Question for LDS

[dianaiad]

Then I go back to the same question (as annoying as I may be!) -

How can Mormon prophets/leaders be human and have times of speaking/acting when not being led by God but when the early Church fathers did this, they were apostates!!!

Lax, the problem is that your early church fathers didn’t claim to do that. Remember…Catholics claim that all public revelation ceased after the last apostle died.

Remember also that we do not claim any apostacy until after that, either.

 

[SteveVH]

I wonder if there would be any value in repeating all the outlandish things some of the popes have said and stated was doctrine only to have it reversed. Would you like to talk about that?

barnesms, I would be very interested in anything the Church has stated as doctrine that was later reversed. Can you give an example?

I’m headed off to our youth Mass but will check back later this evening.

Thanks.

 

[Answersplease]

He did use the contraction “and” within the sentence you quoted. The sentence says that the subject is Brigham Young–“I”. Does anything you have read on the subject demonstrate conclusively that BY “preached” the sermon wherein he is quoted as having said “thus and so” about Adam (which could actually mean an earlier Adam than the Adam described in Genesis–who knows what was on BY’s mind?, not I)–and “sent it out to the children of men” meaning he had looked at the piece of writing, edited it, decided it conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey, and “sent it out” in written form? I think not.

Answersplease:

Thanks to “why me” I’m trying to be more active in the forum again.

It has been a while since I debated you ParkerD, how about another debate?

1. The act of preaching seems to be the act of sending it out, with the “sent it out” phrase being used as a description of the word “preached”.

2. How do you know that the sermon needs to be in written form to be “sent” out and can you back that up with proof?

3. Who are “the children of men”? Are’nt they the people listening to the sermon? It seems logical that the people listening to the sermon can be considered as “the children of men”, and if not can you back that up with proof?

4. Why would’nt Brigham Young edit his sermon and decide “it conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey” (your words) BEFORE he preached it to his listeners? Did’nt his listeners deserve a sermon that “conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey” (your words) and if not can you back that up with proof?

5. Moroni 10:5 from the Book of Mormon says that “ye may know the truth of all things.” Did’nt Brigham Young “know the truth of all things” when he preached the Adam-God theory? If not can you back that up with proof?

Moroni 10:5
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

[lax16]

Now you do have me puzzled.

The sentence you quoted plus your comment were as follows:

The conjunction means that if you divide the sentence and start with the subject and make two sentences, then if you quote only one sentence and don’t include the connection that would mean “if and only if” in the statement as stated by the person, then you just created a meaning that was not intended by the statement. In other words, your comment did exactly that when you said “anything he said in his speeches or sermons should be considered prophetic.”

What he said (and you agreed that there is the conjunction AND and you provided the clear and simple meaning from the dictionary of what the word “and” brings to the meaning of the sentence) stipulated that he would do the “sending out” of the sermon. That means literally what it says–he is the deciding person about what is “sent out”. Not a newspaper reporter, not a scribe, not a journal-writer, not an editor, nobody but HIM.

If you still don’t get it, then Brigham Young is the subject of the compound sentence. Not a newspaper reporter. Not a scribe. Not an editor. Not a writer a hundred years later, or fifty years later, or whenever. Brigham Young would have had to be the “sender” of the specific text he wanted sent out “to the children of men” for it to fulfill the statement he made that you quoted. That was my point. That means it would be fully expected that he would take the time and deliberation to edit his “sermon” and decide whether he wants to “send it out”, or not. If not sent, then “scripture” didn’t happen within the context of his use of the word.

If you still don’t get it, then I give up.

Parker - Are you saying that BY would call people together for a sermon but then what he said didn’t matter until it was edited and sent out in written form?

I read through several of his talks in the D&C and he was clearly addressing a crowd. Was this impromptu? Why address men, women, and children if BY did not want them to take heed of his message?

I think, after reading through some of this sermons, he was speaking with authority and everybody knew it. Wasn’t he a very important person to Mormons back then? Didn’t people come to hear a prophet speak? Why then wouldn’t they just wait for the transcripts if they knew the message had to be edited?

 

[lax16]

Lax, the problem is that your early church fathers didn’t claim to do that. Remember…Catholics claim that all public revelation ceased after the last apostle died.

Remember also that we do not claim any apostacy until after that, either.

Okay, so you have modern day prophets who are not held accountable for anything they have said unless it has been edited first…then you have men (not prophets) fighting to keep the Church from falling to heretics 2,000 years ago and yet somehow they didn’t do a good enough job…

I really don’t understand how one can measure who is doing a good job and who is not using this criteria.

You are correct and I know that the LDS claim the apostasy happened after the last apostle died because I was told that by missionaries. Also, I have a quote from the booklet from the missionaries stating:

…The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority-including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church-was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy."

However, it was after the last apostle died that the early Church fathers were working their tails off to keep the gospel alive and yet, according to LDS, they did this in a state of apostasy. And, they didn’t do a good job. I don’t know how anyone could work so hard to keep the Church alive and do it without the direction of God.

Anyway, it all goes back to what I consider to be a double standard regarding the judgment of: Mormon prophets and early Church fathers.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker - Are you saying that BY would call people together for a sermon but then what he said didn’t matter until it was edited and sent out in written form?

I read through several of his talks in the D&C and he was clearly addressing a crowd. Was this impromptu? Why address men, women, and children if BY did not want them to take heed of his message?

I think, after reading through some of this sermons, he was speaking with authority and everybody knew it. Wasn’t he a very important person to Mormons back then? Didn’t people come to hear a prophet speak? Why then wouldn’t they just wait for the transcripts if they knew the message had to be edited?

I’m saying that the words “sent it out” has a meaning that is different than the words “preached a sermon”. Especially is this true if someone is describing “scripture”. To send is to “transmit or cause to be transmitted” and in the sentence as the words were used, BY would be the one doing the “transmitting” or “causing to be transmitted”–not a newspaper reporter taking notes on his talk.

Actually, conference talks in the recent past are “edited” after the conference session itself, if needed, before they are printed in the Conference Report or the Ensign magazine. This wasn’t done with the talks in the JD, nor certainly by Brigham Young before a newspaper reporter described the talk in a newspaper. Thus, he didn’t “send” the sermon out–meaning the use of the word “scripture” does not apply in a case where he didn’t originate the sending of a particular sermon or message.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I’m saying that the words “sent it out” has a meaning that is different than the words “preached a sermon”. Especially is this true if someone is describing “scripture”. To send is to “transmit or cause to be transmitted” and in the sentence as the words were used, BY would be the one doing the “transmitting” or “causing to be transmitted”–not a newspaper reporter taking notes on his talk.

Actually, conference talks in the recent past are “edited” after the conference session itself, if needed, before they are printed in the Conference Report or the Ensign magazine. This wasn’t done with the talks in the JD, nor certainly by Brigham Young before a newspaper reporter described the talk in a newspaper. Thus, he didn’t “send” the sermon out–meaning the use of the word “scripture” does not apply in a case where he didn’t originate the sending of a particular sermon or message.

Except the Adam-God was a sermon. And his sermons, according to him, were Scripture

 

[ParkerD]

1. The act of preaching seems to be the act of sending it out, with the “sent it out” phrase being used as a description of the word “preached”.
2. How do you know that the sermon needs to be in written form to be “sent” out and can you back that up with proof?
3. Who are “the children of men”? Are’nt they the people listening to the sermon? It seems logical that the people listening to the sermon can be considered as “the children of men”, and if not can you back that up with proof?
4. Why would’nt Brigham Young edit his sermon and decide “it conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey” (your words) BEFORE he preached it to his listeners? Did’nt his listeners deserve a sermon that “conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey” (your words) and if not can you back that up with proof?
5. Moroni 10:5 from the Book of Mormon says that “ye may know the truth of all things.” Did’nt Brigham Young “know the truth of all things” when he preached the Adam-God theory? If not can you back that up with proof?

1. I already have answered about this with what I wrote to Lax16. There is a meaning for the words “sent it out” that is different than “preach a sermon”.
2. We are talking about the days before radio or television. The print media were the media of transmission. To send out is to transmit, and the conjunction said that Brigham Young himself would do the transmitting of the sermon in a case where it could be referred to as “scripture”.
3. “The children of men” is a scriptural phrase that basically can mean “all humankind” in some contexts or can mean "those who are not the sons of God (meaning those who don’t keep their covenants with God). In this case, it appears to refer to “all humankind” and the means of transmitting such a sermon would be in a written media during that period of time in history. The whole world wasn’t sitting in the place where he was giving the sermon, obviously–nor all the members of the church. So the idea of “sending it out” was not something that would catch anyone off-guard.
4. I had already written that BY was a very busy, off-the-cuff kind of a person. You or anyone can wish that he would have taken the time to write down his sermon before the meeting, and edit it himself, but that wasn’t his style, nor the style of many of the early LDS leaders.

But the particular issue has to do with the use of the word “scripture” and how he used that word in the context of a message being “sent out to the children of men.”

1. Other LDS leaders have said the Adam-god theory is not doctrine, which means that it was not “sanctioned” by the Holy Ghost nor has ever been taught as either “scripture” or as “doctrine” or as “something that needs to be believed or followed”.

As I had written earlier, it is precisely correct that “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” This means that a person doing the reading or the listening needs the Holy Ghost with them to know the truth of a message, or to draw truths from a message–even from the scriptures. Speech is an imperfect form of communication. The Holy Ghost overcomes the imperfections within human communication, to teach us truths God wants us to know.

I personally think, and the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me since you have noted that the Holy Ghost conveys truth and I know that it does happen, that Brigham Young meant something quite different than the assumed meaning by people reading the report of his remarks on that subject.

I will also answer the obvious next question by citing the following verses from Alma 12 in the Book of Mormon:

7 Now when Alma had spoken these words, Zeezrom began to tremble more exceedingly, for he was convinced more and more of the power of God; and he was also convinced that Alma and Amulek had a knowledge of him, for he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart; for power was given unto them that they might know of these things according to the spirit of prophecy.
8 And Zeezrom began to inquire of them diligently, that he might know more concerning the kingdom of God. And he said unto Alma: What does this mean which Amulek hath spoken concerning the resurrection of the dead, that all shall rise from the dead, both the just and the unjust, and are brought to stand before God to be judged according to their works?
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; …

Peace to all. Bye.

 

[SirThomasMore]

1. I already have answered about this with what I wrote to Lax16. There is a meaning for the words “sent it out” that is different than “preach a sermon”.
2. We are talking about the days before radio or television. The print media were the media of transmission. To send out is to transmit, and the conjunction said that Brigham Young himself would do the transmitting of the sermon in a case where it could be referred to as “scripture”.
3. “The children of men” is a scriptural phrase that basically can mean “all humankind” in some contexts or can mean "those who are not the sons of God (meaning those who don’t keep their covenants with God). In this case, it appears to refer to “all humankind” and the means of transmitting such a sermon would be in a written media during that period of time in history. The whole world wasn’t sitting in the place where he was giving the sermon, obviously–nor all the members of the church. So the idea of “sending it out” was not something that would catch anyone off-guard.
4. I had already written that BY was a very busy, off-the-cuff kind of a person. You or anyone can wish that he would have taken the time to write down his sermon before the meeting, and edit it himself, but that wasn’t his style, nor the style of many of the early LDS leaders.

But the particular issue has to do with the use of the word “scripture” and how he used that word in the context of a message being “sent out to the children of men.”

1. Other LDS leaders have said the Adam-god theory is not doctrine, which means that it was not “sanctioned” by the Holy Ghost nor has ever been taught as either “scripture” or as “doctrine” or as “something that needs to be believed or followed”.

As I had written earlier, it is precisely correct that “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” This means that a person doing the reading or the listening needs the Holy Ghost with them to know the truth of a message, or to draw truths from a message–even from the scriptures. Speech is an imperfect form of communication. The Holy Ghost overcomes the imperfections within human communication, to teach us truths God wants us to know.

I personally think, and the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me since you have noted that the Holy Ghost conveys truth and I know that it does happen, that Brigham Young meant something quite different than the assumed meaning by people reading the report of his remarks on that subject.

I will also answer the obvious next question by citing the following verses from Alma 12 in the Book of Mormon:

7 Now when Alma had spoken these words, Zeezrom began to tremble more exceedingly, for he was convinced more and more of the power of God; and he was also convinced that Alma and Amulek had a knowledge of him, for he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart; for power was given unto them that they might know of these things according to the spirit of prophecy.
8 And Zeezrom began to inquire of them diligently, that he might know more concerning the kingdom of God. And he said unto Alma: What does this mean which Amulek hath spoken concerning the resurrection of the dead, that all shall rise from the dead, both the just and the unjust, and are brought to stand before God to be judged according to their works?
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; …

Peace to all. Bye.

It has already been established that BY taught the sermon that Adam is God. The newspapers reported the sermon and his sermons were scripture and therefore he taught false doctrine.

The Holy Spirit has confirmed to me that Brigham was a false prophet and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that there was no Apostasy. So, according to what you have posted, the Holy Spirit would not lie and therefore the Mormon Church is false.

On a different note, you never answered my question if you served a mission

 

[ParkerD]

On a different note, you never answered my question if you served a mission

Yes, 1974-75, and I anticipate serving several more during the next twenty years or so, with my wife who is anxious and excited to serve several missions in the upcoming years.

Bye.

P.S. to all readers who happen to read here:

Godspeed to all in all your journeys in life as you seek His blessings of peace and joy for yourselves and your loved ones.

 

[barnesms]

It has already been established that BY taught the sermon that Adam is God. The newspapers reported the sermon and his sermons were scripture and therefore he taught false doctrine.

The Holy Spirit has confirmed to me that Brigham was a false prophet and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that there was no Apostasy. So, according to what you have posted, the Holy Spirit would not lie and therefore the Mormon Church is false.

On a different note, you never answered my question if you served a mission

Why did Brigham Young stop teaching it during his time as a prophet? Are you aware of that or is this a similar behavior in leaving out pertinent information and taking LDS topics out of context to achieve your objectives?

 

[Answersplease]

…behavior in leaving out pertinent information and taking LDS topics out…

Answersplease:

Interesting that you being a Mormon accuse someone else of using that tactic.

exmormon.org/disease.htm

…from Boyd K. Packer’s talk “Do not spread disease germs!” (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1981, pp. 259, 262-271).
…

“Some things that are true are not very useful.”
…

"…The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy."

 

[Answersplease]

…taking lds topics out of context to achieve your objectives?

(Color red and underlining added to highlight the original texts.)

Sidney Rigdon in the 18 june 1845 ‘Messenger and Advocate’ reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that ‘we must lie to protect brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.’

not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage.
…

-Richard van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, pp. 38-39

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience.” - Joseph Smith

“Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo”, delivered Sunday, May 26, 1844. Printed in History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-412. Available at UTLM.org. The quote is significant when one considers that Smith secretly had thirty wives at the time of the address (cf. A partial listing with dates at FamilySearch.org).

Here is a link to the following quote by “why me”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6183038&postcount=18

why me:

First, it is not suprising that in public JS would deny polygamy. I would have done so too

since the hatred for mormons was very real. Polygamy would have created an intolerable position for the early mormons if the cat was let out of the bag. And so, I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.

 

[Answersplease]

1. I already have answered about this with what I wrote to Lax16. There is a meaning for the words “sent it out” that is different than “preach a sermon”.

"Answersplease:

“…conference talks in the recent past are “edited” after the conference session itself…”

A conference is’nt the same as a sermon, especially a sermon given by a supposed current prophet of your god.

That only proves that those CONFERENCE speakers like to edit their mistakes.
It does NOT prove that Brigham Young edited his SERMONS after he preached them.

1. We are talking about the days before radio or television. The print media were the media of transmission. To send out is to transmit,…

"Answersplease:

That is a very NARROW definition of transmit.
Verbal SPEACH is ALSO a VALID form of transmitting information to the people listening.

And The New Testament does’nt show Jesus Christ or anyone else editing their sermons after they preached them and then sending them out in written form.

Now you are probably going to say that written media was time consuming etc. etc. etc.
But so what written media could still be used as was the case when Saint Paul wrote his epistles.

…and the conjunction said that Brigham Young himself would do the transmitting of the sermon in a case where it could be referred to as “scripture”.

"Answersplease:

“…Brigham Young himself would do the transmitting …”

Brigham Young was’nt PERSONALLY going to hand out a copy to EVERY single person on Earth since he would spend the rest of his life handing out copies.

That particular phrase does not neccessarily have to be a conditional component, like I said earlier, it seems very reasonable that the phrase “sent it out” was used to describe the word “preached”. When people write, they tend to use correct gramar, when people talk, they tend to break the grammer rules and it is perfectly acceptable.

How strange that Brigham Young would be very mindful of being grammatically correct during his sermon but he was NOT mindful of being theologically correct since his Adam-god idea was denounced.

It is also VERY strange that The Holy Spirit would not guide Brigham Young DURING his SERMON, but then The Holy Spirit would guide him afterward during the EDITING of the sermon.

1. “The children of men” is a scriptural phrase that basically can mean “all humankind” in some contexts or can mean "those who are not the sons of God (meaning those who don’t keep their covenants with God). In this case, it appears to refer to “all humankind” and the means of transmitting such a sermon would be in a written media during that period of time in history. The whole world wasn’t sitting in the place where he was giving the sermon, obviously–nor all the members of the church. So the idea of “sending it out” was not something that would catch anyone off-guard.

Answersplease:

The whole world was’nt going to read the written material either,
AND Brigham Young was’nt PERSONALLY going to hand out a copy to EVERY single person on Earth since he would spend the rest of his life handing out copies.

And did’nt his listeners deserve a sermon that “conveyed precisely what he wanted to convey” (your words)?
So the listeners get a Sermon that might be full of theological errors, but if they wait for the edited written copy then they get a theologically correct message?

Then what would be the point of going to listen to Brigham Young preach a sermon, why don’t they just say “Well Brigham Young, you give an interesting sermon, but we will wait for the edited written copy so we can get the theologically correct version.”

 

[Answersplease]

1. I had already written that BY was a very busy, off-the-cuff kind of a person. You or anyone can wish that he would have taken the time to write down his sermon before the meeting, and edit it himself, but that wasn’t his style, nor the style of many of the early LDS leaders.

But the particular issue has to do with the use of the word “scripture” and how he used that word in the context of a message being “sent out to the children of men.”

"Answersplease:

“…anyone can wish that he would have taken the time to write down his sermon before the meeting, and edit it himself, but that wasn’t his style…”

People take important time out of their lives to go listen to Brigham Young preach a sermon and they don’t get his BEST effort?

Did’nt Brigham Young think his listeners deserved his best effort?
Did’nt Brigham Young keep a thought for the comfort of his listeners?
Taking precious time out of their lives to go listen to a sermon that might be full of theological errors does’nt sound very comfortable to me, nor does it look good for Brigham Young’s character.

Jesus Christ was the suffering servant, He was humble and kept a thought toward the well being of His listeners, like when He thought of how hungry they might be and He fed the masses of people by multiplying the loaves and fishes.

1. Other LDS leaders have said the Adam-god theory is not doctrine, which means that it was not “sanctioned” by the Holy Ghost nor has ever been taught as either “scripture” or as “doctrine” or as “something that needs to be believed or followed”.

Answersplease:

You just basically said that The Holy Spirit did not guide Brigham Young during his sermon.

How do you know that Brigham Young was wrong and that your side is right?

 

[ParkerD]

Answersplease,
I can see that you disagree point by point. That is fine with me. This life is a sifting process. That means during this process people are going to disagree about many, many things including the use of language and meanings conveyed by language.

You have what you want in your life. I have what I want in my life. We disagree about what we want. Not a problem.

As far as comparing the Savior’s teachings, and the Bible that contains them, you would be aware having read some of what I’ve typed in response to subjects such as “eternal marriage” and “the Rock” and “the key of David”, that language used in the Bible that I think is easily understood in a certain way, is taken to mean an entirely different thing by a whole lot of people. As far as I’m concerned, that is also part of the intended sifting process of this life, just as the fact that the Holy Spirit did not constrain Brigham Young against saying something that could be easily misconstrued in a General Conference sermon that was going to sift a few handfuls of people out of the church a hundred and fifty years later, and give many others the justification they need and want for their own choices in life–which is just fine.

It’s a good process, needful, and one with which I am in full agreement. I have no doubt I was among those many who “shouted for joy” when I heard about it long, long ago in another place. I still, in my heart, “shout for joy” about its magnificence.

Peace to all. Adieu.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Answersplease,
I can see that you disagree point by point. That is fine with me. This life is a sifting process. That means during this process people are going to disagree about many, many things including the use of language and meanings conveyed by language.

You have what you want in your life. I have what I want in my life. We disagree about what we want. Not a problem.

As far as comparing the Savior’s teachings, and the Bible that contains them, you would be aware having read some of what I’ve typed in response to subjects such as “eternal marriage” and “the Rock” and “the key of David”, that language used in the Bible that I think is easily understood in a certain way, is taken to mean an entirely different thing by a whole lot of people. As far as I’m concerned, that is also part of the intended sifting process of this life, just as the fact that the Holy Spirit did not constrain Brigham Young against saying something that could be easily misconstrued in a General Conference sermon that was going to sift a few handfuls of people out of the church a hundred and fifty years later, and give many others the justification they need and want for their own choices in life–which is just fine.

It’s a good process, needful, and one with which I am in full agreement. I have no doubt I was among those many who “shouted for joy” when I heard about it long, long ago in another place. I still, in my heart, “shout for joy” about its magnificence.

Peace to all. Adieu.

I had thought you would apologize for your un-Christlike comments to me, but I see I was wrong.

I learn more about people here everyday.

Have a super day, Parker. May God Bless you.

 

[Big_Dummy]

If our universe was made from pre-existing matter, where did the original matter come from? If you have a line of descent between Gods of different worlds or universes, then where did the very first God come from?

 

[barnesms]

barnesms, I would be very interested in anything the Church has stated as doctrine that was later reversed. Can you give an example?

I’m headed off to our youth Mass but will check back later this evening.

Thanks.

Steve, you have a fair question. I have considered how I should answer it since I first read it. It has been a struggle. You may have read several of my comments about how some of the editors here are focused on destroying the LDS Church or the twisting of its doctrine. At times I have reacted to their comments in anger. I see their actions as those who follow the spirit of contention, which I reject completely. I have but one Master and when I fail him, I brought to repentance. This is a daily chore for me and I am striving to repent of the anger I have demonstrated on this web site.

Steve, as you study religious history you will learn a great many things about the Catholic Church. Yes, there are some very dark skeletons in the closet. However, I would ask you to acknowledge them and move on. I ask you to thresh the 1700 year history for truth and uplifting stories or examples of faith. Hold to all that you will find that is true, benevolent, and virtuous. Above all, walk through this life-long study holding to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In doing so, you will always be found exactly where your God seeks for you to be and your faith in God becoming consistently more refined.

I would be happy to stand by you and thresh for truth. However, I would not be following the will of our God by opening that closet of darkness for you or anyone else. Forgive me for my angry words; please accept that I am a sinner.

Let us follow the admonition of Paul—If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. If disciples of Christ would follow this, we might quickly find a unified body of Christ where love of God reigns.

 

[barnesms]

If our universe was made from pre-existing matter, where did the original matter come from? If you have a line of descent between Gods of different worlds or universes, then where did the very first God come from?

I am certain that “Big Dummy” as a name for you is incorrect and not reflective of your true nature. A doubter is neither dumb nor wrong, but it is a state of questioning that will lead to truth.

You have posed a complex question. LDS believe there is but one God the Father and we are only aware of one universe. All that we know, he created. We have no knowledge of where God came from. There has been no explanation of a “First Cause”. What we know is that He lives; that He sent us His Son, Jesus the Christ; Jesus was crucified on the cross for the sins of the world; that He rose the third day; that He returned to His Father and sits at his right hand, and that He will return one day. Anything having to do with the First Cause is a mystery that has not been revealed.