LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[wussup]

I hope ya’ll won’t mind me jumping in…some stuff here may be explained by a different point of view.

Parker, I’m confused. Didn’t you say that God is Spirit and then that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones? And when was God the Father resurrected?

LDS tend to take a more literal view of scripture. We read what was said and try to understand it with two over arching concepts:

1. Should that teaching be taken literally, as allegory, etc…
2. Prayer and guidance from the Holy Ghost to help us understand the truth.
   Obviously there is a lot more to exegesis than the above, but generally, that is where it starts. So, referencing your question, “And when was God the Father resurrected?”, makes a number of assumptions that certainly are incorrect. When Jesus said in John 5:19-21, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” This verse should not mean to say that Jesus ONLY does that which he has seen the Father do first, but that as a rule, His Authority is preeminent. Here we see that Jesus has seen the Father raise the dead. It is a common belief among LDS that He (Jesus) also saw that the Father was once like Jesus. Yet, we do not know near enough other than to get generic doctrine. There are many scenarios that we could imagine. Probably all wrong. Still, aren’t you a little curious as to what the Savior saw the Father do?

I have to say that the whole idea that God progressed from a mortal to God the Father just seems I don’t know what to say. What is your opinion of a God who has always been God for eternity, the first and uncaused cause of everything else? Something does not come from nothing. Reason itself tells us that there has to be an uncreated, eternal Being who created everything that exists, including us. Who is God the Father in your opinion and when did he “progress” to His current state? From where did He come? More importantly from whom did he come?

LDS do not believe in the classic form of Mortality as Catholics do. Catholics argument for its concepts of a mortal existence stem from Aristotle’s arguments of Forms. This is not a doctrine LDS believe. More closely would be the idea that ALL beings existed in the beginning with the Father, who formed these beings into the structures as they exist now. This is a formal statement and should be read carefully before replying to it. LDS as a general principal reject the concept of a ‘First Cause’. A first cause is a logical blunder. It implies a construct of God’s existence in the anthropomorphic human condition of a sequence of events. We know the universe does not exist in such a way and that time is not sequential of necessity.

Continued…
The last thing any Catholic will say is that “I know all about God and where He came from”. The only thing we know is what has been revealed to us through Jesus Christ (God incarnate). How do you define eternity? This is really kind of blowing my mind. There is no “sphere of eternity as an entity of time and space…”. Eternity is outside of space and time. It seems to me that you are more likely to hear a Mormon say that they know all about God and where He came from then you will a Catholic or even a Protestant. We have never pretended to fully know God because we believe it is beyond our ability.

That statement is ludicrous. Sorry for my ad hominem, but I have never heard any LDS claim to have any but the most cursory of ideas of God. As for what is eternity, I can’t speak for the person asking, but my understanding of the LDS concept of eternity is and EXTREMELY simplistic statement of revelation given to Joseph Smith, ‘all time is with the Father, past, present, and future’ simultaneously.

 

[wussup]

And what direction does your reasoning lead? It all had to start somehwere. Everything created came from something else. If not an eternal, uncreated God with no beginning, then where and from whom?

Again, eternity doesn’t begin. That is what eternity is. You cannot think of it in terms of space and time. From where do you derive this concept of a “sphere of eternity”? No offense Parker, I truly mean that, but this idea of progression prevents you from understanding the true nature of God in my opinion.

God the Father was never resurrected, nor did He have a need to be resurrected because He never died. Death came through Adam, not God. That is one of the things that is so amazing about Jesus Christ, who humbled himself to suffer and die when He had no need to suffer and die. God the Father, however, could not suffer death because He cannot sin. Death came through the sin of Adam. This seems to get stranger and stranger from my perspective.

In any event, I do appreciate the conversation.

God bless you.

Steve

I included the totality of the last statement to illustrate that you contradicted your previous statement that " It seems to me that you are more likely to hear a Mormon say that they know all about God and where He came from then you will a Catholic".I don’t know, it sure seems like you are saying you understand God’s nature…

You are suffering from the Catholic Thomistic Arguments regarding of cause and effect. This existence does not have to start ‘somewhere’ or ‘some-when’. To God, all this has already happened, is actively happening, and is yet to happen. And so existence for God is to experience all that is in these terms. And this is an extremely simplistic understanding of one of God’s most basic and simplistic Reality, yet is impossible for my mind to comprehend the consequences of. Yes, we believe that death in this world came about through Adam’s transgression. But, Steve, what is death? Is there such a thing? In the secular world one views death as the end of our thinking existence. The Doctrine of Michael (that being my personal name) suggests that Christs ‘death’ was to the Savior, something of a nod and a wink. Christ transitioned from a mortal state in this life to an immortal state in all lives. Or rather, he was resurrected from this Earthly State into an Immortal and Glorified state in all eternity. Christ’s true sacrifice was not his ‘death’ but was rather the infinite suffering he experienced in the taking upon himself our sins. I find it personally repugnant that people so look to the Death of Christ missing out on his sacrifice.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This existence does not have to start ‘somewhere’ or ‘some-when’.

Except your god is an effect, which requires a cause.

 

[wussup]

Except your god is an effect, which requires a cause.

Nu-uhhh! Does not! Sometimes it feels so good to say that.

‘An effect’, so you are saying that the LDS doctrine is that God is ‘something’ that we believe inevitably followed from something else. I can understand why you would say that. However, it is incorrect. We do not believe this.

LDS doctrine is that all time is with the Father. By this we mean that he actively exists in all eternity simultaneously. In Genesis it says that the ‘Gods’ created the universe. While LDS believe the source of the power was the Father and the primary ‘doer’ was Jesus Christ, Creator of the Universe, in a very real sense, all of our Father’s children who become Glorified and Exalted Beings who share in the Glory and Power of the Father with the Savior, are also co-creators with Christ (note lower case) and as such Beings, they also exist in the same non-frame of time, past, present, and future all simultaneously.

What does this knowledge bring to the table? Nothing. Ultimately, we are what we are, we will be resurrected to the Heaven that we will be happy in. As Christians, LDS know we must accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and that only through His sacrifice can we be saved (were saved) from our sins. We know that if we ask the Father in the Name of the Son he will tell us what he wishes of us. If you look at my posts, you can see I am very respectful of the RC. I came here to learn of the RC and the incredible spirituality existent within the RC (corrupt priests be damned). I for one do not come hear to proselyte. I come to learn. However, the question was asked and there is a lot of nonsense generated here (as there is on LDS blogs).

 

[SteveVH]

I hope ya’ll won’t mind me jumping in…some stuff here may be explained by a different point of view.

LDS tend to take a more literal view of scripture. We read what was said and try to understand it with two over arching concepts:

1. Should that teaching be taken literally, as allegory, etc…
2. Prayer and guidance from the Holy Ghost to help us understand the truth.
   Obviously there is a lot more to exegesis than the above, but generally, that is where it starts. So, referencing your question, “And when was God the Father resurrected?”, makes a number of assumptions that certainly are incorrect. When Jesus said in John 5:19-21, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” This verse should not mean to say that Jesus ONLY does that which he has seen the Father do first, but that as a rule, His Authority is preeminent. Here we see that Jesus has seen the Father raise the dead. It is a common belief among LDS that He (Jesus) also saw that the Father was once like Jesus. Yet, we do not know near enough other than to get generic doctrine. There are many scenarios that we could imagine. Probably all wrong. Still, aren’t you a little curious as to what the Savior saw the Father do?

Your belief that the Father and the Son are different beings (gods) taints your interpretation. Jesus does what the Father does because they are One, they never operate independently of each other. “He who sees me sees the Father.” As far as exegesis is concerned we aproach scripture always from the literal, moral, allegorical and anogogical view. To believe that Jesus could be resurrected only if He first saw the Father being resurrected is simply theologically impossible. Death entered the world through sin and is the consequence of sin. God cannot suffer the consequence of sin because He is free from any sin, original or otherwise. Christ did not die due to any sin He committed, but for our sins. The Father sent the Son to die for our sins, a pain greater than dying Himself. But the Father did not die, nor could He.

LDS do not believe in the classic form of Mortality as Catholics do. Catholics argument for its concepts of a mortal existence stem from Aristotle’s arguments of Forms. This is not a doctrine LDS believe. More closely would be the idea that ALL beings existed in the beginning with the Father, who formed these beings into the structures as they exist now. This is a formal statement and should be read carefully before replying to it. LDS as a general principal reject the concept of a ‘First Cause’. A first cause is a logical blunder. It implies a construct of God’s existence in the anthropomorphic human condition of a sequence of events. We know the universe does not exist in such a way and that time is not sequential of necessity.

All beings existed in the beginning? From where did they come? Your position is not found in either scripture or the ECF but was invented by JS and company. The logical conlusion of your philosophy is that all beings are eternal. If this is true then you are saying that they were not created. Sorry, it doesn’t fly.

That statement is ludicrous. Sorry for my ad hominem, but I have never heard any LDS claim to have any but the most cursory of ideas of God. As for what is eternity, I can’t speak for the person asking, but my understanding of the LDS concept of eternity is and EXTREMELY simplistic statement of revelation given to Joseph Smith, ‘all time is with the Father, past, present, and future’ simultaneously.

It is the LDS who reject the fact that God cannot be understood. It is why JS has to give “Heavenly Father” a body of flesh and bone. It is the LDS who reject the term “incomprehensible mystery” when describing God. Read Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ “Apostasy and Restoration”. He appaerently understands everything there is to understand because it is so “plain and clear”. Yet your theology is anything but plain and clear. Parker was speaking of different “eternities” coming and going. You seem to redefine commonly understood terms such as eternity and revelation to the point that we don’t even speak the same language. Frankly I find your beliefs bizarre, but I’m willing to learn.

 

[SteveVH]

I included the totality of the last statement to illustrate that you contradicted your previous statement that " It seems to me that you are more likely to hear a Mormon say that they know all about God and where He came from then you will a Catholic".I don’t know, it sure seems like you are saying you understand God’s nature…

Why, because I said that he is incomprehensible; beyond our ability to conceive?

You are suffering from the Catholic Thomistic Arguments regarding of cause and effect. This existence does not have to start ‘somewhere’ or ‘some-when’. To God, all this has already happened, is actively happening, and is yet to happen. And so existence for God is to experience all that is in these terms. And this is an extremely simplistic understanding of one of God’s most basic and simplistic Reality, yet is impossible for my mind to comprehend the consequences of. Yes, we believe that death in this world came about through Adam’s transgression. But, Steve, what is death? Is there such a thing? In the secular world one views death as the end of our thinking existence. The Doctrine of Michael (that being my personal name) suggests that Christs ‘death’ was to the Savior, something of a nod and a wink. Christ transitioned from a mortal state in this life to an immortal state in all lives. Or rather, he was resurrected from this Earthly State into an Immortal and Glorified state in all eternity. Christ’s true sacrifice was not his ‘death’ but was rather the infinite suffering he experienced in the taking upon himself our sins. I find it personally repugnant that people so look to the Death of Christ missing out on his sacrifice.

You reject the reasonable logic of Thomas Aquinas. Tell me the flaws in his thinking. Do you not believe that an effect always has a cause? Just what is it that you disagree with?
I suffer from nothing. I am blessed by the brilliant theologians that have graced our Church from the beginning and I’ll put them up against Joseph Smith any day of the week.

What is death? That reminds me of Pontius Pilate’s question “what is truth”. It depends upon which one you’re speaking of, physical or spiritual. Physical death is the end of mortal life. Spiritual death is permenant seperation from God. Sin brought about both. I have never heard of the Doctrine of Michael, but the idea that Christ’s death was to him a “nod and wink” is heretical. Christ was truly human and the death He suffered was far from a nod and a wink. Yes, I am very aware that the taking on of our sins was even a greater suffering, but to almost scoff at his physical suffering and death (a wink and a nod) as if He was just pretending to suffer is outrageous. Is that what you believe?

The more I learn about Mormonism, the more muddled your beliefs become. I would truly love to understand your perspective but I feel like we’re from different planets sometimes.

In any case, I guess we can just keep trying. I wish you the best and thanks for trying to help.

God bless you.

 

[wussup]

Deep sigh…this is why I rarely give (name removed by moderator)ut. It matters not what an actual “Morman” says, folks always think they know more about my Church than I, even though I have been a member for over 20 years, am a returned missionary, etc, ad nauseum.

Your belief that the Father and the Son are different beings (gods) taints your interpretation. Jesus does what the Father does because they are One, they never operate independently of each other. “He who sees me sees the Father.”

Trinitarianism. Whatever. In LDS Doctrine we believe your statement to be literally true. You can see the Father in the Son because his actions, doctrines, and teachings are perfectly in line.

To believe that Jesus could be resurrected only if He first saw the Father being resurrected is simply theologically impossible. Death entered the world through sin and is the consequence of sin.

Technically, Jesus did not say he saw the Father be resurrected, he said he saw the Father make that which was dead come back to life. While there are some in the Church who believe our Heavenly Father was literally like Christ in the sense he was a savior of a world before, that is not universally believed. And Death did not enter the world through sin, but as a result of a choice Adam made to either remain in the Garden of Eden forever or leave the Garden of Eden to be with Eve.

God cannot suffer the consequence of sin because He is free from any sin, original or otherwise. Christ did not die due to any sin He committed, but for our sins. The Father sent the Son to die for our sins, a pain greater than dying Himself. But the Father did not die, nor could He.

I don’t know what you are talking about here. Neither Jesus nor God the Father died ‘due to sin’. Jesus chose to give up this mortal life through the man-made execution of the cross, then through his own power, was resurrected as God-Eternal. Again, technically, LDS do not believe any die, but that death is a birth to resurrection. Therefore the Father could not die. I don’t get your point here. Are you using talking points?

All beings existed in the beginning? From where did they come? Your position is not found in either scripture or the ECF but was invented by JS and company. The logical conlusion of your philosophy is that all beings are eternal. If this is true then you are saying that they were not created. Sorry, it doesn’t fly.

Actually, this position is supported by scripture. It is not an invention of Joseph Smith. And yes, the logical conclusion is that all beings (even Steve) are eternal. As for not being created, the scriptures do not say that God ‘created’ anything. It says that God formed the universe (and man) from that which already existed.

It is the LDS who reject the fact that God cannot be understood. It is why JS has to give “Heavenly Father” a body of flesh and bone. It is the LDS who reject the term “incomprehensible mystery” when describing God. Read Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ “Apostasy and Restoration”. He appaerently understands everything there is to understand because it is so “plain and clear”. Yet your theology is anything but plain and clear. Parker was speaking of different “eternities” coming and going. You seem to redefine commonly understood terms such as eternity and revelation to the point that we don’t even speak the same language. Frankly I find your beliefs bizarre, but I’m willing to learn.

Joseph Smith did not ‘give’ God anything. God is a being of matter. What is so ‘plain and clear’ is that Jesus died for our sins, and offers salvation to all who but bend the knee and acknowledge him as Lord and Savior. That is simple. As for defining ‘eternity’ and other terms, these are words used to describe very difficult subjects. There are at least a dozen books being published now that address the concepts of ‘time’, ‘eternity’, ‘zero’, and ‘nothingness’, all words we use to describe ultimate states of our existence. Your lack of understanding that these words are difficult to pin down is understandable. Ultimately, NO ONE understands what it means for ‘nothing’ to exist, what ‘eternity’ is, etc.

 

[wussup]

Why, because I said that he is incomprehensible; beyond our ability to conceive?

No,because you then try to convince me you understand God. My point is this is a circular argument. We ALL try to catch a glimpse into the identity of the Being, God. We worship something, and we as humans have to try to have an identity to address this being. Taoism suggests to the believer to not try to define Him, but just to accept Him. This is a wonderful idea.

You reject the reasonable logic of Thomas Aquinas. Tell me the flaws in his thinking. Do you not believe that an effect always has a cause? Just what is it that you disagree with? I suffer from nothing. I am blessed by the brilliant theologians that have graced our Church from the beginning and I’ll put them up against Joseph Smith any day of the week.

First, step back buddy and take a breath of fresh air. While I have addressed the weakness of Aquinas’ arguments as well as the variant Cosmological Arguments elsewhere, I have also expressed a profound appreciation for the beauty of the argument. Feel free to read them. I was so impressed that I tried to get a study group here at the ‘catholic answers’ forum and go NO interest. I would suggest there are few minds God ever put on Earth who could match Aquinas.
That being said, Joseph Smith was not a theologian. He was a Prophet.

What is death? That reminds me of Pontius Pilate’s question “what is truth”. It depends upon which one you’re speaking of, physical or spiritual. Physical death is the end of mortal life. Spiritual death is permenant seperation from God. Sin brought about both. I have never heard of the Doctrine of Michael, but the idea that Christ’s death was to him a “nod and wink” is heretical. Christ was truly human and the death He suffered was far from a nod and a wink.

Again you are conflating two issues into one. While I can work with your definitions of ‘death’, I would disagree that death is such a horrible thing. Christ HAD to ‘die’. He could have chose to die at home, in the middle of the night, without pain. Returning to Heaven in the twinkling of an eye. No fuss. No pain. No, it was not death that was the challenge for our Lord, it was the manner of his death. Christ died in a horrific fashion by choice. He sacrificed Himself to take upon himself our sins.

Again I sigh deeply. You read my words, but seek not to understand the LDS beliefs but rather to create a fiction you can deny. There is plenty enough in LDS doctrine that is tough to chew without making stuff up.

Doctrine of Michael is my personal beliefs, not a doctrine taught by the Church. I would get similar reactions from my Church members until they listened to what I said.

 

[soren1]

Nu-uhhh! Does not! Sometimes it feels so good to say that.

‘An effect’, so you are saying that the LDS doctrine is that God is ‘something’ that we believe inevitably followed from something else. I can understand why you would say that. However, it is incorrect. We do not believe this.

LDS doctrine is that all time is with the Father. By this we mean that he actively exists in all eternity simultaneously. In Genesis it says that the ‘Gods’ created the universe. While LDS believe the source of the power was the Father and the primary ‘doer’ was Jesus Christ, Creator of the Universe, in a very real sense, all of our Father’s children who become Glorified and Exalted Beings who share in the Glory and Power of the Father with the Savior, are also co-creators with Christ (note lower case) and as such Beings, they also exist in the same non-frame of time, past, present, and future all simultaneously.

What does this knowledge bring to the table? Nothing. Ultimately, we are what we are, we will be resurrected to the Heaven that we will be happy in. As Christians, LDS know we must accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and that only through His sacrifice can we be saved (were saved) from our sins. We know that if we ask the Father in the Name of the Son he will tell us what he wishes of us. If you look at my posts, you can see I am very respectful of the RC. I came here to learn of the RC and the incredible spirituality existent within the RC (corrupt priests be damned). I for one do not come hear to proselyte. I come to learn. However, the question was asked and there is a lot of nonsense generated here (as there is on LDS blogs).

Wussup,

I don’t think that all the claims you make here about LDS teaching agree with the consistent and emphatic teachings of the leaders of the Mormon Church, who have the authority to define what LDS teaching is. Yet granting you the right to hold your own views on the subject, I cannot see how your claim that all of us participate with God in the act of creating the world can agree with the biblical testimony concerning creation. Scripture ascribes to God a unique status not merely in planning but in executing the creation of the world. In Genesis 1, creation is never ascribed to “gods” but rather to Elohim, which is used in its singular sense in every instance, as can be proved by its constant conjunction with singular verbs only. Even later when God says, “Let *us *make man in our image,” it then says, “In his own image he created them” resolving the apparent plural into a singular. All of this is logical in the Hebrew language, which often uses plurality to indicate magnitude. That is why *Elohim *here does not mean “gods” but “the great God.”

One verse to consider in this regard is Is. 44:24, in which Jehovah reveals, “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” The total uniqueness of God’s act in creation is highlighted in the last words of this verse. The Hebrew phrase translated as “by myself” is actually a distinct sentence which literally reads, “Who [was] with me?” It is a rhetorical question with the implied answer of “no one.” God is not merely asserting that he alone created the word, but is pressing the point by daring the reader to deny it. We are meant to whither before the audacity of any suggestion that God had any companions, whether it was our spirits or Michael the Archangel or anyone. Should we really want to take God up on that challenge?

 

[wussup]

Wussup,…creation is never ascribed to “gods” but rather to Elohim, which is used in its singular sense in every instance, as can be proved by its constant conjunction with singular verbs only. Even later when God says, “Let *us *make man in our image,” it then says, “In his own image he created them” resolving the apparent plural into a singular. All of this is logical in the Hebrew language, which often uses plurality to indicate magnitude. That is why *Elohim *here does not mean “gods” but “the great God.”

One verse to consider in this regard is Is. 44:24, in which Jehovah reveals, “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” The total uniqueness of God’s act in creation is highlighted in the last words of this verse. The Hebrew phrase translated as “by myself” is actually a distinct sentence which literally reads, “Who [was] with me?” It is a rhetorical question with the implied answer of “no one.” God is not merely asserting that he alone created the word, but is pressing the point by daring the reader to deny it. We are meant to whither before the audacity of any suggestion that God had any companions, whether it was our spirits or Michael the Archangel or anyone. Should we really want to take God up on that challenge?

Aaaah, well stated! The Church never states that it is any power but God the Father’s by which existence was wrought. Think of it this way rather, the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price relates how Lucifer offered to be the Savior of Mankind and guaranteed all would be saved, and he wanted all the glory as well; Jesus offered to be the Savior of Mankind, but left it to Man to accept His Sacrifice of his own free will and granted to the Father all glory. It was our Father’s plan Jesus accepted as his own, their will was the same. This plan was then offered to all, and all of our Father’s children accepted the plan, we ‘bought into it’ as the management phrase goes. Michael the Archangel, you, me, or anyone else had nothing to do with the power of the creation, but rather we ‘bought into’ our Heavenly Father’s plan. We accepted it of our own free will. Think outside the Catholic box for a moment. Which makes more sense, to believe we were forced to live this hellish existence from God, or He offered a plan of salvation, letting us know we would most definitely fail our test here, but that Jesus the Christ would pay the penalty for our failure. This is freedom. This is what it is all about.

So, who was ‘with God’? In power and authority, none, yet God NEVER takes away from us the most precious commodity of all, our free will. There is one way to tell a true theology from a false one…does it give an expression of free will. I suggest the Catholic Theology, while well thought out, does not.

 

[AtticusFinch]

ParkerD - Your post states that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young “taught” these ideas about God. I never really thought about them as teachers before but I guess it makes sense that they were.
When they taught, did they speak to a group of people, in writing, etc.?
Which of the books that Mormons have today contain their “teachings?” (Maybe it’s what Dianaiad has already mentioned).
Are their teachings doctrine, or have some of them changed? If they changed, who would have the power to change them?
Thanks!

LDS Doctrine and practices change all the time. Some of them are very subtle over time in order to appear more mainstream

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD - Your post states that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young “taught” these ideas about God. I never really thought about them as teachers before but I guess it makes sense that they were.
When they taught, did they speak to a group of people, in writing, etc.?
Which of the books that Mormons have today contain their “teachings?” (Maybe it’s what Dianaiad has already mentioned).
Are their teachings doctrine, or have some of them changed? If they changed, who would have the power to change them?
Thanks!

Lax16,
During the past several years, lesson plans for LDS classes held by the adult members of the church have used manuals that were developed by a group of people assigned to research the teachings and writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, for example (among the other LDS presidents of the church), to find which of those teachings and writings could be verified to be first-hand accounts rather than second-hand accounts and to confirm the doctrinal accuracy in that it was consistent with other items the person (Joseph Smith or Brigham Young) had consistently taught and was thus not mis-quoted by a scribe or a transcriber. So if you want to study their writings and teachings, that would be an easy and authoritative source to do so, by either getting one of those manuals or looking them up on lds.org (You can do that by using the search query block at the right side of the top of the first page, typing “Joseph Smith teachings” and doing the query, then filtering by “lessons” to get just the manuals in what you will be able to read–the lessons that were studied by the LDS adult members.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Nu-uhhh! Does not! Sometimes it feels so good to say that.
‘An effect’, so you are saying that the LDS doctrine is that God is ‘something’ that we believe inevitably followed from something else. I can understand why you would say that. However, it is incorrect. We do not believe this.

That’s the thing with every individual LDS person who comes here, figuring out which version of LDS teaching you are following. So, I take it you have discarded the teachings of Smith regarding your god being created by another god?

LDS doctrine is that all time is with the Father. By this we mean that he actively exists in all eternity simultaneously.

So, your god exists in time? Who/what created time?

In Genesis it says that the ‘Gods’ created the universe.

No, it does not.

While LDS believe the source of the power was the Father and the primary ‘doer’ was Jesus Christ, Creator of the Universe, in a very real sense, all of our Father’s children who become Glorified and Exalted Beings who share in the Glory and Power of the Father with the Savior, are also co-creators with Christ (note lower case) and as such Beings, they also exist in the same non-frame of time, past, present, and future all simultaneously.

I think it reasonable to say those in heaven with God are in heaven with God. This seems a rather elaborate and unnecessary construct.

What does this knowledge bring to the table? Nothing. Ultimately, we are what we are, we will be resurrected to the Heaven that we will be happy in. As Christians, LDS know we must accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and that only through His sacrifice can we be saved (were saved) from our sins. We know that if we ask the Father in the Name of the Son he will tell us what he wishes of us. If you look at my posts, you can see I am very respectful of the RC. I came here to learn of the RC and the incredible spirituality existent within the RC (corrupt priests be damned). I for one do not come hear to proselyte. I come to learn. However, the question was asked and there is a lot of nonsense generated here (as there is on LDS blogs).

You forgot to say inthenameofjesuschristamen.

 

[wussup]

LDS Doctrine and practices change all the time. Some of them are very subtle over time in order to appear more mainstream

Yeah, it’s a 180 year old conspiracy. Again, tripe. 99% of what is discussed here as ‘doctrine’ is conjecture. Conjecture by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Michael (me) is still just conjecture. What you suggest is the equivalent of suggesting the current Pope should be tried on the basis of his protecting Pedophiles, and then saying that what he did is Catholic Theology.

That’s the thing with every individual LDS person who comes here, figuring out which version of LDS teaching you are following. So, I take it you have discarded the teachings of Smith regarding your god being created by another god?

Clever question. Well, really not that clever. Rephrase it so we can have a rational conversation sans amphobolic questions.

So, your god exists in time? Who/what created time?

Joseph Smith was revealed that God lives in all time simultaneously. It is my opinion that what he actually was revealed he did not have words for. Even today we cannot discuss the physics of Time in an academic setting without controversy. Time is a dimension of our reality. Mortal humans perceive our existence in a linear fashion, i.e., the ‘infinite’ yesterday, the infinitesimal moment, and the ‘infinite’ tomorrow. We developed calculus because of our issue with determining the position and velocity of the moment (amoungst lots of other applications). Time is such a conundrum. Think for a moment…see, you can’t. Even the most basic act we do, thinking, is impossible to isolate the zero point of the moment. Can you freeze a moment in your mind? Nope. Each infinitesimal small moment of time is gone as soon as it arrives. And you think we can define God? No. Time is not a creation. Time as you and I experience it is defined by us. Like mass, temperature, etc., there is no such thing as a physical ‘time’. It is an artifact of our existence. The Gospel of Wussup suggests that while there is truth in the revelation that God exists past, present, and future simultaneously, I believe the actuality of this attribute of God is beyond human comprehension.

No, it does not.

Does so.

You forgot to say inthenameofjesuschristamen.

?

 

[dianaiad]

That’s the thing with every individual LDS person who comes here, figuring out which version of LDS teaching you are following. So, I take it you have discarded the teachings of Smith regarding your god being created by another god?

So, your god exists in time? Who/what created time?

No, it does not.

I think it reasonable to say those in heaven with God are in heaven with God. This seems a rather elaborate and unnecessary construct.

You forgot to say inthenameofjesuschristamen.

…and you think MY posts are vile???

 

[lax16]

Yeah, it’s a 180 year old conspiracy. Again, tripe. 99% of what is discussed here as ‘doctrine’ is conjecture. Conjecture by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Michael (me) is still just conjecture. What you suggest is the equivalent of suggesting the current Pope should be tried on the basis of his protecting Pedophiles, and then saying that what he did is Catholic Theology.

So, you are saying that Michael (you) speak with the same authority as JS and BY? And that everything you, JS and BY say is guesswork?

Clever question. Well, really not that clever. Rephrase it so we can have a rational conversation sans amphobolic questions.

(sarcasm) You know, whyme warned us of uncharitable posts.

Joseph Smith was revealed that God lives in all time simultaneously. It is my opinion that what he actually was revealed he did not have words for. Even today we cannot discuss the physics of Time in an academic setting without controversy. Time is a dimension of our reality. Mortal humans perceive our existence in a linear fashion, i.e., the ‘infinite’ yesterday, the infinitesimal moment, and the ‘infinite’ tomorrow. We developed calculus because of our issue with determining the position and velocity of the moment (amoungst lots of other applications). Time is such a conundrum. Think for a moment…see, you can’t. Even the most basic act we do, thinking, is impossible to isolate the zero point of the moment. Can you freeze a moment in your mind? Nope. Each infinitesimal small moment of time is gone as soon as it arrives. And you think we can define God? No. Time is not a creation. Time as you and I experience it is defined by us. Like mass, temperature, etc., there is no such thing as a physical ‘time’. It is an artifact of our existence. The Gospel of Wussup suggests that while there is truth in the revelation that God exists past, present, and future simultaneously, I believe the actuality of this attribute of God is beyond human comprehension.

Talking in circles…do you really believe God wants us to be so confused when discussing Him? Have a discussion about God in an academic setting and it won’t sound like this.

Does so.

?

 

[wussup]

Just as an aside, do you folks really want to know the answer to questions about what LDS believe? I get the impression of distinct lack of humility. You have read nonsense from those who stand to make a HUGE profit off of suckers like you by selling books like “How to Answer [pick your favorite religion]” and then reject it when an actual member of the Church tries to correct you. I for one do not come to proselyte here. Nevertheless, you must see the hypocrisy of this website. Go to the LDS Church site. I challenge you to find a place in it where we sell or offer teaching about another Church that are not true. Go ahead. There may be readings where we illustrate the differences, but that is about it.
There are a lot of folks here with whom I have made friends, who have taught me much about not only Catholic Teachings, but about Faith in general. I find the insecurities of those making statements such as:

"That’s the thing with every individual LDS person who comes here, figuring out which version of LDS teaching you are following. "

"You forgot to say inthenameofjesuschristamen. " A disgusting mockery of a sacred testimony of the Holy Ghost.

“LDS Doctrine and practices change all the time.” No it doesn’t. Name one.

“The more I learn about Mormonism, the more muddled your beliefs become. I would truly love to understand your perspective but I feel like we’re from different planets sometimes.” That is because you are not humble enough to recognize the bigoted anti-mormon literature you read is false witness and cannot reconcile these teaching with those of real LDS.

I find offensive the continual reference to ‘your god’. This is shallow attempt at insulting another’s beliefs, separating it and alienating it as unworthy of common courtesy.

I can’t say I have read all of the writings, but what I see is you here a consistent teaching from LDS that does not match the rhetoric of the bigoted texts you quote from and are not mature enough to recognize it.

The answer to the question why try to convert Catholics is because only the LDS have been commissioned of Jesus Christ with the saving ordinances. There is a common agreement among LDS that the Faith the Catholics offer to the Lord and Savior is on the whole correct. They essentially worship the God of the Old and New Testament, and we believer that generally speaking the Catholic faith is honorable and true. The question then becomes does the individual have the trust in God the Father to be humble enough to accept such a radical change as the LDS suggests.

Historically speaking, the Christian Faith has had a very difficult time of it. The earliest Christians, the Jews who converted, had to renounce their most sacred beliefs of circumcision, dietary laws, and all the Laws of Moses as being fulfilled. Only LDS of today can relate to how much trust in the Lord it requires to follow his command. Another example of such faith is the Sacrifice of Isaiah by Abraham.

 

[lax16]

Just as an aside, do you folks really want to know the answer to questions about what LDS believe? I get the impression of distinct lack of humility. You have read nonsense from those who stand to make a HUGE profit off of suckers like you by selling books like “How to Answer [pick your favorite religion]” and then reject it when an actual member of the Church tries to correct you. I for one do not come to proselyte here. Nevertheless, you must see the hypocrisy of this website. Go to the LDS Church site. I challenge you to find a place in it where we sell or offer teaching about another Church that are not true. Go ahead. There may be readings where we illustrate the differences, but that is about it.
There are a lot of folks here with whom I have made friends, who have taught me much about not only Catholic Teachings, but about Faith in general. I find the insecurities of those making statements such as:

"That’s the thing with every individual LDS person who comes here, figuring out which version of LDS teaching you are following. "

"You forgot to say inthenameofjesuschristamen. " A disgusting mockery of a sacred testimony of the Holy Ghost.

“LDS Doctrine and practices change all the time.” No it doesn’t. Name one.

“The more I learn about Mormonism, the more muddled your beliefs become. I would truly love to understand your perspective but I feel like we’re from different planets sometimes.” That is because you are not humble enough to recognize the bigoted anti-mormon literature you read is false witness and cannot reconcile these teaching with those of real LDS.

I find offensive the continual reference to ‘your god’. This is shallow attempt at insulting another’s beliefs, separating it and alienating it as unworthy of common courtesy.

I can’t say I have read all of the writings, but what I see is you here a consistent teaching from LDS that does not match the rhetoric of the bigoted texts you quote from and are not mature enough to recognize it.

The answer to the question why try to convert Catholics is because only the LDS have been commissioned of Jesus Christ with the saving ordinances. There is a common agreement among LDS that the Faith the Catholics offer to the Lord and Savior is on the whole correct. They essentially worship the God of the Old and New Testament, and we believer that generally speaking the Catholic faith is honorable and true. The question then becomes does the individual have the trust in God the Father to be humble enough to accept such a radical change as the LDS suggests.

Historically speaking, the Christian Faith has had a very difficult time of it. The earliest Christians, the Jews who converted, had to renounce their most sacred beliefs of circumcision, dietary laws, and all the Laws of Moses as being fulfilled. Only LDS of today can relate to how much trust in the Lord it requires to follow his command. Another example of such faith is the Sacrifice of Isaiah by Abraham.

wussup - I am so glad you brought up the God of the Old and New Testament. I have asked many questions about this (on this and other threads) and they have gone unanswered. Will you answer them?

It seems Parker and Diana have taken a break, (well deserved I might add!), and I am not sure if you are picking up where they left off?

Let me know! Thanks!
ps the LDS of today are not the only ones who can relate to trusting in the Lord to follow His commands

 

[wussup]

So, you are saying that Michael (you) speak with the same authority as JS and BY? And that everything you, JS and BY say is guesswork?

Depends. Regarding the utterances of Joseph Smith or any other prophet relative to divine inspiration, no I do not, nor would I attempt to. Regarding their interpretation of scripture, if it is their conjecture, I would way it seriously, but if it is not divinely inspired, I have my freewill to reject it. For example, I can feel comfortable saying that I have much more authority regarding Nuclear Engineering and the physics of Time than Joseph Smith did, but not in his understanding of the Nature of God.

(sarcasm) You know, whyme warned us of uncharitable posts.

I have had conversations with whyme. Your question is an amphibolic question. However I answer it is incorrect. For example, a District Attorney asks a defendent on the witness stand, “did you enjoy stabbing your wife, please answer yes or no.” The defendent says yes, he confesses, he says no, he says he stabbed her, but didn’t enjoy it. Amphibolic.

Talking in circles…do you really believe God wants us to be so confused when discussing Him? Have a discussion about God in an academic setting and it won’t sound like this.

I took Old Testament and New Testament second year courses at the Dallas Baptist University. Yes it does. You see, there is an implied ignorance of LDS. Your position is one of ‘no LDS can say anything rational because he is LDS’. That is an ad hominem.

 

[wussup]

wussup - I am so glad you brought up the God of the Old and New Testament. I have asked many questions about this (on this and other threads) and they have gone unanswered. Will you answer them?

It seems Parker and Diana have taken a break, (well deserved I might add!), and I am not sure if you are picking up where they left off?

Let me know! Thanks!
ps the LDS of today are not the only ones who can relate to trusting in the Lord to follow His commands

Sure. I will stay on as long as I perceive there is a real desire to understand. I frankly grow weary quickly of constant innuendo. Yes, it is true. The unfortunate position the Catholic Leadership has subjected Her flock to with regards to corrupt priests would qualify as a challenge to one’s faith. My sincere and deepest sorrow is extended to you who must undergo this. It is a horrible and lamentable situation. I have to go grind some wheat (work) I will return.