It is not one of our doctrines, are you asking why Section 132 reads the same now as it did when polygamy was practiced?
I believe that we have the potential to become a god, or to rule and reign with Christ.
I could not imagine this. Although I’m sure that someone has speculated about it in the past, but show me something in current writings that say that this will be the case.
Since I have been participating on this forum I have always been LDS. Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else.
Nevermind then I must be, maybe it’s Paul Dupre I’m thinking of? Although I feel like I’m going crazy I could’ve sworn you were the Journey Home.
I don’t know if this is the incident being mentioned here, but when Hinckley appeared on Larry King, and was questioned about the doctrine of eternal progression, he stated, on national television, “I don’t know that we teach that.” You can probably still find that video clip on the web if you wish. In any case, it was a blatant lie; even I, a cradle Catholic, am aware of that teaching. One would expect that the Mormon Prophet would be similarly informed; I think, more accurately, he was afraid of publicly admitting to one of the more “unusual” Mormon dogma. Big surprise there – NOT!
Lukewarm asserted that the Church has changed its doctrine by stating that there is now salvation outside the Church. I was arguing that Vatican II is consistent with the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, if understood correctly.So what were you arguing about? That is exactly what the Catechism teaches!
Paul
There is LDS thought that says we will as husband and wife have children in the after life is this what you are referring to, if so they way you posed the question did not look familiar to me. You suggested that I believe that I would all of a sudden be granted numerous other wife’s to procreate with abandon. This is untrue the only wife I will have in heaven is the one I married here on earth which is one. Those who participated in plural marriage before it was ended will, I assume, have those wife’s who were sealed to them for eternity.
Are you saying that you were taught this every week, That would be very surprising to me that our experiences would be that different.
You can think all you want, but the answers you give yours self, suit your bias. I was an interview not a doctrinal exegesis; he gave an answer that was correct enough for the situation. What is it that you objected to?
Fair enough
I agree
In what why do they do this?
Such as?
I your opinion what are these core Mormon dogmas, that you mention?
What do you think we should teach them?
We have special investigator classes where those wishing to learn about the beliefs and practices of the church are encouraged to attend before making a personal commitment to Christ. With so much negative and critical information on the net questions are asked and answered.
Are you saying that God, as recorded in scripture, does not change his mind, or go in a different direction?
I agree with you, it is human nature to reject that which may threaten the status quo of their traditions. Jesus said his intention was to shake things up, and people in his greater culture rejected him first.
Yes similar in some ways, I agree
Off the rails here though.
It’s nice to hear from you Robert.
You mean you really were never taught about the Millenium? That’s when all of the women married on earth to unrighteous men will be reassigned and sealed by proxy in temples on earth as plural wives to those relatively few men who make it to godhood. See? Plenty of women for all the gods, including you.
It was taught very often when I was LDS, and the “eternal progression” aspect of the Mormon gospel was the most often discussed of anything (except tithing which really was taught every week
. The terms “progressing”, “eternal progression” and “eternal increase” were in every talk and every lesson during the 1970s and 1980s. Mormons were very up-front about these beliefs back then. We were all progressing to godhood and polygamy would be reinstated as soon as the Lord returned and the temples would be overflowing with proxy work for the dead and Mormon men (both living and dead) being sealed to plural wives (both living and dead). We would rule over planets, sire spirit children with our countless goddess-wives, and be worshipped by those children as their “God the Father”. Heck, that is still in your Sunday School manual.The man was asked a question and he lied. I fail to understand how that can be correct under ANY situation. Seeing as you consider that type of behavior to be acceptable, any further discussion with you is obviously pointless.
Where was the lie? We know what Joseph Smith spoke about Heavenly Father having a father, we do understand it, and we do not emphasize it, we do put more emphases on eternal progression. So what he said was true,
Your comment is pejorative and out of line.
Having no real argument to put forth I understand why you would not like to continue.
Sure we teach about eternal progression, and talk about what that might look like, so what. But this countless goddess-wives thing come on, if you say it is still in the manuals could you point it out for me with page #.You mean you really were never taught about the Millenium? That’s when all of the women married on earth to unrighteous men will be reassigned and sealed by proxy in temples on earth as plural wives to those relatively few men who make it to godhood. See? Plenty of women for all the gods, including you.
It was taught very often when I was LDS, and the “eternal progression” aspect of the Mormon gospel was the most often discussed of anything (except tithing which really was taught every week
I know they down-play that stuff these days (mainstreaming and all) , but I’m surprised you people these days don’t even know about it. No, on the other hand I’m not surprised at all.
I am the Paul who was Mormon and is now Catholic.