Questions for Mormons..

[Javl]

Javl,
Every time I read anything about Gnosticism, I don’t really understand it and I don’t understand why anyone thinks it is like the doctrine I described above. However, what was taught by the apostles and by prophets such as Daniel, Isaiah, Elijah, and Malachi became changed as the doctrines were taught by others over time or as they were written down by people trying to make them fit into their own thinking, so Gnosticism could certainly have elements of “true doctrine”, but it would be considerably changed from the original, pure, true doctrine.

Parker;

Gnostics ( Gnosticism ) teach about the same subjects the same way that the LDS does. They may not use the same words as the LDS does, but the ideas are the same. Gnosticism claims to have the complete secrets ( truths ?] ) given by God and Jesus and that all others have only partial truths, or none at all.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichm

 

[dianaiad]

Now, Diana, I know you are not as dense as you are pretending here. I never said that you believe you will be restricted to creating, populating and ruling *only one *earth. My point was that Mormons believe they will be gods like God the Father, have spirit children, create and populate planets with their spirit offspring, and be worshipped by them.

Interesting backpedal, Paul, because that is precisely what you claimed.

So here you are, claiming that you didn’t REALLY mean to say that we believe that we will be assigned planets to be gods of…

but hey, as long as you don’t do it again, I’ll take it.

 

[dianaiad]

A follow up…did anyone achieve “godhood” prior to the resurrection of Christ? Or was the Heavenly Father (do you call Him God?) the only God prior to the resurrection?

Did they achieve ‘exaltation?’

Are you talking about those that were sent here? Well, I imagine that a few did, since they did what they were supposed to do according to the information they had, and according to God’s influence in their lives. Or, perhaps, they became ‘eligible…’ frankly, we are entering into stuff we simply don’t know about.

However, since Christ is the 'first fruits of them that slept" (1 Cor. 15:20) then I’d say no, nobody became a ‘god’ (however you define that) before He was resurrected.

(shrug) We’ll find out, eventually As to the answers to your next two posts, they are folded into this one.

 

[Jerusha]

Now, Diana, I know you are not as dense as you are pretending here.

Thank you. Unfortunately, Parker and Zerinus don’t agree with you. They claim to believe something completely different.

It seems the Great LDS Apostasy is in full swing.

Yepper, Paul, the more we can encourage them to diverge from their “official doctrine” (whatever that is) and each other, the better off we will be. Exposing those differences just makes the game more fun. At this point, taking them seriously is a waste of emotional resources. I’ve come a long way.

 

[Religio71]

I wonder what Gospel Fundamentals means when those who are exalted will have spirit children and will create worlds for them to live on.

 

[dianaiad]

I wonder what Gospel Fundamentals means when those who are exalted will have spirit children and will create worlds for them to live on.

I believe, Religio, that it means that we do not believe that we will each be assigned single planets to be gods of.

God the Father created the universe. The whole thing. All the planets in it are His. All the stars, nebuli, black holes, dark matter, strings and membranes…they are all His.

Here is what we know: we are promised that we are His children. We are promised that we can be ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ with Christ.

We are promised an eternity of learning and of growth, and to someday be like Him. To dismiss that promise as being an assignment as some demi-deity assigned to ‘a world,’ is to miss the whole point, don’t you think?

 

[dianaiad]

Jerusha:

The LDS Church no longer teaches those things. Faithful Mormons have difficulty finding those things in their literature. Those things are only taught by literate but rabid anti-Mormons. Mormonism believes that their profits are infallible. If a past profit ever taught those things, then he was only speaking as a human being. Present profits trump past profits.

(Spelling errors intentional)

Hey, Parker, I beat you to it.

Thanks Dianaid…you did a pretty good job spelling it out…but, is there any merit in the above bolded quotation? Do you think that could be the reason for some of the differences in beliefs among you? (ie. when that one guy, i think it was randy asked questions and got different answers?)

Jerusha, bless her, is not even an ex-Mormon. She is an avowed anti-Mormon, and is not a really good source of LDS beliefs. Please note her claim that 'faithful Mormons have difficulty finding those things in their literature," as if that is somehow proof of a conspiracy to hide what we are really taught. After all, Jerusha got her information from the likes of Ed Decker, “Dr.” Martin, et. al…how could she be wrong? She never stops to consider that the reason such teachings are not found in our literature is BECAUSE WE NEVER TAUGHT THEM. Nah, that’s too simple. Too easy…and it screws up her ammunition.

her further statement (the one you bolded…) about “Mormons believe their profits are infallible” (spelling error deliberately hers…and if that doesn’t give a hint as to her opinion and motives, I don’t know what would) is actually 100% wrong. We don’t. The only time we consider what they have to say to be SCRIPTURE is when it is canonized as such. If they are not speaking AS prophets, fine…but prophets are men. Fallible.

Catholics have a similar thing with the Pope…there are times when he is believed to be infallible–but that’s not all the time.

Frankly, if you want to know something about what the church believes, asking Jerusha might actually be useful for purposes of elimination. a great deal of the time, if she claims we believe or think something, you can pretty much figure that whatever it is we do believe, what she claims ain’t it.

 

[Jerusha]

Diana, if you, with a degree in English, cannot let satire roll off your back, you are in sad shape, indeed.

I am not interested in debating theology with Mormons. I honestly believe that Mormon theology is formless and constantly changing. Therefore, it is a useless pursuit. Obviously Charlotte has been pulled into that game by some radical anti-Mormons.

I have no interest in sincere debate with Mormons on any other subject than history.

I am having fun contributing satirical humor. If that bothers you, that is your problem. It is just good clean fun.

Oh, and thank you for the blessing.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, if you, with a degree in English, cannot let satire roll off your back, you are in sad shape, indeed.

Satire…Is Daniel Swift and “A Modest Proposal,” It is generally fairly creative, unique, and appropriate to the subject. Now, the FIRST time someone misspelled “prophet” as “profit,” in an article about tithing, yeah, that might have been satire. Your use of itis simply a mean spirited and tired cliche…an irrelevant and really old pun. It’s so old that you had to laugh at it yourself before the rest of us got the joke.

It is, as I said, an indicator of your intent and your POV. I sincerely hope that it doesn’t adequately describe your standard sense of humor.

I am not interested in debating theology with Mormons.

Y’know, I think I noticed that.

I honestly believe that Mormon theology is formless and constantly changing. Therefore, it is a useless pursuit. Obviously Charlotte has been pulled into that game by some radical anti-Mormons.

I have no interest in sincere debate with Mormons on any other subject than history.

I am having fun contributing satirical humor. If that bothers you, that is your problem. It is just good clean fun.

No, Jerusha, it was not. I might have bought the 'good clean fun" plea if that insult were not as obviously deliberate as it was irrelevant. Satire, even when it is biting, is above all RELEVANT. Your Beavis and Butthead crack was simply…Beavis and Butthead, done not to make a satirical point, but simply to sneak an insult in there, just because you could.

Oh, and thank you for the blessing.

 

[why_me]

Satire…Is Daniel Swift and “A Modest Proposal,” It is generally fairly creative, unique, and appropriate to the subject. Now, the FIRST time someone misspelled “prophet” as “profit,” in an article about tithing, yeah, that might have been satire. Your use of itis simply a mean spirited and tired cliche…an irrelevant and really old pun. It’s so old that you had to laugh at it yourself before the rest of us got the joke.

It is, as I said, an indicator of your intent and your POV. I sincerely hope that it doesn’t adequately describe your standard sense of humor.

No, Jerusha, it was not. I might have bought the 'good clean fun" plea if that insult were not as obviously deliberate as it was irrelevant. Satire, even when it is biting, is above all RELEVANT. Your Beavis and Butthead crack was simply…Beavis and Butthead, done not to make a satirical point, but simply to sneak an insult in there, just because you could.

I already brought this up on the thread. If you didn’t have me on ignore you would have seen that I corrected the mispelling and notified charlotte that she was copying the spelling and might offend mormons.

 

[why_me]

Yepper, Paul, the more we can encourage them to diverge from their “official doctrine” (whatever that is) and each other, the better off we will be. Exposing those differences just makes the game more fun. At this point, taking them seriously is a waste of emotional resources. I’ve come a long way.

Everybody’s doctrine can be looked at through critical eyes. Just look how the catholics are ignoring my comments about the catholic doctrine of infant baptism. Their stategy is to attack the person.

Debating doctrine is a complete waste of time and energy. The mormons are always playing with the black pieces in chess on this board. You don’t think that catholics have a difficult time defending their doctrine on protestant threads? They sure do…

 

[dianaiad]

I already brought this up on the thread. If you didn’t have me on ignore you would have seen that I corrected the mispelling and notified charlotte that she was copying the spelling and might offend mormons.

I only have one person on ‘ignore,’ whyme, and it’s not you!!!

I think that Charlotte was aware of the misspelling and the purpose. It’s just that she was probably taking the high road and ignoring it; even to the point of not bothering to correct it, and allowing Jerusha to keep the responsibility for it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A few more questions for the Mormons here:

1. Is God omniscient meaning that He knows all things?
2. Is God outside of time meaning that all of history as we understand it is present to me eternally as “now” with no past or future?
3. Does God have perfect foreknowledge meaning that He knows what will happen in the future that has not yet unfolded for us?

Thanks for your help in understanding your concept of the Heavenly Father.

 

[zerinus]

A few more questions for the Mormons here:

1. Is God omniscient meaning that He knows all things?

Yes.

1. Is God outside of time meaning that all of history as we understand it is present to me eternally as “now” with no past or future?

Apparently so:

“… all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men” (Alma 40:8).

1. Does God have perfect foreknowledge meaning that He knows what will happen in the future that has not yet unfolded for us?

Yes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes.

Apparently so:
“… all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men” (Alma 40:8).

Yes.

Thanks.

Parker…Dianaiad-

Are you guys in agreement on this?

(just checking to be sure…Catholics don’t always agree on this stuff… )

 

[Janet1983]

LDS do not tend to focus on “getting planets”, as the focus is more on exaltation, which is becoming co-heirs in Christ, and thus becoming like God the Father through Christ.

So what you are telling me is that you will be like God… Correct?

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks.

Parker…Dianaiad-

Are you guys in agreement on this?

(just checking to be sure…Catholics don’t always agree on this stuff… )

Randy Carson,
Yes, 100% agreement on those answers.

 

[Janet1983]

That is a misunderstood thing…it’s a trinity argument, not a ‘God had sex with Mary’ argument. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost are entirely separate Beings. Some trinitarian modalist types were trying to tell us that Mary was actually impregnated by the Holy Ghost, since in their view the Holy Ghost and God the Father are both the same, either modally or in essence. We, not being classic trinitarians, argued back; no, we claim, the Holy Ghost did NOT impregnate Mary. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father.

Truly now?

“The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings
could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing
them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of
God,** that was the business of the Father**. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten
Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President
Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible.”

Journal of Discourses 1:50-51:

“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, after the same manner as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood --was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.”

Maybe it’s just me, but does that not describe the physical act of reproduction?

 

[ParkerD]

Truly now?

Maybe it’s just me, but does that not describe the physical act of reproduction?

Janet1983,
Several of us will probably respond to this question, because it is such an important one. The LDS belief is that Mary was absolutely, definitely, a virgin when the Savior was born. Yet the Savior was the physical offspring of God the Father, which gave Him the qualities of being able to self-resurrect and to endure the pains of the infinite atonement without immediately being so overcome by those pains that He would die, as any mortal person would have. He had complete power over death.

The last two items you quoted from the Journal of Discourses shows how some of the early LDS church leaders spoke their own opinions and sometimes didn’t explain either how they came by the opinion or were vague enough that they could be easily misunderstood (not deliberately, but it was just their manner of talking). My personal “opinion” is that the Father was able to be the Father of Jesus Christ by placing the cell inside of Mary’s womb which went through the normal pregnancy/growth process thereafter. But that is just my opinion. The truth from the Book of Mormon is that the LDS belief is clear that Mary was a virgin mother, and had a virgin birth of her first-born Son.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks.

Parker…Dianaiad-

Are you guys in agreement on this?

(just checking to be sure…Catholics don’t always agree on this stuff… )

Pretty much…please pardon my cynicism, but I know where you are going with this, don’t I?