P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
sorrry, typo: History of the Church p. 599 not p. 559 Thank you!
- Status
L
Lefty0908
Guest
Screaming upper-case lettering notwithstanding, just a few observations:
“No trinitas here.” That’s true. Latter-day Saints reject the post-New Testament definitions of Trinity voted as doctrinally binding by the various councils.
You seem to be expert on things Mormon, so if members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “do not believe Jesus IS GOD!” then enlighten us on how those Bozos interpret these three verses from their own foundational Book of Mormon.
And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the very God (Mormon 3:21).
And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God; and that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith (II Nephi 26:12,13).
I guess they don’t read their own book.
“JESUS NEVER spoke about baptism for the dead.” He didn’t speak about flaggelation, either, but … well, I think you get my point.
The idea of baptism for the dead probably deserves a little more than a dismissive waive of the hand and some bald assertions in capital letters. Maybe something like this:
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=1&id=509
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=2&id=530
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=20&num=1&id=590
Nah, that’s just too darn much to read. Better to have an opinion that’s not clouded by uncomfortable scholarship. Mormons-as-troglodytes is a much more soothing model.
My sarcasm aside, tell the kids that playing in the pep band is the best gig they’ll ever have. Free admission to the games! Front-row seats! Everybody thinks you’re cool! Great comraderie! I’d still be playing in the pep band if only I could have figured out how to make a living at it.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Might as well compare baptism to baking casseroles for funerals.
J
JHow
Guest
For those curious about their own orgins, the Mormon Church sponsors this free web site:
familysearch.org/
As far as I know, you (a non-Mormon chuch member Catholic) can’t tell by using this resource if “temple ordinances” have been performed on behalf of an ancestor. IIRC, you could inquire at a Mormon Family History Center about a record and perhaps find that out, although that may have changed since I looked into this stuff.
There is a handbook, here, the “Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work”:
lds.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work?lang=eng
I found this mention in this manual:
familysearch.org/
As far as I know, you (a non-Mormon chuch member Catholic) can’t tell by using this resource if “temple ordinances” have been performed on behalf of an ancestor. IIRC, you could inquire at a Mormon Family History Center about a record and perhaps find that out, although that may have changed since I looked into this stuff.
There is a handbook, here, the “Member’s Guide to Temple and Family History Work”:
lds.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work?lang=eng
I found this mention in this manual:
I’d kind of lean towards the assumption that if your ancestor has made it into the IGI, then he or she has potentially received some sort of ordinance, but perhaps Mormon posters can shed light on this?
L
Lefty0908
Guest
That seems like a reasonable assumption to me. I know our church leadership has been trying to get more control over the process. Some members have gone “buck wild” in submitting names for vicarious ordinance work in the temples. There has been duplication of effort, and not only has it caused some embarassment for us, but also caused some genuine concern and given offense to Jews, Catholics, and others. Of course it is also important to understand our belief that none of those ordinances are binding if the person for whom they are performed does not want to receive them.
T
Telstar
Guest
The thing that makes me scratch my head is the whole purpose of doing this in the first place. When Jesus was in the tomb, He spent that ‘time’ (remembering that God exists outside of time & space) speaking to all those that had awaited His coming for hundreds of years, and all those that were already judged, but not in hell. He’s God. He doesn’t need any of us to perform any kind of ritual to apply to anyone that has already passed through God’s judgement. The only thing any of those souls might need from us are prayers and other offerings, for all those who might still be waiting for their release from Purgatory. There’s a huge difference between praying or making small sacrifices for someone that’s passed, and trying to Baptize them by proxy. It just seems like such a wasted effort. It would be better for those people to spend all that time in prayers for the dead, instead. JMHO
L
Lefty0908
Guest
Thomas Moore certainly could have used your erudition.
L
Lefty0908
Guest
But of course you’re viewing things through the lens of Catholic dogma, which I do not accept (God existing outside of time and space; persons judged but not in hell, the concept of Purgatory, etc.). So we’ll just have to be across the river from each other on this one.
The one thing we do have in common is our acceptance of some kind of meaning to be found in Paul’s words in I Corinthians 15:29. It’s pretty clear that the Mormons (among others) interpret what he says rather literally and that as an institution, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attempts to make serious application of the principle about which Paul speaks.
So what exactly is the Catholic interpretation of this verse? I would think it must be nuanced in some way or given some other contextual understanding.
T
Telstar
Guest
That quote from Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, who apparently were listening to ‘teachers with itching ears’ that told them to do those sorts of things that were not taught to them by him, or any of the other Apostles. They were obviously engaging in many practices that they made up on their own, or that some of their newer members were suggesting to them. He felt that they were being mislead by many of those people into doing things that were incorrect because they weren’t following what they had been taught from the beginning. If he didn’t think they were significantly against the Apostle’s teachings, he would not have had to write to them so many times to correct them. (He also might have been referring to other types of practices that were done for the dead, like making personal sacrifices on their behalf [things like fasting, etc.].)
But, if it was a legitimate practice that was considered necessary, all of the other Apostles would have been teaching it, everywhere they went. Since it was only briefly mentioned in this one letter to the Corinthians in the entire Bible, and none of the early Church fathers even mentioned it more than in a few passing remarks, I would have to believe that it was just another one of their many errors that he was trying to correct before it became a more widespread problem. Baptism is only necessary for the living, not the dead. Once a person has passed over the veil, it’s too late for them to be Baptized. God will decide if they will be given a choice to accept Christ or not. He doesn’t really need us to help Him out with that. He can handle it on His own because He knows what’s really in their hearts, and that’s all that really matters at that point.
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
Lefty
Can you explain the following between the “Book of Moses” (Singular God)
"… the Lord spake unto Moses saying: Behold I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the works which I speak… "And I God, said: Let there be light; and there was light. … "And I, God, called the dry land Earth… "And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind… "And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden…
(Moses 2:1,3,10,25; 3:8)
Sounds reasonable (isn’t the Bible itself but is where it was borrowed from) but reflect on what the “Book of Abraham” says: (Polytheism or Henotheistic God)
"And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words… "And they (the Gods, said: let there be light: and there was light… "And the Gods pronounced the dry land, earth. … "And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind… “And the Gods planted a garden in Eden…”
(Abraham 3:15; 4:3, 10, 25; 5:8)
Whoaaaaa - Which is correct and why?
To ACCEPT one set of quotes CONDEMNS the other; Both are from “The Pearl of Great Price” are they not?
Bruce McConkie’s quotes:
…God…is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones, an anthropomorphic Entity…"
from Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 250.
then follows on p. 322:: “…as the Prophet also taught, there 'a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
God clearly says He knows of no other Gods (OT). But then you also have the Adam-God doctrine. And - Jesus is the Spirit Brother of Satan, right? Your “theology” attempts to elevate the created fallen angel to the level of the Divine Word made Flesh, the God/Man which in reality is an absolute impossibility and simply takes a nosedive from traditional, historic Christianity.
LeGrand Richards’ quote in a letter to Morris L. Reynolds on July 14, 1966 takes the cake:
"There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church works, it is accepted as Church doctrine, and this is: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is man may become.’ "
Contrast that with a quote from 1835 Lectures of Faith given in Kirtland, Ohio that refers to God the Father as “a Personage of spirit”
The Book of Mormon 1830 edition states in the First Book of Nephi page 25:
“…Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of god, after the manner of flesh…
and the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!”
Love that exclamation point
These quotes in later editions blatantly show “The Son Of” have been inserted.
A 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon would be an invaluable resource - copies are obtainable on the IN for purchase and your personal review and edification.
YOU believe YOU will one day become a “GOD” do you not?
Lefty, frankly, this is another wild example where the LDS part ways with historic, traditional Christianity, evident in many, many other places in their own writings.
Clearly, our notions of God, Jesu, Holy Spirit, etc. are sadly worlds apart.
Can you explain the following between the “Book of Moses” (Singular God)
"… the Lord spake unto Moses saying: Behold I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the works which I speak… "And I God, said: Let there be light; and there was light. … "And I, God, called the dry land Earth… "And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind… "And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden…
(Moses 2:1,3,10,25; 3:8)
Sounds reasonable (isn’t the Bible itself but is where it was borrowed from) but reflect on what the “Book of Abraham” says: (Polytheism or Henotheistic God)
"And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words… "And they (the Gods, said: let there be light: and there was light… "And the Gods pronounced the dry land, earth. … "And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind… “And the Gods planted a garden in Eden…”
(Abraham 3:15; 4:3, 10, 25; 5:8)
Whoaaaaa - Which is correct and why?
To ACCEPT one set of quotes CONDEMNS the other; Both are from “The Pearl of Great Price” are they not?
Bruce McConkie’s quotes:
…God…is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones, an anthropomorphic Entity…"
from Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 250.
then follows on p. 322:: “…as the Prophet also taught, there 'a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
God clearly says He knows of no other Gods (OT). But then you also have the Adam-God doctrine. And - Jesus is the Spirit Brother of Satan, right? Your “theology” attempts to elevate the created fallen angel to the level of the Divine Word made Flesh, the God/Man which in reality is an absolute impossibility and simply takes a nosedive from traditional, historic Christianity.
LeGrand Richards’ quote in a letter to Morris L. Reynolds on July 14, 1966 takes the cake:
"There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church works, it is accepted as Church doctrine, and this is: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is man may become.’ "
Contrast that with a quote from 1835 Lectures of Faith given in Kirtland, Ohio that refers to God the Father as “a Personage of spirit”
The Book of Mormon 1830 edition states in the First Book of Nephi page 25:
“…Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of god, after the manner of flesh…
and the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!”
Love that exclamation point
These quotes in later editions blatantly show “The Son Of” have been inserted.
A 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon would be an invaluable resource - copies are obtainable on the IN for purchase and your personal review and edification.
YOU believe YOU will one day become a “GOD” do you not?
Lefty, frankly, this is another wild example where the LDS part ways with historic, traditional Christianity, evident in many, many other places in their own writings.
Clearly, our notions of God, Jesu, Holy Spirit, etc. are sadly worlds apart.
T
Tony888
Guest
Hi Pepband Mom
prooftexting does not prove anything.
Psalm 82:1 mentions the council of gods (plural)
Whoaaa - Which is correct and why?
Has seeing this plural usage led you to disavow the bible as you imply LDS should reject our additional doctrine?.
Answer: The bible contains many things that are not fully clear to us, and it contains contradictions. Proof texting is bad!
There is no Adam God doctrine - a speech given does not make doctrine.
I urge you to read your Catechism since long before the LDS church was started the RCC taught: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God"
The ECF wrote extensively on Deification.
In summary, there are plenty of valid criticisms you can make of the LDS faith, you just haven’t made any here.
prooftexting does not prove anything.
Psalm 82:1 mentions the council of gods (plural)
Whoaaa - Which is correct and why?
Has seeing this plural usage led you to disavow the bible as you imply LDS should reject our additional doctrine?.
Answer: The bible contains many things that are not fully clear to us, and it contains contradictions. Proof texting is bad!
There is no Adam God doctrine - a speech given does not make doctrine.
I urge you to read your Catechism since long before the LDS church was started the RCC taught: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God"
The ECF wrote extensively on Deification.
In summary, there are plenty of valid criticisms you can make of the LDS faith, you just haven’t made any here.
Lefty
Can you explain the following between the “Book of Moses” (Singular God)
"… the Lord spake unto Moses saying: Behold I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the works which I speak… "And I God, said: Let there be light; and there was light. … "And I, God, called the dry land Earth… "And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind… "And I, the Lord God, planted a garden eastward in Eden…
(Moses 2:1,3,10,25; 3:8)
Sounds reasonable (isn’t the Bible itself but is where it was borrowed from) but reflect on what the “Book of Abraham” says: (Polytheism or Henotheistic God)
"And the Lord said unto me: Abraham, I show these things unto thee before ye go into Egypt, that ye may declare all these words… "And they (the Gods, said: let there be light: and there was light… "And the Gods pronounced the dry land, earth. … "And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind… “And the Gods planted a garden in Eden…”
(Abraham 3:15; 4:3, 10, 25; 5:8)
Whoaaaaa - Which is correct and why?
To ACCEPT one set of quotes CONDEMNS the other; Both are from “The Pearl of Great Price” are they not?
Bruce McConkie’s quotes:
…God…is a personal Being, a holy and exalted man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones, an anthropomorphic Entity…"
from Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 250.
then follows on p. 322:: “…as the Prophet also taught, there 'a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
God clearly says He knows of no other Gods (OT). But then you also have the Adam-God doctrine. And - Jesus is the Spirit Brother of Satan, right? Your “theology” attempts to elevate the created fallen angel to the level of the Divine Word made Flesh, the God/Man which in reality is an absolute impossibility and simply takes a nosedive from traditional, historic Christianity.
LeGrand Richards’ quote in a letter to Morris L. Reynolds on July 14, 1966 takes the cake:
"There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church works, it is accepted as Church doctrine, and this is: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is man may become.’ "
Contrast that with a quote from 1835 Lectures of Faith given in Kirtland, Ohio that refers to God the Father as “a Personage of spirit”
The Book of Mormon 1830 edition states in the First Book of Nephi page 25:
“…Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of god, after the manner of flesh…
and the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!”
Love that exclamation point
These quotes in later editions blatantly show “The Son Of” have been inserted.
A 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon would be an invaluable resource - copies are obtainable on the IN for purchase and your personal review and edification.
YOU believe YOU will one day become a “GOD” do you not?
Lefty, frankly, this is another wild example where the LDS part ways with historic, traditional Christianity, evident in many, many other places in their own writings.
Clearly, our notions of God, Jesu, Holy Spirit, etc. are sadly worlds apart.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Not this again. We’ve already shown how the Mormon idea of being a god is not what is taught by catholics, east or west.
Joseph Smith’s doctrine of deity changed over time. It is easily seen by the written works he produced. The book of Mormon is modalist, the books in the pearl of great price are polytheist. His king follet sermon crowns them all, lowering God, and making gods of men.
This has nothing to do with the teachings in the CCC.
Joseph Smith’s doctrine of deity changed over time. It is easily seen by the written works he produced. The book of Mormon is modalist, the books in the pearl of great price are polytheist. His king follet sermon crowns them all, lowering God, and making gods of men.
This has nothing to do with the teachings in the CCC.
L
Lefty0908
Guest
Busted! Good catch, JC. It doesn’t do me much good to be a smart alec if I misspell the very word I was counting on to demonstrate my smart alec bona fides! 
Of course I was referring to St. Thomas More who is known to have practiced self flaggelation – a practice, like baptism for the dead, not mentioned by Jesus.
Of course I was referring to St. Thomas More who is known to have practiced self flaggelation – a practice, like baptism for the dead, not mentioned by Jesus.
S
scipio337
Guest
Perhaps you should investigate “doctrine” vs. “discipline”?Busted! Good catch, JC. It doesn’t do me much good to be a smart alec if I misspell the very word I was counting on to demonstrate my smart alec bona fides!
Of course I was referring to St. Thomas More who is known to have practiced self flaggelation – a practice, like baptism for the dead, not mentioned by Jesus.
T
Telstar
Guest
You really should practice what you preach, Tony. Please, note the use of capitalization in the following.
First of all, in the Douay-Rheims it’s in Psalm 81.
*Psalm 81 [1] A psalm for Asaph. God hath stood in the congregation of gods: and being in the midst of them he judgeth gods. [2] How long will you judge unjustly: and accept the persons of the wicked? [3] Judge for the needy and fatherless: do justice to the humble and the poor. [4] Rescue the poor; and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner. [5] They have not known nor understood: they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth shall be moved.
[6] I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High. [7] But you like men shall die: and shall fall like one of the princes. [8] Arise, O God, judge thou the earth: for thou shalt inherit among all the nations.
*
In case you didn’t notice, the word God is capitalized when referring to the true God, Himself. When speaking of ‘gods’, the Bible refers either to angels, who are not humans in the ‘preexistence’, or the holy men that follow God’s will on earth. Jesus was the only ‘man’ in the preexistence.
From the Catechism
441 In the Old Testament, “son of God” is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings.44 It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called “son of God”, it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus “son of God”, as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.45
442 Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God”, for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."46 Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles. . ."47 "And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’"48 From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ’s divine sonship will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church’s foundation.49
443 Peter could recognize the transcendent character of the Messiah’s divine sonship because Jesus had clearly allowed it to be so understood. To his accusers’ question before the Sanhedrin, “Are you the Son of God, then?” Jesus answered, "You say that I am."50 Well before this, Jesus referred to himself as “the Son” who knows the Father, as distinct from the “servants” God had earlier sent to his people; he is superior even to the angels.51 He distinguished his sonship from that of his disciples by never saying “our Father”, except to command them: “You, then, pray like this: ‘Our Father’”, and he emphasized this distinction, saying “my Father and your Father”.52
444 The Gospels report that at two solemn moments, the Baptism and the Transfiguration of Christ, the voice of the Father designates Jesus his “beloved Son”.53 **Jesus calls himself the “only Son of God”, and by this title affirms his eternal preexistence.**54 He asks for faith in “the name of the only Son of God”.55 In the centurion’s exclamation before the crucified Christ, “Truly this man was the Son of God”,56 that Christian confession is already heard. Only in the Paschal mystery can the believer give the title “Son of God” its full meaning.
445 After his Resurrection, Jesus’ divine sonship becomes manifest in the power of his glorified humanity. He was “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his Resurrection from the dead”.57 The apostles can confess: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."58
Code:
**460** The Word became flesh to make us *"partakers of the divine nature"*:78 "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.**"79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 *"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***."81
We ***do not*** become equal to God, but we will *share* in the Divinity of Jesus and become *like* (similar) Him by partaking of His Flesh in the Holy Eucharist (i.e. Catholic).
T
Tony888
Guest
You are adding many things I have not said. If you go back and examine the thread, I simply indicated she probably did not know her own faith that deeply - her short quips were equally applicable to RCC with the detail she provided.
Criticising LDS theology on exaltation is a valid RCC pursuit, but requires contrasting with historical teachings on deification - certainly more depth than she provided. I expect she knows nothing about those teachings.
And where do you get the fantasy that LDS believe they become equal with God the Father?!?!
T
Telstar
Guest
You accused her of ‘proof texting’, which is exactly what you and the other LDS on this forum do, quite frequently. Your one-liner that you pulled out of context from the CCC is a perfect example of your own hypocrisy. I was merely providing the actual CCC quote, in context, to respond to your example and to explain the difference between “God” and “god/gods”, to show how the Church actually defines those terms as they are used in scripture.
In a recent post, there was a quote from either Mormon doctrine, teachings or texts that clearly stated that Mormons believe they will, in fact, become equal to God the Father. Look it up. I’m pretty sure it’s in one of the LDS threads, and posted in the past week or so. Maybe that’s some of the ‘meat’ that you haven’t been told about, yet. Although, I was also reading some stuff on LDS.org last week, so I might have read it there, instead. Don’t shoot the messenger.
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
Tony888
Adam-God doctrine a “speech” - Let’s see what Brigham & company say in print to the Mormon faithful:
Brigham Young preached on the Adam-God doctrine 4/9/1852. See the reprint in "The Latter-Day Saints’ Millennial Star Nov. 26, 1853 (vol. 15, pp.769-70). The people believed what Brigham said which is verified in several publications:
"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, on of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! about who holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father, our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later… the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these tree forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51; see also REPRINT in the Millennial Star Nov. 25, 1853, vol 15, pp. 769-70)
Dec. 10, 1853 “Adam, the Father and God of the Human Family” appeared in the Millennial Star (vol. 15, p. 801)
p. 825 “It has been said that Adam is the God and Father of the human family, and persons are perhaps in fear and great trouble of mind, lest they have to acknowledge him as such in some future day. For our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our Father, that hunt for another, and take up with the devil.”
Millennial Star Vol 17, p. 195 "…every Knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is the God of the whole earth. Then will the words of the Prophet Brigham, when speaking of Adam, be fully realized- ‘He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.’ "
Millennial Star Vol. 16, p. 530 Elder James A. Little “I believe in the principle of obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just have to believe it.”
see also p. 482, 534
Brigham Young Oct. 1857 stated “Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p. 331)
Notice Brigham says “doctrine”
See Deseret News June 18, 1873:
"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-Day Saints in regards to one particular doctrine which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God… 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… We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, …Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business… Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. “Well,” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase here will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?”
Again Young says “particular doctrine” in his “speech”
another fascinating quote:
“…some of the officers have not met in council for three years. They are lacking faith on one principle-the last “cat that was let out of the bag.” Polygamy has been got over pretty well, that cloud has vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and God. There is a very intelligent person investigating our principles,…and can get along very well with everything else but the last “cat”, and as soon as he can see that clearly, he will become a “Mormon.” I instructed him to write to Liverpool upon it.”
(Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 482)
Apparently this was a problem in England as well. Frankly, the things speak for themselves, don’t they.
1830 Ed. of Book of Mormon & please review the 3,900+ changes from that first edition versus one you use now. Insertion of something as small as a comma can alter the theological dimension of any given verse. If the FIRST EDITION of the Book of Mormon is from Mormon God, then it should stand alone as is. Did the Mormon God (Elohim, Jahovah, Adam, Michael) command these 3,916 changes?
Perhaps you would do well to obtain photocopies of the following originals (internet etc.) and read the entire original stories IN CONTEXT for your own edification. After all that I would be interested in what you have to say about “proof-texting”.
Deseret News June 16, 1873
“Minutes of the School of the Prophets,” Provo, Utah, 1868-71, p. 38 (Utah State Historical Society)
Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 331
Millennial Star editions: Vol 15, pp.769-70 Nov. 26, 1853; Vol.15, p. 801 (Star #48); Vol. 16, p. 482, 530, 534; Vol. 17, p. 195;
Finally, despite your protests, please answer my question sir; it is a valid and critically important question:
→ do YOU believe YOU will one day become a GOD?
Adam-God doctrine a “speech” - Let’s see what Brigham & company say in print to the Mormon faithful:
Brigham Young preached on the Adam-God doctrine 4/9/1852. See the reprint in "The Latter-Day Saints’ Millennial Star Nov. 26, 1853 (vol. 15, pp.769-70). The people believed what Brigham said which is verified in several publications:
"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, on of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! about who holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father, our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later… the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these tree forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51; see also REPRINT in the Millennial Star Nov. 25, 1853, vol 15, pp. 769-70)
Dec. 10, 1853 “Adam, the Father and God of the Human Family” appeared in the Millennial Star (vol. 15, p. 801)
p. 825 “It has been said that Adam is the God and Father of the human family, and persons are perhaps in fear and great trouble of mind, lest they have to acknowledge him as such in some future day. For our part we would much rather acknowledge Adam to be our Father, that hunt for another, and take up with the devil.”
Millennial Star Vol 17, p. 195 "…every Knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is the God of the whole earth. Then will the words of the Prophet Brigham, when speaking of Adam, be fully realized- ‘He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.’ "
Millennial Star Vol. 16, p. 530 Elder James A. Little “I believe in the principle of obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just have to believe it.”
see also p. 482, 534
Brigham Young Oct. 1857 stated “Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p. 331)
Notice Brigham says “doctrine”
See Deseret News June 18, 1873:
"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-Day Saints in regards to one particular doctrine which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God… 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… We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, …Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business… Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. “Well,” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase here will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?”
Again Young says “particular doctrine” in his “speech”
another fascinating quote:
“…some of the officers have not met in council for three years. They are lacking faith on one principle-the last “cat that was let out of the bag.” Polygamy has been got over pretty well, that cloud has vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and God. There is a very intelligent person investigating our principles,…and can get along very well with everything else but the last “cat”, and as soon as he can see that clearly, he will become a “Mormon.” I instructed him to write to Liverpool upon it.”
(Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 482)
Apparently this was a problem in England as well. Frankly, the things speak for themselves, don’t they.
1830 Ed. of Book of Mormon & please review the 3,900+ changes from that first edition versus one you use now. Insertion of something as small as a comma can alter the theological dimension of any given verse. If the FIRST EDITION of the Book of Mormon is from Mormon God, then it should stand alone as is. Did the Mormon God (Elohim, Jahovah, Adam, Michael) command these 3,916 changes?
Perhaps you would do well to obtain photocopies of the following originals (internet etc.) and read the entire original stories IN CONTEXT for your own edification. After all that I would be interested in what you have to say about “proof-texting”.
Deseret News June 16, 1873
“Minutes of the School of the Prophets,” Provo, Utah, 1868-71, p. 38 (Utah State Historical Society)
Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 331
Millennial Star editions: Vol 15, pp.769-70 Nov. 26, 1853; Vol.15, p. 801 (Star #48); Vol. 16, p. 482, 530, 534; Vol. 17, p. 195;
Finally, despite your protests, please answer my question sir; it is a valid and critically important question:
→ do YOU believe YOU will one day become a GOD?
T
Tony888
Guest
Hey pepbandmom,
As i said before, it’s not LDS doctrine or dogma
For your reference, Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by listeners.
I understand about 20 of these brought up the subject of God the Father’s relationship to Adam. While most of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, some were/are controversial.
His teachings here were never cannonized as scripture, end of story.
The most you can do is examine and criticize Brigham Young personally. I won’t go their because I’ve not studied his biography or all his sermons. What I can say is LDS believe even our leaders are human, and make mistakes. I’m told Brigham Young contradicted himself.
As i said before, it’s not LDS doctrine or dogma
For your reference, Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by listeners.
I understand about 20 of these brought up the subject of God the Father’s relationship to Adam. While most of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, some were/are controversial.
His teachings here were never cannonized as scripture, end of story.
The most you can do is examine and criticize Brigham Young personally. I won’t go their because I’ve not studied his biography or all his sermons. What I can say is LDS believe even our leaders are human, and make mistakes. I’m told Brigham Young contradicted himself.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Young, tossed under the bus, McConkie, tossed under the bus, seems to be a lot of unreliable teaching from men going on.
- Status