wussup - I think these questions will be best asked/answered on the thread re: the Mormon Godhead vs. The Traditional Trinity.
Just because Paul wrote it, doesn’t make it revelation. (Acts 9:10-19)
Well the Oaks quote is from an interview with Helen Whitney for the the PBS documentary The Mormons
And many will say you have dodged and backtracked more than enough. Face it, you cannot run from it: The Church believed that God was once a sinful manYou don’t get it. That statement was not by Joseph Smith. It was by Lorenzo Snow, and it was made when he was a youth new in the church.
I get it fine. And I know who Lorenzo Snow was. And I know the Church never came out and corrected him. Stop trying to run from it.
I have read the discourse. I know what Joseph said. I know that “as man IS, God once was.” It is very clear, regardless of how much the LDS Church has tried to backtrack from it.
Peace to you and all. I think I’ve said enough (many will say “more than enough”).
TheosisM,The Catechism states this:
“460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.””
Using Atticus Finch’s logic applied to the above, this mean that Jesus became a sinful man, because “our nature” includes original sin, and “man” [we] are sinful. However obviously that is not the case. Similarly, I am confused as to why he is trying to force this interpretation of the “as man is…” couplet, when the LDS are telling us that they don’t believe that the Father was a sinful man. If the couplet is implying that the Father was a sinful man because of “as man “is””, then the Catechism is also implying that the Son became a sinful man, since He “assumed our nature”, which includes original sin.
Theosis - As you know, one cannot just read one part of the Cathechism out of context.The Catechism states this:
“460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.””
Using Atticus Finch’s logic applied to the above, this mean that Jesus became a sinful man, because “our nature” includes original sin, and “man” [we] are sinful. However obviously that is not the case. Similarly, I am confused as to why he is trying to force this interpretation of the “as man is…” couplet, when the LDS are telling us that they don’t believe that the Father was a sinful man. If the couplet is implying that the Father was a sinful man because of “as man “is””, then the Catechism is also implying that the Son became a sinful man, since He “assumed our nature”, which includes original sin.
Uh what are you talking about? My post was clearly “using Atticus Finch’s logic” applied to the Catechism excerpt. Atticus was using a Mormon couplet to claim that they believe that the Father was a sinful man since it begins “As man is”, and man is sinful. So, if we use this same logic applied to the Catechism excerpt, Jesus became a sinful man since He “assumed our nature”, and our nature is sinful (since, as Atticus claims, man is sinful). The point here is that both scenarios are illogical.
no, your point was not missed. The fact YOU missed the point speaks volumes. Thanks for playing. Please see Vanna for your parting gift.
Your rude.