The Many Gods of Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

**TOmNossor wrote: “**Concerning Matthew 16:18, even Catholic scholars have commented that prevail generally means to achieve ultimate victory. It in no way demands continued survival.”

I’m trying to figure out how a church could achieve ultimate victory if it does not continue to survive?

Perhaps better wording would have been continuation of authority on the Earth.
The Church of Jesus Christ having existed on this earth starting with Adam has experienced various restorations. The dispensation established by the Incarnate Jesus Christ became apostate in authority, but His church would ultimately prevail. That is what the CoJCoLDS believes is happening with what we call the Last Dispensation.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

It is amusing how you try to suck up to Catholics by bashing Protestants. Is that the new LDS technique?

I’m not Catholic but I’m sure the knowledgable Catholics here are mildly amused to see you describe LDS and the Catholic Church as so similar. For Catholics without much knowledge about their faith, however, it must be a moderately effective technique – convince folks LDS and Catholicism are similar and then get them to switch.

You should be thankful for Protestants. If it wasn’t for our split with Rome, you wouldn’t have a Mormon religion to beling to.

-C

I am sure you can find in my posts were I have said that Protestant churches can be salvic in that they can lead to salvation.

It is history and the Bible that tells BIASED me that there are “fatal flaws” within the Protestant formulation.

I see authority in the Bible. I see follow your Bishop/Presbyter in the ECF who spoke with the apostles. I also see authoritative development and even changes from what is witnessed in the Bible / early history. Why do creedal Protestants claim to follow the first 4 councils and non-creedal Protestants follow them without claiming they have, but then abandon the authority that decided the first 4 councils? How do Protestants so vehemently condemn LDS and JWs when LDS and JWs have as much right to interpret the Bible as do Protestants?

Seven sacraments, infused righteousness, ideas about proper understanding of deification, and other things are all aspects of Catholicism that have helped me to grow as a Christian and a LDS. I do not think my posts are overly apologetic (they most definitely are not non-apologetic in most instances though), but pandering to Catholics is not really an apologetic technique. And if what I do is pandering to Catholics, there are only a few other LDS I know who would behave similarly. There is no huge trend. Also, I do tell LDS that they do not understand Catholicism when they repeat ignorant anti-Catholicism stuff.

And yes, the reformation was critical to the beginning of the CoJCoLDS. I believe that without the reformation, the restoration could not have occurred (without even more radical heavenly intervention that is).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Tom, this so confuses me.

That Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years. Good bad and in between, but its history is documented and supported by the history of the surrounding culture. The BoM on the other hand has no such support. It is completely without independent historical support. Not to mention that many of its claims, its content, the history of its writing are problematic.

There are aspects associated with the BOM that defy (in my opinion) “the imagination of men” explanation. There are explanations (read excuses of you must) for all the problems associated with the BOM. Over the course of time there are a number of BOM criticisms that have become evidence of the divine origins of the BOM.

darcee:
How could you possibly suggest that the LDS church has a stronger claim to authentic history? That makes no sense.

I think I see your question now. I do not claim that the BOM history shows that the Catholic Church is apostate. When I say that I find a stronger claim for the CoJCoLDS than for the Catholic Church it has nothing to do with “new world archeological/historical evidences” for the BOM. In fact “new world archeological/historical evidences” concerning the BOM is on the Catholic side of the equation when determining if the CoJCoLDS or the Catholic Church has a better claim as the true church.

I read concurrently James Barker, Apostasy from the Divine Church and Cardinal John Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. I am so very BIASED, but I found Barker more compelling. I add to this the fact that I have never seen a satisfactory explanation for the BOM / CoJCoLDS / Restoration Miracles, and my scale tips even farther.

To claim the BOM is a fraud makes explaining new world problems easy, but it makes explaining other things virtually impossible IMO.

Continued in next post.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:
Beware of the trick of coming to a spiritual witness after MUCH prayer and fasting and wrestling with the truth. It is very possible to conjure these sorts of feelings within yourself. Truth is more the a emotional response. Truth has to be both internally consistent and historically consistent.

But just how far will we walk with the atheists? How do you know that Christ died for you? How do you know that He was resurrected? How do you know that the life transformation that you experiences joining the Catholic (leaving the CoJCoLDS) was not some placebo. If we cannot trust God to guide us who can we trust?

Do not walk to far with the atheist. The path is pleasing to the intellect, but it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I believe that both the Catholic and the CoJCoLDS are internally consistent and historically consistent. I believe it is God that helps me to see greater logical claim within the CoJCoLDS. I believe that it is God who (in addition to tipping my logic) provided spiritual witness to me. I cannot say that it is not God who helps you see greater logical claim within the Catholic Church. I cannot any longer say such things. I must walk with my mind and heart. I cannot walk with the mind and heart of those humans who love me.

darcee:
The LDS church bears NO resemblance to the early Christian Church. Much is drawn from non-Christian sorces. The LDS temple ceremony is based on Masonic rites. (Joseph Smith was a Master Mason as BTW is my father, he was in fact the one who clued me in there) So much of the teaching of the LDS church is found NO WHERE in tradition or scripture.

Well, I see huge resemblances to the early Christian Church in the CoJCoLDS. Barry Bickmore’s Restoring the Ancient Church is a good read.

Concerning Masonic rites let me quote a couple of words from Cardinal Newman (his entire chapter on Application of the Third Note: its Assimilative Power would be a good read as is the whole book)

Cardinal Newman said,

“The principle of the distinction, by which these observances were pious in Christianity and superstitious in paganism, is implied in such passages of Tertullian, Lactantius, and others, as speak of evil spirits lurking under the pagan statues.”

darcee:
I find my heart very concerned for you. I can’t help but think that your presence here is God trying to draw you back to His Holy Catholic Church.

I think that is wonderful. My view of salvation does not require me to be as concerned about you, but I really do care.

I hope that if the Catholic Church is the only path to God and if I am outside of the Catholic Church, that I will be found to have not known through no fault of my own. If these are true I intend to be the most informed invincibly ignorant person I can be.

And as I said before, I intent to do the will of God as best I can.

Charity, TOm

 

[Katholikos]

**TOmNessor wrote:
But, I do suggest that he [JPII] is Catholic.
So it is not Catholic Dogma to beleive men may become gods, but it is within the spectrum of available beliefs.
**
No, Tom, it is not within the spectrum of available beliefs. It is a violation of the First Commandment. It would be a mortal (deadly) sin for me or any other Catholic to believe that there is a god (or gods) other than the One Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God, Who is Pure Existence, Pure Truth, Pure Love.

You insist on making similarities between Catholicism and Mormonism that do not exist.

Get a copy of Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed.

I’ve briefly explained what ‘deification’ means both in Orthodox and Catholic belief, the two ancient churches, that were one for the first thousand years of Christianity. And it’s not that men literally become gods. It’s that God shares his own Divine Life with us, His creatures.

When I receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ into my own body in Holy Communion, that is the ‘deification’ of man that the ECFs, the saints, and the Popes have spoken and written about. We are sons and daughters of God by adoption, and we share His Divine Life by his grace.

Pax et bonum, Jay

 

[TOmNossor]

AmandaPS:

I was re-reading the thread and noticed that Katholikos’ point in post #1 on Mormon exultation was overlooked.

I am not sure what it is that I overlooked. I maintain that those who are lifted up to exaltation by God are united with God. They become of one mind.

Here is a good way of speaking about it from … yes Irenaeus:

**Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 4.Pref.4/ 4.1.1 **…there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. Since, therefore, this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.(ANF 1.463).

We all recognize that the Father and the Son are one. Here Irenaeus speaks of those “who have received the adoption” as members of the same group. This is what I am trying to say is the proper way to look at LDS deification. It is becoming part of the one God through His lifting you up.

AmandaPS:
I also was going through St. Irenaeus’ writings, since TOm has referred to him on occasion.

It seems to me that Irenaeus, in Adversus haereses, written against Marcions, provides an excellent refutiation of the Mormon doctrine of Exultation (man can become gods like Heavenly Father and have spirit children whom will have the same relationship to them as they do to Heavenly Father).

Of course I disagree with this since in other places Irenaeus speaks of men becoming what “He is Himself (Jesus Christ)”

Marcion was a heretic who did not profess anything like LDS doctrine. He believed that the Old Testament God was a demiurge or lesser god than the New Testament God who was God the Father. The critical passage in your quote that allows Irenaeus to be consistent through his writing is:

“*separates them from one another. But then there is a necessity to suppose a multitude of gods separated by an immense distance from each other on every side, beginning with one another, and ending in one another.” *

There is no room in Irenaeus or in a proper (IMO) formulation of LDS deification for this separateness. It is only a uniting the deifies and without it there is no godhood.

I hope this makes sense.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Not to put words in TOm’s mouth, but I think he is trying to say that only the Mormons and the Catholics have internally consistent histories. Not that they are consistent with one another.

Yes! And I think I addressed your second point in a post above this.
Thanks,
TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

Ezra Taft Benson’s grandson, Steve, created quite a stir in Arizona, Utah, and elsewhere when he left the Mormon faith. Has anyone seen Steve Benson’s cartoons? They’re syndicated nationally. Pulitzer prizewinner. For those who may not know, Ezra Taft Benson is a deceased President (#1 leader and prophet) of the Mormon ‘church’ who received regular ‘revelations.’ Steve said Mormonism is a fraud and he couldn’t in good conscience teach it to his children. Search under Steve Benson Mormon Church and you’ll hit some intriguing articles. His phone was tapped and other interesting things happened after he left. Of course, he did it very publicly .

To think like Steve Benson is to reject all religion. He is an intelligent man, but he does not find room for the supernatural in his explanation of things. Make no mistake; there is no religion without seeming contradictions.

To be Steve Benson is to accept none of these contradictions and become an atheist.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

That would be almost fine TOm, if Joseph Smith hadn’t claimed that the temple rites came from God. He doesn’t assimilate them in order to convert a large group a Freemasons, nor did a group of freemasons bring these beliefs in and mormonize them. He plagiarized them. ‘Tu Quoque’ is not logical in any case and it hardly works with this argument. I am sure you can see it is very very different to assimilating a pagan aspect like a Christmas tree or a popular hero and making the Masonic rites into the central rite of your faith.

Saying that you can go too far with logic does not negate the fact that emotional (spiritual testimony) can be manufactured by a motivated individual. People believe all sorts of crazy things. People reason themselves into all sorts of crazy things too, but caution on one end doesn’t preclude caution on the other. Again ‘Tu Quoque’ is not logical

You are not answering people’s objects. You are using a couple of logical facilies here and there and I am not sure if you are trying to do this or if you are honestly just not seeing your own errors in thought. But you can’t justify the Mormon position by saying that Catholics do or believe something different but similar or even that Catholics do an identical thing. Two wrongs don’t make a right and in several cases the similarities you cite aren’t close enough to even be considered the same.

No matter how creative and imaginative the minds of men are you can not say that the anceint Americans had steel, or wheels, chariots or wheat, or horses, or bees… You can’t say that they wrote a form of modified Egyptian when nothing like it has been found in the new world while many examples of their actual writing system do exist. Wars, especially those one the scale of the BoM final war leave archeological evidence… where is it? It isn’t like we are talking about wars that happened 4000 years ago… they happened well after 40 AD and supposedly whipped out a whole nation.

Many of the wars, people and places in the Bible and certainly in the History of the Catholic church are well documented. The BoM has no such support…other then the imaginations of men.

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

That would be almost fine TOm, if Joseph Smith hadn’t claimed that the temple rites came from God. He doesn’t assimilate them in order to convert a large group a Freemasons, nor did a group of freemasons bring these beliefs in and mormonize them. He plagiarized them.

I have had people send me information on Freemasons. I personally believe that some temple symbolism has been borrowed from Freemasonry. Many LDS would reject this and say that the similarities are associated with some ancient shadows. In any case almost none of the temple message has links to masonry. I think it is very similar to my Newman quote in that LDS attach spiritual meaning to the symbols borrowed from Masonry.

darcee:
‘Tu Quoque’ is not logical in any case and it hardly works with this argument. I am sure you can see it is very very different to assimilating a pagan aspect like a Christmas tree or a popular hero and making the Masonic rites into the central rite of your faith.

Note my post where I mention atheism. I do not suggest that you must find fallacy in your arguments because the religion you espouse is injured by the blows of the same arguments. I suggest that to be consistent one must apply the same logic to the symbols and rituals borrowed from paganism by the Catholic Church as one applies to the symbols and rituals borrowed from masonry by the CoJCoLDS Temple Ceremony. In trying to determine which church is true one must not apply one standard to one religion and another to another.

Towards why I do not think my statements are strictly “Tu Quoque.”

• I am not necessarily demanding that your argument has no impact upon the claims of the CoJCoLDS due to the fact that the same argument can be applied to Catholic rituals and symbols. In truth I am suggesting that if we are to emerge with belief in one of these two wonderful religions we must find a way to accept the influence of paganism and/or Freemasonry. If I thought I would shake Catholics with Newman’s quote, I do not think I would use it so freely.
• I use Newman’s excellent logic to defend my beliefs. The fact that it comes from a Catholic source is of added benefit (see #1), but not necessary. That certain symbols meant certain things and that oaths were made between men and the society of masons during Masonic rituals does not make similar and identical symbols unable to communicate other things and oaths (or oaths that veil true meaning) between man and God unable to point toward greater truths.

To be continued.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:
Saying that you can go too far with logic does not negate the fact that emotional (spiritual testimony) can be manufactured by a motivated individual. People believe all sorts of crazy things. People reason themselves into all sorts of crazy things too, but caution on one end doesn’t preclude caution on the other. Again ‘Tu Quoque’ is not logical

What you say is very true, but again I merely say that as I evaluate your claim I can see no way to know of spiritual things without God’s assistance. History does not convince me that Jesus is the Christ or that he rose from the dead. This is a leap of faith. I believe I have been in possession of a believing spirit because the world manifests God to me and has always. The God of the gaps is only a minor part of why I see God all around me. I believe I have been in possession of a believing spirit because my inability to do as I feel my conscious asks of me has always manifested to me that there needs be a Christ. Many atheists have no trouble rejecting such things, but I have never been able to. Am I more logical? Are they more logical? I do not think this is the question. Don’t get me wrong, I think we are all called to God. I consider my believing spirit to be a gift that certainly came partially through the Catholic Church, but others take other routes.

Instead of saying your assault upon the CoJCoLDS’s reliance on faith and spiritual witness is an invalid line of attack, I instead choose to say that if I learn to think as anti-Mormon atheists do I will be an atheist.

Also, on the internet I spend 95% of my time trying to utilize logic and reason. Seldom do I say that I know because I have a spiritual witness. As I have said, logic and reason alone would lead me to be a LDS. There are many who would say the same thing.

Continued…
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:
You are not answering people’s objects. You are using a couple of logical facilies here and there and I am not sure if you are trying to do this or if you are honestly just not seeing your own errors in thought. But you can’t justify the Mormon position by saying that Catholics do or believe something different but similar or even that Catholics do an identical thing. Two wrongs don’t make a right and in several cases the similarities you cite aren’t close enough to even be considered the same.

It is my position that many ex-Mormon atheist exist today. The reason for this is that the logic utilized to deconstruct Mormonism also decimates Christianity.

Have LDS prophets contradicted each other? Yes. So have Popes, so have reformist, so has the Spirit of Sola Scriptura.

Have LDS prophets sinned? Yes. So have …

Do many LDS lean on a Spiritual witness and almost all (I was once a LDS without a spiritual witness) have Spiritual witness as part of their belief? Yes. So have … It is virtually impossible to believe in an afterlife without faith.

Concerning the Book of Mormon I have a very different idea that I use to weigh the evidence. First, since the BOM burst upon the scene in 1830 and claimed to be an ancient book it is different from the Bible. Second, since the BOM claims to be a text translated by an 1830’s man (prophet with the help of God true, but still an 1830’s man), it must be evaluated as a modern translation of an ancient text if one is to know if it is authentic. Third, since the BOM contains components that are not easily explainable by the fraud theory, one who adopts the fraud theory must explain these components.

One explains one of the reasons (among others) that I believe there is not definitive proof of the BOM.

Two explains many of the problems that exist in the BOM.

And the failure of critics to explain three to me satisfactorily leaves me willing to accept a lot of **** contained in one and two.

You may not like it. You may not see any reason to look into this as much as I have. But 1,2, and 3 in my mind demand that the BOM is what it says it is. The “fraud theory” explanations for #3 have been much less convincing to me than have the “authentic theory” explanations associated with 1 and 2.

I am convinced that you could put into your balance pan as much or more information than I have and come to a different conclusion, but I can only follow my personally reasoning powers. If my fulcrum is offset then I only pray that God will help me realign.

Concerning horses, steel, bees, … you may or may not be aware that all of these issues are dealt with in various ways by LDS apologists. One and Two, and science introduce reasons why these do not prove the BOM to be a “fraud.”

I do not know what path you walked during your crisis of faith, but I remember some dark days in my life. I received my spiritual witness and many logical explanations during this time. I can no longer demand that your way is wrong. I can only say that my way is right for me and I can do nothing by follow the will of God as best I can come to know it.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

Honestly that is all circular argument and nonsense. But this in particular

You may not like it. You may not see any reason to look into this as much as I have. But 1,2, and 3 in my mind demand that the BOM is what it says it is. The ?fraud theory? explanations for #3 have been much less convincing to me than have the ?authentic theory? explanations associated with 1 and 2

Your #1 is that the “BOM burst upon the scene in 1830 and claimed to be an ancient book” so it is different in that regaurd from the the Bible.

Your #2 BOM claims to be a text translated by an 1830’s man and so it needs to be considered as a “modern translation”

And those two things make the MANY factual errors, The absolute word for word confiscating of parts the KJV of the Bible and complete lack of indepenant historic accounts of events that are not really so very long ago completely unnecessary?

Basically you are saying since some guy brought this book forward in the 1830s and CLAIMED to have translated it from an ancient text that it is true… your whole argument boils down to Joseph Smith said so, so it MUST be true.

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Honestly that is all circular argument and nonsense. But this in particular

Your #1 is that the “BOM burst upon the scene in 1830 and claimed to be an ancient book” so it is different in that regaurd from the the Bible.

Your #2 BOM claims to be a text translated by an 1830’s man and so it needs to be considered as a “modern translation”

And those two things make the MANY factual errors, The absolute word for word confiscating of parts the KJV of the Bible and complete lack of indepenant historic accounts of events that are not really so very long ago completely unnecessary?

Basically you are saying since some guy brought this book forward in the 1830s and CLAIMED to have translated it from an ancient text that it is true… your whole argument boils down to Joseph Smith said so, so it MUST be true.

Have you read the responses to the “problems” with the BOM.

Are you aware that you didn’t mention #3 at all.

I can include some of #3 if you wish for me to do so.

I do not suggest that some single evidence from #3 demands only an authentic view of the BOM, but I do suggest that to hold to the fraud theory one must explain all the things in #3 just as all the “problems” have been explained by LDS apologists. I am of the opinion that perhaps there is no attempt at all the #3, but the attempts for some of the #3 have been less satisfying with respect to the fraud theory than have the LDS apologists explanation of the problems you mention.

To engage me fully on this, you will need to become exposed to all the responses to problems and all the evidences. Then responses to evidences will need to be provided. I know a Catholic who has been exposed to all of this and is still (actually he became) Catholic. It is for this reason that I cannot demand that our fulcrums are not at different places below our pans that weigh evidence. All I can do is try to ensure my fulcrum is in the center.

If you would like to add a great deal of information to your pans so that you might engage me on this issue, we can do this. But so far you have commented on problems seemingly (although perhaps not truly) unaware of their solutions. You have not even acknowledged evidences (which in fairness I have not shared as this seems to be more about me than about you). Without balancing problems and evidences with explanations and … one does not have ones balance pans loaded, and I cannot be sure but it seems (at this point) that you have not been exposed to as much pan filling as I have. I could be wrong about your exposure just as I could be wrong about were reason points.

I have tried to load my pans up and center my fulcrum. I see reason pointing to an authentic BOM. I know a Catholic who has done the same. He is fully Catholic. I do not know if his pans are fuller than mine, but they are not less full. I do not know whose fulcrum is more centered, but I believe we have both tried to center our fulcrum. I cannot walk by his light or yours. I must walk by the light God has afforded me.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

Basically you are saying since some guy brought this book forward in the 1830s and CLAIMED to have translated it from an ancient text that it is true… your whole argument boils down to Joseph Smith said so, so it MUST be true.

And this has nothing to do with my arguement actually.
#3 does not rely on the words of Joseph Smith.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

Ok I have to laugh… now you are using yet another logical fallacy… you are claiming special knowledge. Further instead of addressing those issues I presented before you are claiming that since they are addressed elsewhere you shouldn’t have to.

I have read some LDS apologetics, but once I emotionally broke from the church I no longer could believe in their flimsy logic. Since you are still there I assume you do or you have read something I haven’t. What great apologetics are you privy to.?.. please share.

Your number three… that seems to be “the Book of Mormon is a fraud”… well, why should I argue the point I agree with? Or were you meaning to say “that the BoM would have to be proven a fraud”? Now that would sort of be like trying to prove a negative at times a difficult proposition, but I believe it is well established by others that the BoM is just that because of numerous problems with its authorship and content. I have in previous posts cited a few of these issues and you have consistently ignored them.

-D

 

[darcee]

Now after three readings I have another thought… you seem to be claiming there are things in the BoM that aren’t readily explained as being a fraud… is that your#3??

because, in order to address that wouldn’t it be good if you elaborated on what they are?

-D

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning special knowledge: It is not my intention to claim special knowledge. It is my intention to suggest that your statements seem to indicate that you have not explored the information that is available.

darcee:

Now after three readings I have another thought… you seem to be claiming there are things in the BoM that aren’t readily explained as being a fraud… is that your#3??

because, in order to address that wouldn’t it be good if you elaborated on what they are?

-D

I am sorry I was not more clear, but yes that is what I was claiming. I will provide a few evidences since you asked. If it is of some interest to you perhaps we can go into more detail or explore more evidences. Concerning responses to the “problems,” you can do as I did when exploring Catholicism which is search for Catholic answers to anti-Catholic claims. That brought me here long ago (before the message board). I find that if you search for “problem” AND “anti-Mormon” you are likely to find some responses from LDS.

Here are a few evidences associated with Old World geography:

• Existence of Bountiful area. For many years it was popular (and it really still is) to say that there was not place like Bountiful in the old world. No place with trees and food and proper currents to prepare for and start a sea voyage in the Arabian dessert. In Joseph Smith’s time and really in our time common understanding is that the Arabian dessert is among the most desolate places in the world. But, Bountiful does exist. There are trees and greenery. There are mineral deposits. There are proper currents. It is unlikely Joseph Smith would have postulated a green place in the Arabian dessert.
• Continuously flowing river. It is curious that the flowing of the river was mentioned perhaps. Many places have water flowing immediately following rain, but it was generally not thought that any river always flowed. This river flows through the above Bountiful place. This river still flows continually today, and erosions and dessert shifting suggest it may have flowed more strongly in the past (not particularly important, but it is quite possible that continued pumping of the underground reservoir will one day stop this flow). This is not something likely to be included by a 19th century con man.
• The place of Nahom. The BOM records that Lehi’s band changed direction at Nahom. Also that they buried Ishmael their. Nahom was an ancient burial ground, an ancient inscription reading NHM (no vowels in Hebrew) was found at this location, and it lines up with a turn on the trail from Jerusalem that would end up at the above reference Bountiful. This is a lot for Joseph to correctly include in his deception.
• The Frankincense trail is associated with much of the above journey, and was an ancient route taken by peoples. Less than 25% of the documentation associated with this trail existed in English in 1830, but there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had access to anything but the Bible and perhaps a daily newspaper.

The above things are documented in a book called Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences that The Book of Mormon is a True History.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Here are a few evidences associated with Old World geography:

The issue is New World geography, not Old World geography.

-C

 

[Robert57]

TOmNossor:

LDS scripture speak of men become gods and experiencing eternal increase. LDS scriptures do not define what eternal increase is… Whatever eternal increase means it does not mean being beside, above, in addition to, … God.

From my 1973 high school seminary The Retored Church, a Statement of the First Presidency and Council of the Twevle, June 30, 1916: “…we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring.” (p399)

And “The first value [of temple marraige] is a continuation of [marraige] in that future existence and the possibility of having children there. Concerning this the Prophet Joseph Smith said:” Smith & D&C 131are quoted including: “But those [with faithful temple marraiges] will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory.” And: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens… to obtain the highest, a man must [be married in temple]. And if…not… that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.” (p467)

From my 1981college instituteThe Doctrine and Covenants Student Manuel**:“D&C 132:22-25. What Is “the continuation of the Lives”…?**
Elder…McConkie taught: 'Those who gain eternal life… also gain eternal lives, meaning… they have eternal increase, a continuation of the seeds, a continuation of the lives. Their spirit progeny will 'continue as innumerable as the stars…” (p330)

From my 1999 adult Sunday School Teacher’s Manuel Doctrine and *Covenants and Church History: “*What blessing is available only to those who are exalted in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom? (See D&C 131:4; 132:19-20. You may need to explain that the phrases ‘an increase’ and ‘a continuation of the seeds forever and ever’ mean that those who abide in the covenant and are exalted in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom will have spirit children in the eternities.)” (p114)

TOm:

on #38

General Authorities present authoritative interpretations [of the standard works].

The General Authorities have interpreted “eternal increase” consistently, systematically, and officially since the mid-1840s.

Examples:

www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mormonshopetobecomegods.htm

TOmNossor: quote from a CofJCofLDS publication that the above doctrine is only a possible interpretation or states a different one for “eteranl increase” or “continuation of the seeds forever”