Mormon Apostle states arguments against the Book of Mormon are "pathetic"

[PaulDupre]

That’s really funny - the LDS think they have no traditions…

 

[kikkichan]

ParkerD,
I have a question about a comment you made to Arandur

Arandur,
…

Christ is the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, the Only Begotten Son of God, the FirstBorn. He was perfect when He was brought forth by the Father in the pre-mortal life from an Intelligence that was already far advanced of all other intelligences. By being God in the pre-mortal life, He was God at first. We knew Him as the Son of God in pre-mortal life, and were in awe of Him and His love for all of us. He was and is a Separate Person from God the Father, and both are completely unified in Their will, Their love, Their mercy, Their knowledge, Their power.

You use the words “… when He was brought forth by the Father”. This suggests that before this “bringing forth” Christ did not exist. Is this correct? You say he was “God at first”. Does this mean that he was brought forth as God. So he didn’t have to “become God” and was never “not God”, (at least from the time he was brought forth.)

Was this “bringing forth” a creation?

You also say, " … from an Intelligence that was already far advanced of all other intelligences." What is this “Intelligence”? Is that the Father? and when you say “was already far advanced”, does that mean that this “Intelligence” had been less advanced at some earlier time?

thanks,
–kc

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
I have a question about a comment you made to Arandur

1–You use the words “… when He was brought forth by the Father”. This suggests that before this “bringing forth” Christ did not exist. Is this correct? You say he was “God at first”. Does this mean that he was brought forth as God. So he didn’t have to “become God” and was never “not God”, (at least from the time he was brought forth.)

2–Was this “bringing forth” a creation?

3–You also say, " … from an Intelligence that was already far advanced of all other intelligences." What is this “Intelligence”? Is that the Father? and when you say “was already far advanced”, does that mean that this “Intelligence” had been less advanced at some earlier time?

thanks,
–kc

Kikkichan,

1–I used the words “brought forth” with the contextual meaning similar to what the word “organized” would mean. You and I and everyone have always existed prior to being a spirit, in a form of energized matter or light that LDS describe as an “intelligence”. Each intelligence is a separate entity, but can be brought forth by God into a more advanced condition of existence that is a spirit. When Mormons say we are all “children of God” we mean that we are all spirits who were “brought forth” by God from a pre-existing form of energized matter or light, to be spirit beings living with God and with His Son who was named Jehovah in pre-mortal life. Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus Christ) was perfect and had omnipotence as a spirit after he had been brought forth as the “FirstBorn” (meaning that He was brought forth into the condition of being a spirit thousands of years before any other spirit child of God the Father.)

So the wording you used, “he was brought forth as God. So he didn’t have to “become God” and was never “not God”, (at least from the time he was brought forth.)” is correct.

2–Not a creation from nothing, but a bringing forth from a prior existence to the more advanced life of a Spirit Being, which in the case of Jehovah was immediately a perfect Spirit Being.

3–What I meant was that all of us were “brought forth” thousands of years later than was Jehovah, and that we were brought forth from intelligences that did not have the immediate capacity to be perfect that Jehovah had, and that we were thus less advanced as intelligences and less advanced as spirit beings, and we needed the help of this perfect Son of God who could come to this earth, live a perfect life here, and redeem us through the power and capacity He held from the pre-mortal world and brought within Himself to earth.

 

[Arandur]

I disagree with the idea that scripture is a product of tradition. It is a product of revelation to prophets and of the teachings of Christ Himself.

Transmitted for generations by Tradition before Scripture was ever canonized. And, in the case of the OT, it was transmitted by Tradition for a much longer time period than even the few centuries between the writing of Scripture and canonization, or the life of Jesus and the writings themselves. Tradition filled the intervening space and preserved God’s Truth inerrantly so that Scripture could be assembled.

If you’re saying Catholics don’t believe the Trinity includes three Separate Persons, then I guess I have misunderstood many Catholics who have said the exact opposite.

Not “separate,” particularly not in the way you mean. Three in one. Light from Light, True God from True God, One in Being with the Father.

Christ is the First and the Last, Alpha and Omega, the Only Begotten Son of God, the FirstBorn. He was perfect when He was brought forth by the Father in the pre-mortal life from an Intelligence that was already far advanced of all other intelligences. By being God in the pre-mortal life, He was God at first. We knew Him as the Son of God in pre-mortal life, and were in awe of Him and His love for all of us. He was and is a Separate Person from God the Father, and both are completely unified in Their will, Their love, Their mercy, Their knowledge, Their power.

From Mormons here, on MADB, and the writings of Mormon leaders, I have heard quite a few quite different ideas about Jesus’ origins, when He was God, whether He was different or not, etc (they conflict/are not at all consistent, BTW). This is the first time I’ve heard this particular interpretation.

 

[PaulDupre]

From Mormons here, on MADB, and the writings of Mormon leaders, I have heard quite a few quite different ideas about Jesus’ origins, when He was God, whether He was different or not, etc (they conflict/are not at all consistent, BTW). This is the first time I’ve heard this particular interpretation.

What Parker wrote is the accurate Mormon teaching, except he left out that the Mormon god “brings forth intelligences as spirits” by having spirit children with his goddess wives.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
Since Paul inserted a comment, I’ll add that I do not believe in the phrase about “having spirit children…” I would write “bringing forth spirit children who are thus children of heavenly parents.” (I do not know the role of “Heavenly Mother” in the “bringing forth” process, but I do know that there are male and female spirits in pre-mortal and post-mortal life and that God the Father has an eternal companion. She has been referred to in LDS writings as “Heavenly Mother”, but we do not pray to Her nor do we know the timetable of Her having been “brought forth”.

But I suppose Paul can conjecture however it suits him to do.

 

[PaulDupre]

Arandur,
Since Paul inserted a comment, I’ll add that I do not believe in the phrase about “having spirit children…” I would write “bringing forth spirit children who are thus children of heavenly parents.” (I do not know the role of “Heavenly Mother” in the “bringing forth” process, but I do know that there are male and female spirits in pre-mortal and post-mortal life and that God the Father has an eternal companion. She has been referred to in LDS writings as “Heavenly Mother”, but we do not pray to Her nor do we know the timetable of Her having been “brought forth”.

But I suppose Paul can conjecture however it suits him to do.

It’s not conjecture, Parker. It is a quote from your current Gospel Principles manual, used to teach LDS students what they are expected to believe:

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

They will become gods.

**They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. **These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

They will receive a fulness of joy.

They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

• Gospel Principles, Chapter 47

Your disagreement is not with me, but with your leaders.

 

[ParkerD]

It’s not conjecture, Parker. It is a quote from your current Gospel Principles manual, used to teach LDS students what they are expected to believe:

Your disagreement is not with me, but with your leaders.

Hi, Paul,
You will remember that you and I discussed that I would write to my friend who happens to work directly with the Quorum of the Twelve, asking specifically about that manual. He replied that the Brethren have the opportunity to review each such manual, but are very busy and may not necessarily review each lesson and especially each sentence. However, as we also have discussed, earlier this year a new Gospel Principles manual was published (not yet put online) where the sentence “These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father” was removed from the current printing. I can disagree with the use of the word “have” in the sentence you noted, just as I disagreed with the other sentence, especially when someone such as yourself adds the further wording you added using the word “with”. In any case, it is not out of line to disagree with a word in a lesson manual.

“Have with” means a completely different connotation than the single word “have,” especially since we don’t know how spirits are “brought forth” from being an intelligence to being a spirit child.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi, Paul,
You will remember that you and I discussed that I would write to my friend who happens to work directly with the Quorum of the Twelve, asking specifically about that manual. He replied that the Brethren have the opportunity to review each such manual, but are very busy and may not necessarily review each lesson and especially each sentence. However, as we also have discussed, earlier this year a new Gospel Principles manual was published (not yet put online) where the sentence “These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father” was removed from the current printing. I can disagree with the use of the word “have” in the sentence you noted, just as I disagreed with the other sentence, especially when someone such as yourself adds the further wording you added using the word “with”. In any case, it is not out of line to disagree with a word in a lesson manual.

“Have with” means a completely different connotation than the single word “have,” especially since we don’t know how spirits are “brought forth” from being an intelligence to being a spirit child.

Sure Parker, think that if it makes you more comfortable.

 

[wyp8riot]

I haven’t heard of this; please go ahead and list them.

A skeleton of beliefs, however, while rejecting other truths, is only mildly helpful.

I think History and the founding fathers would disagree, however maybe your correct to some extent but these beliefs may be a bit more than just a skeleton and that could be a matter of opinion. Either way I am glad to post these and have started a new thread that I hope will be of benefit.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5855225#post5855225

 

[wyp8riot]

The problem with the devil approach is that mormonism is basically a force for good in the world. And I don’t think that satan would be a force for good. Mormonism teaches that the human body is a temple and it should be treated as such. For satan the human body is an amusement park, to be enjoyed at will. The mormon message is directly opposed to the devil’s on numerous fronts.

Consider these facts in concert with the good done by the church…

youtube.com/watch?v=ByJY-N85i7s

I am in support of any organization that does so much humanitarian duties and inspires men to do good. By their fruits you shall know them. If the LDS church was Satanic why does the catholic church work with it on so many humanitarian projects?

 

[Arandur]

Consider these facts in concert with the good done by the church…

youtube.com/watch?v=ByJY-N85i7s

I am in support of any organization that does so much humanitarian duties and inspires men to do good. By their fruits you shall know them. If the LDS church was Satanic why does the catholic church work with it on so many humanitarian projects?

I thought I had explained more clearly; sorry if not. I know I did not say that “the LDS Church [is] Satanic.” That implies direct Satan worship. In fact, Smithian scriptures and leaders come much closer to accusing the other churches of that, with all the “great and abominable church of the devil” stuff.

No, what I was saying was that not all spiritual experiences are of God. Satan and his followers work to mislead and cause division among Believers, and this can include by spiritual experiences (the workers themselves being spirits). The spreading of falsehoods or temptations in this manner is typically by deception. When a person is deceived, they don’t know the truth of their deceiver. So a false doctrine can be introduced with people fully believing it is from God, when it is not. The many, many heresies throughout history (and you would have to agree that there were indeed very many, since most run quite contrary to LDS beliefs) did not require direct Satan worship to be false. Satan just nudged things along, sowed chaos and confusion under the guise of wisdom and truth.

So to the extent that a church’s beliefs are false, they are either of man entirely, or of man influenced (almost always unwittingly) by the devil. I do not say that Christian churches are “of the devil,” as Smith et al did. I believe they are sincerely trying to follow God, and certainly direct their worship to Him. So while LDS are sincere in their worship of God, like so many other religions that belief falsehoods, they are influenced (unwittingly) either merely by falsehoods of man, or of some influenced by the devil.

It’s not something to make a big deal over; it’s really just a recognition that Satan spreads lies. Kind of basic for our faiths . We all have a duty to try to discern righteously to avoid those lies. I only brought it up to bring out the point that not all spiritual experiences nor unusual/supernatural things beyond the seeming ability of men are of God, thus the third possibility for Smith (either it’s from God, from his own creation, or influenced in some way, probably through being deceived, by the devil). And just to point to the good LDS do and their worship of God is not enough to prove otherwise, since all other Christian sects can say the same thing–and LDS scriptures and leaders still call them “of the devil,” acknowledging that he works to spread falsehoods even among good God-fearing Christians.

Does that clear things up?

 

[kikkichan]

ParkerD,

Kikkichan,

1–I used the words “brought forth” with the contextual meaning similar to what the word “organized” would mean. You and I and everyone have always existed prior to being a spirit, in a form of energized matter or light that LDS describe as an “intelligence”. Each intelligence is a separate entity, but can be brought forth by God into a more advanced condition of existence that is a spirit. When Mormons say we are all “children of God” we mean that we are all spirits who were “brought forth” by God from a pre-existing form of energized matter or light, to be spirit beings living with God and with His Son who was named Jehovah in pre-mortal life. Jehovah (the pre-mortal Jesus Christ) was perfect and had omnipotence as a spirit after he had been brought forth as the “FirstBorn” (meaning that He was brought forth into the condition of being a spirit thousands of years before any other spirit child of God the Father.)

Thanks, If you don’t mind, I’d like to keep going with this. Do I have this correct?

(1) – Before we were “brought forth” as spirits, we each existed as an individual intelligence. Is an individual intelligence a being? Is an individual intelligence distinct, that is, is each individual intelligence like an embryo destined to become a particular spirit-child/person when it is brought forth? Or is a it non-distinct and destined to become whatever spirit-child/person the heavenly father wills?

I ask this because Jesus was brought forth from a particular “more advanced intelligence”, correct? and it makes me wonder if individual characteristics existed in the individual intelligence state.

/********************************/

(2) Was the Heavenly Father ever brought forth? If so, by whom?

I ask this because of the following quote from the Gospel Principles url cited earlier:

"It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46)

thanks again,
–kc

 

[jake23]

For lds to remain mormon requires one to give up common sense, honesty among other things. Such a person will disregard gods truth no matter how many times you proclaim it. we all should witness to those who are about to make the mistake of joining the cult, however those like dinobrain has sold there soul to the devil along time ago. There are around six to seven million and sure enough they will pass and another nutty occult will take its place. We should disregard such foolishness and focus on the 1.2 billion of us children of gods catholic church which is a sign of the lords triumph.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, (Note: My answers will be in UPPER CASE)

Thanks, If you don’t mind, I’d like to keep going with this. Do I have this correct?

(1) – Before we were “brought forth” as spirits, we each existed as an individual intelligence. Is an individual intelligence a being? YES
Is an individual intelligence distinct, that is, is each individual intelligence like an embryo destined to become a particular spirit-child/person when it is brought forth? YES
Or is a it non-distinct and destined to become whatever spirit-child/person the Heavenly Father wills? NO

I ask this because Jesus was brought forth from a particular “more advanced intelligence”, correct? YES
and it makes me wonder if individual characteristics existed in the individual intelligence state. YES

/********************************/

(2) Was the Heavenly Father ever brought forth? If so, by whom?

I ask this because of the following quote from the Gospel Principles url cited earlier:

thanks again,
–kc

Kikkichan,
In answer to your second set of questions, Joseph Smith was killed in 1844 soon after he had given that address, so he never expanded on the teaching he had just given a glimpse of, and I don’t know the answer to those questions, nor do I think it is important to know the answer to those questions or God would have provided more information through a prophet.

By the way, I sent an email to the LDS Sunday School General President today so that they would consider updating the online Gospel Principles manual to the 2009 printed edition. (He said he would pass along the reminder.) It still has this quote in it that you cited, but it doesn’t have the passage that I had told Paul I disagreed with the wording of. It was changed to read “they will have eternal increase.”

 

[PaulDupre]

By the way, I sent an email to the LDS Sunday School General President today so that they would consider updating the online Gospel Principles manual to the 2009 printed edition. (He said he would pass along the reminder.) It still has this quote in it that you cited, but it doesn’t have the passage that I had told Paul I disagreed with the wording of. It was changed to read “they will have eternal increase.”

“Eternal increase” in Mormonism means “have spirit children and descendants for eternity”. So they change the wording to try to make it more difficult for non-Mormons to use your teaching manuals against you (more of that plausible deniability Mormons are so fond of), but the meaning stays the same.

As the LDS church morphs into just another Protestant sect, they will eventually interpret “eternal increase” to mean just spiritual blessings in heaven. And the rank and file, willfully ignorant of the teachings of past leaders, will blindly accept it and claim that that’s what the church always taught.

 

[ParkerD]

“Eternal increase” in Mormonism means “have spirit children and descendants for eternity”. So they change the wording to try to make it more difficult for non-Mormons to use your teaching manuals against you (more of that plausible deniability Mormons are so fond of), but the meaning stays the same.

As the LDS church morphs into just another Protestant sect, they will eventually interpret “eternal increase” to mean just spiritual blessings in heaven. And the rank and file, willfully ignorant of the teachings of past leaders, will blindly accept it and claim that that’s what the church always taught.

I think they have changed the wording so that someone such as yourself won’t make the assumption by reading the words “have spirit children” and by understanding that it is an exalted man and an exalted woman who are being talked about, that the “mother” has a spirit child the way mortal women have babies. That has been an assumption by some over the years, but it is merely an assumption and is not a very logical one. So I think “eternal increase” is a better word choice. We don’t know the process. We do know that spirits are “brought forth” and that they are nurtured.

 

[PaulDupre]

I think they have changed the wording so that someone such as yourself won’t make the assumption by reading the words “have spirit children” and by understanding that it is an exalted man and an exalted woman who are being talked about, that the “mother” has a spirit child the way mortal women have babies. That has been an assumption by some over the years, but it is merely an assumption and is not a very logical one. So I think “eternal increase” is a better word choice. We don’t know the process. We do know that spirits are “brought forth” and that they are nurtured.

Do you think it’s logical to believe that a man and woman are married in the afterlife and have children together, but the woman has nothing to do with it? If the god just “brings them forth” and the godess plays no role then why be married at all?

Your beliefs are not representitive of LDS doctrine. You are one of those Mormons who is ashamed of historic LDS teachings, so you make up your own doctrine and pretend that it is LDS doctrine. Most of the intelligent Mormons I know either pretend or leave the church.

You pretend. I left.

 

[ParkerD]

Do you think it’s logical to believe that a man and woman are married in the afterlife and have children together, but the woman has nothing to do with it? If the god just “brings them forth” and the godess plays no role then why be married at all?

Your beliefs are not representitive of LDS doctrine. You are one of those Mormons who is ashamed of historic LDS teachings, so you make up your own doctrine and pretend that it is LDS doctrine. Most of the intelligent Mormons I know either pretend or leave the church.

You pretend. I left.

Paul,
There is nothing to “pretend” about on this particular issue. (I realize you have had concerns about other issues, and appreciate that we can discuss this particular one.)

As I have read and studied and thought, I just don’t have the concept in my mind nor have I found it substantially taught (if at all) that calling spirit children “children” means an exalted woman has had a spirit child in the way you seem to be describing and have described in posts before on other threads. “Why be married at all” has to do with emotional intimacy and fulfillment through being supportive and truly completing the other companion because of complementary attributes and qualities.

Doctrinally, parents on earth don’t conceive a baby and the spirit of that baby comes into the body by the physical act of the parents, of course. It is by an act of God that the spirit comes into the body before birth.

So the assumption that an intelligence that is the “seed” or “embryo” or “first element” of the spirit, comes into that spirit through the same kind of act that began the development of a baby inside a womb, is dissimilar and illogical.

A body clothes a spirit in a sense. A spirit clothes an intelligence in a similar sense. But the spirit does not need the kind of development within a womb that a body needs. It doesn’t need cell division nor the nourishment of a womb, and so forth. Those are mortal body processes for the physical body to grow and be “brought forth” with a spirit as part of that physical body. We simply don’t know what the “bringing forth” process is that brings an intelligence into the more advanced state of being a spirit.

Women are nurturers by inclination. A woman can be a nurturer without being a mother, and many are. They are also superb at being an “help-meet.” So the idea of a companionship in the eternities with or without a physically intimate relationship is plausible to me in every sense of being a choice and joyful eternal relationship. Also, the idea of being a “heavenly parent” in the sense of being a joint companionship who “brings forth” a spirit in whatever way that is done, then nurtures and teaches that spirit and those many spirits, seems like a joyful and fulfilling opportunity to me, especially with understanding that time ceases to be a measured dimension and one can see the end from the beginning and foresee how each spirit will grow to maturity.

 

[wyp8riot]

I thought I had explained more clearly; sorry if not. I know I did not say that “the LDS Church [is] Satanic.” That implies direct Satan worship. In fact, Smithian scriptures and leaders come much closer to accusing the other churches of that, with all the “great and abominable church of the devil” stuff.

No, what I was saying was that not all spiritual experiences are of God. Satan and his followers work to mislead and cause division among Believers, and this can include by spiritual experiences (the workers themselves being spirits). The spreading of falsehoods or temptations in this manner is typically by deception. When a person is deceived, they don’t know the truth of their deceiver. So a false doctrine can be introduced with people fully believing it is from God, when it is not. The many, many heresies throughout history (and you would have to agree that there were indeed very many, since most run quite contrary to LDS beliefs) did not require direct Satan worship to be false. Satan just nudged things along, sowed chaos and confusion under the guise of wisdom and truth.

So to the extent that a church’s beliefs are false, they are either of man entirely, or of man influenced (almost always unwittingly) by the devil. I do not say that Christian churches are “of the devil,” as Smith et al did. I believe they are sincerely trying to follow God, and certainly direct their worship to Him. So while LDS are sincere in their worship of God, like so many other religions that belief falsehoods, they are influenced (unwittingly) either merely by falsehoods of man, or of some influenced by the devil.

It’s not something to make a big deal over; it’s really just a recognition that Satan spreads lies. Kind of basic for our faiths . We all have a duty to try to discern righteously to avoid those lies. I only brought it up to bring out the point that not all spiritual experiences nor unusual/supernatural things beyond the seeming ability of men are of God, thus the third possibility for Smith (either it’s from God, from his own creation, or influenced in some way, probably through being deceived, by the devil). And just to point to the good LDS do and their worship of God is not enough to prove otherwise, since all other Christian sects can say the same thing–and LDS scriptures and leaders still call them “of the devil,” acknowledging that he works to spread falsehoods even among good God-fearing Christians.

Does that clear things up?

Yes, but to clarify that is the exact meaning of “the church of the devil” it wasnt about a church specifically but that false influences and lies and deceptions from the power of the devil, so we agree but may have different opinions on where the deception falls into place.