The quotes were already provided.
So if you’re referring to the quote that twopekinguys provided, then I give up also as to whether you will ever understand the use of the English language that provided a compound sentence wherein the meaning of either part of the sentence does not stand alone.
Parker, Parker, Parker. I have a major in Journalism and a minor in English and am an attorney (though my typing is awful). I would be willing to bet I understand it as least as much as you do. I also know what BY said and your explanations have been humourous. They remind me of Bill Clinton trying explain what the word “is” means.
Well, let’s see…Adam-God is not a new controversy for the lds chuch. It has been around for quite some time. However, we need to see it in context to the problems and contradictions other prophets faced:
It has not been uncommon for prophets and writers of sacred scripture to differ in their view of what God has done. It is clear that God has chosen to remain somewhat of a mystery, even to his prophets and apostles, and has not revealed much information concerning his activities prior to the creation of this earth. Paul expressed this in I Corinthians 13:9-12. Speaking of himself and other Christians, Paul declared that their gifts of knowledge and inspired messages were only partial, that they were looking to the future for perfect knowledge and the full revelation of God. He further compared their gospel understanding to the dim and imperfect image seen in the poor-grade mirrors produced at that time, but declared that eventually they would see God face to face.
Man’s understanding of God then was only partial, but would one day be as complete as God’s knowledge of himself (see also Num. 12:6-8). Many statements and incidents within the Bible support Paul’s view.
Following are a few of many examples in which Biblical prophets and writers have differed regarding the acts of God.
Yes No
Did the Lord cause David to number Israel? 2 Sam. 24:1 yes 1 Chr. 21:1 no
Does God justify the ungodly? Rom. 4:5 yes Ex. 23:7 no
Pr. 17:15 no
Does God punish children for the sins of their fathers?
Ex. 34:7 yes
Due. 5:9 yes
Ex. 20:5 yes
Ez. 18:20 No
Does God repent or change?
Gen. 6:6 Yes
Ex. 32:14 yes
1 Sam. 15:35 yes
Jer. 26:13 yes
Amos 7:1-6 yes
Num. 23:19 no
1 Sam. 15:29 no
Mal. 3:6 no
The Lord Angels
**Did the Lord deliver the Law or did angels? **
Ex. 20 yes
Deu. 5 yes
Acts 7:53 no
Gal. 3:19 no
Heb. 2:2 no
The issue raised by these passages is not that these prophets and writers believed in different Gods, but rather that they differed regarding their understanding of what God has done. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect all prophets, authors of scripture or all General Authorities to have the same understanding of what God has done.
The fact that Brigham Young believed that God did something which is difficult to harmonize with the beliefs of former or succeeding prophets presents a problem only for those whose expectations for prophets bear little relationship to the Biblical profile of a prophet.
lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm
What to make of that? Contradictions gallore.
Actually, the problem is, you have prophets who say “unusual” things, original members who founded your church leave or get excommunicated, and yet, you tell the whole wide world that the Catholic Church is in apostasy because some people in the early Church lost divine inspiration.Adam-God is not a new controversy for the lds chuch. It has been around for quite some time. However, we need to see it in context to the problems and contradictions other prophets faced:
It has not been uncommon for prophets and writers of sacred scripture to differ in their view of what God has done. It is clear that God has chosen to remain somewhat of a mystery, even to his prophets and apostles, and has not revealed much information concerning his activities prior to the creation of this earth. Paul expressed this in I Corinthians 13:9-12. Speaking of himself and other Christians, Paul declared that their gifts of knowledge and inspired messages were only partial, that they were looking to the future for perfect knowledge and the full revelation of God. He further compared their gospel understanding to the dim and imperfect image seen in the poor-grade mirrors produced at that time, but declared that eventually they would see God face to face.
Man’s understanding of God then was only partial, but would one day be as complete as God’s knowledge of himself (see also Num. 12:6-8). Many statements and incidents within the Bible support Paul’s view.
Following are a few of many examples in which Biblical prophets and writers have differed regarding the acts of God.
Yes No
Did the Lord cause David to number Israel? 2 Sam. 24:1 yes 1 Chr. 21:1 no
Does God justify the ungodly? Rom. 4:5 yes Ex. 23:7 no
Pr. 17:15 no
Does God punish children for the sins of their fathers?
Ex. 34:7 yes
Due. 5:9 yes
Ex. 20:5 yes
Ez. 18:20 No
Does God repent or change?
Gen. 6:6 Yes
Ex. 32:14 yes
1 Sam. 15:35 yes
Jer. 26:13 yes
Amos 7:1-6 yes
Num. 23:19 no
1 Sam. 15:29 no
Mal. 3:6 no
The Lord Angels
**Did the Lord deliver the Law or did angels? **
Ex. 20 yes
Deu. 5 yes
Acts 7:53 no
Gal. 3:19 no
Heb. 2:2 no
The issue raised by these passages is not that these prophets and writers believed in different Gods, but **rather that they differed regarding their understanding of what God has **done. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect all prophets, authors of scripture or all General Authorities to have the same understanding of what God has done.
The fact that Brigham Young believed that God did something which is difficult to harmonize with the beliefs of former or succeeding prophets presents a problem only for those whose expectations for prophets bear little relationship to the Biblical profile of a prophet.
lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm
What to make of that? Contradictions gallore.
What is really odd is that Mormons do not believe the Bible was translated correctly, then they use it against Catholics as if it was. So, it is translated correctly when they need it to be, and it is not translated correctly when they do not want it to be
That must be why there is no “catechism” - there is no definitive teaching on anything, is there?
Well, therein lies the problem. They pick and choose what is definitirve. If Joseph or Brigham teach something bad, they catagorize it as opinion. They look at the plethora of versions of the first vision, and pick the one that justifies them.
Then I go back to the same question (as annoying as I may be!) -
Yeah. Good question.
Did Jesus tell him anything that was prophetic so that he could prove to the world he was a prophet?
This thread is not about Brigham Young. The question is about exnihilo creation and do LDS teach it or believe.
Okay, I think I can follow this. But, the intelligences are still spoken of in plural, right? So it is probably not perceived as something completely simple and undivided, but already something separate and individual? Or am I reading into the word intelligences there?
Okay, I will take it then that this is a mystery not entirely revealed to you, right?
As for how we would interpret the verse you mention (i.e. John 5.19), I would say that we follow the exegesis of the Early Church Fathers, who for the most part took these words as an expression of the unity of the Trinity and the procession of the Son from the Father. Ultimately it reflects the perfection of the Son in that he shares total unity with the Father, and does only that which the Father does.
Okay, I think that seems clear enough. I am curious though about the earlier phrase you mentioned which stated that man is as God once was. Is there a specific way this is interpreted? Since I take it that you don’t perceive that God was ever a creature, which surely is the most provocative interpretation for most of us, do you believe then that the Father voluntarily took human form as Jesus did? Is there a specific reason LDS think he would choose to do that? Or would it be because, as you mentioned above, union between the spiritual and physical is seen as superior?
I certainly cannot argue with that. I think we should try to see our shared patrimony and ideas, most especially in the area of ethics and morals. For me, though, I just really enjoy a good discussion in which people will take the time to share their thoughts and interpretations. I don’t think people can do that if there is any fear at all that somebody will jump on any word as an opportunity to gain and advantage and “prove” the other person wrong. Debating can be exciting and interesting, and people can learn a lot, but it should still be a conversation. Otherwise it just becomes an argument, and I rarely enjoy those. They are about pride and I always regret when I fall into one of those as my behaviour is invariably unchristian. I think there should instead be mutual respect and a real desire to talk to another person and allow them to understand what we are saying. And, in this thread of course, I was seeking only an opportunity for personal learning, and many people have been exceedingly kind in allowing me to do that. I thank you all for doing that.
This is amazing to me. You are an attorney? You use language, and don’t understand the use of a simple word such as “and”? It boggles my mind. I can’t help you. No judge can help you. No one in the world can help you figure out the use of such a simple word, if you didn’t get it as a child in elementary school.
This thread is about creation. Creation inovles Adam. BY taught Adam God doctrine. See the progression? See the connection?
Parker, there was no ne3ed to be insulting or personal. I have not been rude to you or been insulting. I understand perfectly. And I do not need help from you. And since I win over 90% of my cases, I do not believe I need a judge to help me.