Question for LDS

[lax16]

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.

Yes it has. It comes from Judaism and it tells us that **God is First and Last. **

This is a long and interesting conversation to have, however, the fact is Catholics believe it, too.

I thought LDS didn’t like to say that certain teachings are “mysteries?”

 

[SirThomasMore]

It depends on the day

 

[Answersplease]

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.

Answersplease:

That does’nt sound like an answer.

You are’nt countering my counter-points, you know like a debate goes with each side countering the other sides counter-points until one side can no longer answer due to being stumped.

Does this mean that I won the debate?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Yes

 

[why_me]

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.

I think that Parker has been extremely polite to catholics who attempt to insult his religion. Have you learned anything about catholics who post on the mormon threads. Some are not very polite at all. People are people. Cut Parker some slack.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I think that Parker has been extremely polite to catholics who attempt to insult his religion. Have you learned anything about catholics who post on the mormon threads. Some are not very polite at all. People are people. Cut Parker some slack.

I always cut folks slack who mess up then apologize.

When people are rude and refuse to apologize, it says a lot about their character.

I am not perfect…far from it. Like I said, I tend to go in like Peter with my sword drawn. I apologized for that and have tried to be less like a litigator. If I offend someone, I will apologize.

So, no, I will not cut much slack to anyone who cannot apologize for misconduct.

 

[why_me]

Yes

Not quite. It is impossible to debate answers because of the way he posts his posts with blue, black and red letters in quoted blocks. I just ignore his posts because of it. it is impolite for him to post that way.But you are also doing it now every now and then…

 

[SirThomasMore]

Not quite. It is impossible to debate answers because of the way he posts his posts with blue, black and red letters in quoted blocks. I just ignore his posts because of it. it is impolite for him to post that way.But you are also doing it now…

I do it to make it easier to see what is mine and what belongs to the person I am answering. I do not believe it is impolite, but actually very polite because it makes it easier to follow along.

 

[ParkerD]

That does’nt sound like an answer.

You are’nt countering my counter-points, you know like a debate goes with each side countering the other sides counter-points until one side can no longer answer due to being stumped.

Does this mean that I won the debate?

I really do have other things (particularly family history research and family activities) going on in my life that have a much more important focus for me than trying to “get a person to see” a point of view that is different than theirs when that involves semantics, usage, and an entire background in the culture from which words were used by a speaker.

So, if you want to think that you “won a debate”, then that is completely fine with me. I had provided explanations that were attempting to draw from context, but obviously by discarding context a person can say “this means x” and another person can say, “no–this means y” because many words bring their meaning with them only within a context as to what that particular word meant within its context of how it was used in a sentence.

My interest during my life is in “learning truths of God and the world around me”, including understanding cultures as best I can. Sometimes I will undoubtedly “get it wrong” when I encounter a culture I am unfamiliar with and attempt to understand those particular people, particularly in terms of language barriers and customs and how they communicate within their culture. But it can be fascinating to learn about the culture of others and explore why they do what they do and have wholly different approaches to communication and do very well within their culture yet may be misunderstood by others looking at things from the outside.

I also understand that people do want to “win”. I don’t have the need to “win”. So, it’s fine for me that you are able to consider to yourself that you “won a debate.”

Peace to all. Where I offended people, I apologize that that has happened. I didn’t mean to offend, but have certainly tried to defend my own views and perspective, and to defend people I love (not around to defend themselves).

Thanks, why me, for doing that for me also.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I really do have other things (particularly family history research and family activities) going on in my life that have a much more important focus for me than trying to “get a person to see” a point of view that is different than theirs when that involves semantics, usage, and an entire background in the culture from which words were used by a speaker.

So, if you want to think that you “won a debate”, then that is completely fine with me. I had provided explanations that were attempting to draw from context, but obviously by discarding context a person can say “this means x” and another person can say, “no–this means y” because many words bring their meaning with them only within a context as to what that particular word meant within its context of how it was used in a sentence.

My interest during my life is in “learning truths of God and the world around me”, including understanding cultures as best I can. Sometimes I will undoubtedly “get it wrong” when I encounter a culture I am unfamiliar with and attempt to understand those particular people, particularly in terms of language barriers and customs and how they communicate within their culture. But it can be fascinating to learn about the culture of others and explore why they do what they do and have wholly different approaches to communication and do very well within their culture yet may be misunderstood by others looking at things from the outside.

I also understand that people do want to “win”. I don’t have the need to “win”. So, it’s fine for me that you are able to consider to yourself that you “won a debate.”

Peace to all. Where I offended people, I apologize that that has happened. I didn’t mean to offend, but have certainly tried to defend my own views and perspective, and to defend people I love (not around to defend themselves).

Thanks, why me, for doing that for me also.

So you believe you were correct to be rude to me and you were justified in your comments?

 

[SirThomasMore]

I really do have other things (particularly family history research and family activities) going on in my life that have a much more important focus for me than trying to “get a person to see” a point of view that is different than theirs when that involves semantics, usage, and an entire background in the culture from which words were used by a speaker.

So, if you want to think that you “won a debate”, then that is completely fine with me. I had provided explanations that were attempting to draw from context, but obviously by discarding context a person can say “this means x” and another person can say, “no–this means y” because many words bring their meaning with them only within a context as to what that particular word meant within its context of how it was used in a sentence.

My interest during my life is in “learning truths of God and the world around me”, including understanding cultures as best I can. Sometimes I will undoubtedly “get it wrong” when I encounter a culture I am unfamiliar with and attempt to understand those particular people, particularly in terms of language barriers and customs and how they communicate within their culture. But it can be fascinating to learn about the culture of others and explore why they do what they do and have wholly different approaches to communication and do very well within their culture yet may be misunderstood by others looking at things from the outside.

I also understand that people do want to “win”. I don’t have the need to “win”. So, it’s fine for me that you are able to consider to yourself that you “won a debate.”

Peace to all. Where I offended people, I apologize that that has happened. I didn’t mean to offend, but have certainly tried to defend my own views and perspective, and to defend people I love (not around to defend themselves).

Thanks, why me, for doing that for me also.

I do not believe Answers really thought it was a win. His post was a comment on how you dodge questions that who won or lost. He has already won- He is in THE True Church set up by Christ and continued thru the ages.

 

[lax16]

Not quite. It is impossible to debate answers because of the way he posts his posts with blue, black and red letters in quoted blocks. I just ignore his posts because of it. it is impolite for him to post that way.But you are also doing it now every now and then…

whyme - and anyone else reading my posts!

On another thread I mentioned that I hope people did not find my use of color annoying. I do it because I have not figured out a better way for my answers to be seen.

A while back, my posts were unreadable, and someone commented that they couldn’t find my answers.

I will keep trying new ways of posting to make it more pleasing to the eye.

I know it is hard to quote someone when the color is used…

Anyway, my use of color is not meant to be “in your face” just readable.

 

[cothrige]

whyme - and anyone else reading my posts!

On another thread I mentioned that I hope people did not find my use of color annoying. I do it because I have not figured out a better way for my answers to be seen.

A while back, my posts were unreadable, and someone commented that they couldn’t find my answers.

I will keep trying new ways of posting to make it more pleasing to the eye.

I know it is hard to quote someone when the color is used…

Anyway, my use of color is not meant to be “in your face” just readable.

I just reply using the “quote” button on the bottom of the post and then I break up the text where I need to, deleting anything extraneous, using new quote tags. That way the original part of the quoted text has the link to their original post, and each thing I say is sitting right underneath their words which are in a quote box. It seems to work well, and is just like an email with “>” setting off the quote.

I don’t like the technique some people use of quoting the one person, and then putting their own comments in quote boxes of their own underneath. This makes the “quote” button not work since CA forum does not include already quoted material in the new reply. Because of this I have to open a new tab with the reply in it, and cut and paste the text from the other window into a new quote box. A real pain. Not to mention that having everything quoted makes nothing look quoted, and it is hard to see what the person is actually saying and what somebody else said. I tend to not bother reading those kinds of posts myself.

 

[barnesms]

1. 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?
2. Okay, I will take it then that this is a mystery not entirely revealed to you, right?
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. 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.

Forgive me for missing your questions, I hope that the following will provide anwers. I have taken the liberty of numbering your questions so that my answers are more easily to attach to the proper question.

1. Yes, you are correct. There does appear to be a degree of individuality to each intelligence. However, we have no idea to what degree to which it extends. It is safe only to say there is a degree of individuality, but the extent of the creation after that is an on-going mystery.
2. Yes, that would be correct.
3. I can see that type of interpretation, but I would propose that the language, at least in the KJV of the Bible, is more explicit and that there is certainly a separation where the Son has seen the Father act previously and emulating his example. Regardless, if I was answering this question I would have sought of the PF also. This is a difference we have in the interpretation of this scripture.
4. This question always revolves around the LDS view of the superiority of the resurrected being. We see the resurrection as one of the ultimate gifts of the Savior to all humanity. All will gain a body of perfected, purified, eternal body of flesh and bone. Additionally, you will find a concept of eternal progression within LDS theology. Heaven, Exaltation or Theosis is not completed in an instant, but is an eternal process. Some prophets have even gone so far as to say that this doctrine carries backward and applies to God the Father. However, I caution all, even LDS, that that belief is not doctrine, i.e. it is not found in scripture. It was not surprising to me that when the prophet Gordon B. Hinkley was interviewed on television that he stated, “I don’t believe we teach that”, “it is not the doctrine of the LDS Church” (I am paraphrasing). The doctrine of the Church from the beginning of the Church has always been that God is eternal and has always been God. If God the Father did live a life in mortality on a world of his creation, we only have a few scriptures in the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, that may lead us to that deduction; however, it is not a clearly stated doctrine of the Church. Boy, I feel like I went around the elbow to get to the thumb. Did I answer you yet?
5. I admire your example and pray that I may better emulate it here on this forum. I believe that you are showing all of us the example of a true Christian. May God continue to bless and guide you.

 

[MelanieAnne]

That must be why there is no “catechism” - there is no definitive teaching on anything, is there?

.

There used to be a book called “Mormon Doctrine” but I think that may have fallen out of favor.

 

[twopekinguys]

There used to be a book called “Mormon Doctrine” but I think that may have fallen out of favor.

I just read on the Salt Lake Tribune site that Mormon Doctrine is going out of print due to lack of interest.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Public revelation and scripture. That’s the difference, and it’s a very big one.

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.

Do you think that the men the Catholics called ‘heretics’ were LAZY? They too worked hard…and most of them paid very high prices for the beliefs their hard work resulted in, didn’t they? Did that make them any more ‘right’ in their beliefs?

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

No, it doesn’t. The difference is now, as it has always been, about revelation. You excuse all your early church fathers from any error they may have committed in terms of doctrine or beliefs…or personal actions…because they didn’t claim to have revelation, at the same time accepting as absolute gospel doctrine everything you have of their writings. If someone comes along and points at an errant Pope, or a horrendous action by church leaders, you dismiss it as 'oh, they were only human…" but any declaration of doctrine is taken as cast in stone, even as you dismiss thier peccadillos.

Yet you will not allow us the same priviledge; to separate a man’s personal opinions, speculations and sins from religious teachings. Frankly, it makes NO sense at all to me, because between the Catholics and the Mormons, only the Mormons have a reason to separate these things!!!

Consider; WE claim that the only doctrine that is binding is that which is given BY public revelation, and canonized. Everything else our leaders say may be incredibly valuable, and in some cases we would be very well advised to follow their advice, but if it’s not revelation, declared as such and confirmed as such, then it COULD simply be the opinion of the man, and thus–not doctrine.

Our LEADERS know this. WE know this.

Catholics, on the other hand, deny that any church leader has had public revelation from the date of the Apostles. Yet you ALSO claim that a Pope, under certain circumstances, is infallible. In other words, you too acknowledge the humaness of your leaders, and their fallibility…but also have times when they are speaking pure, unadulterated doctrine. My question for you is this:

We frankly claim that public revelation exists, that God speaks to our prophets from time to time, and that we are quite aware of the difference between such revelation and personal (if personally inspired) preaching.

You claim that there is no such public revelation, yet you accept papal infallibility. How do you know that when a pope proclaims this, that he actually IS? How does HE?

Answer that one for yourself, and then put some of that logic to work on the way we view things. It might help.

 

[dianaiad]

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

I am remembering the reasons I put you on ignore in your previous incarnation. HOW many times have you been shown that you are taking this out of context, sir? BY claimed that his sermons were scripture ONLY after they passed a couple of rather important tests: first, he had to say something like ‘thus saith the Lord…’ or actually proclaim THAT sermon to be scripture. He also had to have the ability to review and correct it, to make certain that what was heard was what he actually said.

In fact, the context you ripped your claim out of was in the same paragraph…even the same SENTENCE, as the claim you are making here. As a lawyer and a trained debator, you know better than this.

 

[dianaiad]

I do it to make it easier to see what is mine and what belongs to the person I am answering. I do not believe it is impolite, but actually very polite because it makes it easier to follow along.

Answersplease has a posting style that makes it very difficult to answer him. One almost has to be an html expert in order to sort him out…and frankly, most of the time it’s not worth the trouble.

 

[why_me]

I just read on the Salt Lake Tribune site that Mormon Doctrine is going out of print due to lack of interest.

It is old and full of false doctrine. When it was first published it was under criticism from the lds leadership. In the second edition, many things were changed. It is just a book that outlived its time.