number of thing why I hesitated to come on to a Mormon site…I do think Mormons are good people…don’t get me wrong…but after the bookstore incident, I began coming across more ideas that seemed documented even if they were online…

So that is it…I will keep you all in prayer over New Year’s and the Solemnity of Mary.

God bless everyone!

 

[Answersplease]

Kathleen or Xavierlives,
…

But it would be important to understand that a person who feels that Biblically based teachings that are not the same as theirs pull the rug out from under their traditions will feel very logically and naturally that they need to protect what they have believed and been taught–and they will do it using the religious language they have been taught also (just as each of you have done in your posts just prior here).

Xavierlives,

…what I had meant was the “rug” being pulled out was not from under me, but from under you.

Hmmmm.

Your “Biblically based teachings” pulled “the rug out from under their traditions” which gave Xavierlives and KathleenG the “need to protect what they have believed and been taught–and they will do it using the religious language they have been taught also”.

And you wanted to state that because it “important to understand”.

I guess you didn’t like what they were saying and felt it important to point out to any observers, that they are just being defensive about their traditions because you pulled the rug out from under them with your biblically based teachings.

You are one class act ParkerD.

 

[Answersplease]

Parker, to be perfectly honest, I am surprised when people take things which obviously are figurative and make them literal, and when they take something literal and make it figurative. These are the fun things we get to discuss. Then there are times where you can’t dance that dance, like Isaiah 43:10-11. It is pretty straightforward.

Isaiah 43:10-11

You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I have chosen To know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none.
It is I, I the LORD; there is no savior but me.

Xavierlives,
…

The words “before me there was no God formed” would need to be carefully understood from the original Hebrew. I don’t think God has ever been “formed”, nor that a righteous god will ever be “formed”. But I do think John knew what he was saying when He said that He saw the promise of inheritance of being a “joint heir” with Christ. That would not be by a process of being “formed.”

You just did what you accused Xavierlives and KathleenG of doing.

You went defensive and used your mormon language to “tap dance” around what is clearly a straightforward verse.

I guess you didn’t like Xavierlives using the Bible to “pull the rug out from underneath” your mormon traditions.

But it would be important to understand that a person who feels that Biblically based teachings that are not the same as theirs pull the rug out from under their traditions will feel very logically and naturally that they need to protect what they have believed and been taught–and they will do it using the religious language they have been taught also…
…
It is the natural reaction–not a new thing at all.

John becoming a “joint heir” with Christ has nothing to do with Isaiah 43:10

So your using the “joint heir” as proof that there could be other gods because…
the process of becoming a mormon god is not through being “formed”.

So WHY does Isaiah 43:10 go through the trouble of stating that no god was formed before of after The One True God?

I guess you would say that God thought it was very important to counsel everyone that they shouldn’t get the wrong idea about being “formed”.
Do you hear that everyone? You can become gods, but NOT through being “formed”, formation is wrong and just so you won’t forget, Isaiah wrote it down for you. (rolls eyes)

Clearly, the subject of the passage is God Himself.

The subject is not about the evils of people being mislead about being “formed”.

 

[Answersplease]

I made a typo in my post above, post # 452.

So WHY does Isaiah 43:10 go through the trouble of stating that no god was formed before of after The One True God?

" of " should be " or "

It should say:

So WHY does Isaiah 43:10 go through the trouble of stating that no god was formed before or after The One True God?

 

[Answersplease]

Xavierlives;6112802:

Parker, to be perfectly honest, I am surprised when people take things which obviously are figurative and make them literal, and when they take something literal and make it figurative. These are the fun things we get to discuss. Then there are times where you can’t dance that dance, like Isaiah 43:10-11. It is pretty straightforward.

Isaiah 43:10-11

You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I have chosen To know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none.
It is I, I the LORD; there is no savior but me.

Xavierlives,
…

The words “before me there was no God formed” would need to be carefully understood from the original Hebrew. I don’t think God has ever been “formed”, nor that a righteous god will ever be “formed”. But I do think John knew what he was saying when He said that He saw the promise of inheritance of being a “joint heir” with Christ. That would not be by a process of being “formed.”

You just did what you accused Xavierlives and KathleenG of doing.

You went defensive and used your mormon language to “tap dance” around what is clearly a straightforward verse.

I guess you didn’t like Xavierlives using the Bible to “pull the rug out from underneath” your mormon traditions.

But it would be important to understand that a person who feels that Biblically based teachings that are not the same as theirs pull the rug out from under their traditions will feel very logically and naturally that they need to protect what they have believed and been taught–and they will do it using the religious language they have been taught also…
…

The words “before me there was no God formed” would need to be carefully understood from the original Hebrew. I don’t think God has ever been “formed”, nor that a righteous god will ever be “formed”. But I do think John knew what he was saying when He said that He saw the promise of inheritance of being a “joint heir” with Christ. That would not be by a process of being “formed.”

John becoming a “joint heir” with Christ has nothing to do with Isaiah 43:10

So your using the “joint heir” as proof that there could be other gods because…
the process of becoming a mormon god is not through being “formed”.

So WHY does Isaiah 43:10 go through the trouble of stating that no god was formed before or after The One True God?

I guess you would say that God thought it was very important to counsel everyone that they shouldn’t get the wrong idea about being “formed”.
Do you hear that everyone? You can become gods, but NOT through being “formed”, formation is wrong and just so you won’t forget, Isaiah wrote it down for you. (rolls eyes)

Clearly, the subject of the passage is God Himself.

The subject is not about the evils of people being mislead about being “formed”.

I made a typo in my post above, post # 452.
" of " should be " or ", I fixed it in the above quote.

So WHY does Isaiah 43:10 go through the trouble of stating that no god was formed before of after The One True God?

It should say:

So WHY does Isaiah 43:10 go through the trouble of stating that no god was formed before or after The One True God?

 

[ParkerD]

You just did what you accused Xavierlives and KathleenG of doing.

You went defensive and used your mormon language to “tap dance” around what is clearly a straightforward verse.

I guess you didn’t like Xavierlives using the Bible to “pull the rug out from underneath” your mormon traditions.

Answers,
So since it is a “straightforward verse”, are you saying that you believe God was “formed”?

I’m not sure what it is you are saying. Xavierlives can believe whatever he wants, and it impacts me -0-.

Have a good day.

 

[Xavierlives]

Kathleen,
If you believe everything you read during your life, then I suggest that a great many people are going to “pull wool” over your eyes.

I wouldn’t believe most of what you wrote above about Mormons, if I were you and had the skill of using the Internet to figure out who is “pulling wool” over eyes for their own reasons and purposes. The Internet is such a poor source for figuring out valid information!

Briefly:
(1) Mormons believe that Yahweh was Jehovah, the Great I AM, the Word who was made flesh and who told the Jews He was I AM. He is from all eternity to all eternity, the Beginning and the End, Alpha and Omega. He is the perfect rightful Heir of God the Father.

If there was a Big Bang, then Jehovah and God the Father were both already in existence outside of this universe before the Big Bang occurred, and caused it to happen to begin the existence of this universe. It is true that Mormons view “eternity” in a larger context than you probably do, since we believe we all lived with these wonderful omnipotent Beings before this life.

Mormons do believe that there are heavenly parents, and that we are literally beloved spirit offspring of heavenly parents and that God the Father had a plan for the eternal progress of these spirit offspring (humankind). Jesus Christ and His perfection including His perfect love were absolutely essential for that eternal plan of progress for us. You can’t imagine the gratitude we feel toward the Savior, Jesus Christ, for His volunteering to be the Savior and Redeemer of the world, to allow the progress that Heavenly Father wanted His spirit offspring to achieve through His plan.

(2) For those who become gods, it will certainly be through “partaking in the life of Christ” because He is at the center of that inheritance and those who become “joint heirs” will do so through Him, just as John saw was the promised inheritance.

(3) I personally don’t think Christ was married, but if He was, then that’s OK from my perspective. Christ was literally the Son of God the Father, but Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth, so the conception by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost was done by the knowledge God had of how to preserve her virginity yet be the Father of Jesus Christ so that He would have the attributes necessary to conquer death.

Adam is Michael the Archangel and has a vital interest in all of his posterity, including having priesthood authority in our behalf so his priesthood role does become part of the process of being judged whether worthy to enter heaven. Adam and Christ are separate, and Adam (Michael) obeys Christ in all things that he will do as Michael the Archangel.

Marriage is an eternally good thing, not an eternally indifferent thing. I learn so much from marriage and can see its benefits of “wholeness” and “oneness” that I am always surprised when people think there will be no marriage in heaven, just because the Savior said the Sadducees wouldn’t have marriage (since they didn’t qualify anyway.)

Peace to you, KathleenGee.

Thank you, Parker.

I understand Mormons have a wide variety of “alt-views” so it is nice to know where you stand on some of these.

 

[KathleenGee]

I woke up this morning and what came to my mind is why hold on to such ideas that are so different from Christianity and do not help anyone in their walk to heaven.

The Lord God gave the ability to make new life through my own parents who have carried the load of raising children in a very difficult world. They deserve to be noted for that and I can’t imagine the need or reasoning to have other parents before them in heaven.

There were another points about Mormonism that came up as well that are not in keeping with the Sacred Tradition the rest of Christianity shares…we can’t be wrong, history and numbers support our position.

But I do acknowledge the devotion to Christ that you have and the draw you have to Scriptures irregardless how it impacts me.

But I also thought of President Hinckley’s remark, the sexual behavior of Joseph Smith and his associates. There was alot of obsessing on having women…and the Mormons can’t do anything in terms of revelation without the president’s consent…

I see that as a form of control and possession of Mormon believers…and possession and lust go hand in hand…I am not implying either that Mormon leadership has that now…I am referring to the origins of Mormonism considering Smith’s ideas and behaviors.

Keep you all in prayer this New Year!
Kathleen