What is the book of Mormon all about

[RebeccaJ]

Hello again!

We Mormons understand that all persons that exist are fundamentally intelligences. Intelligence cannot be created or destroyed. It exist by a self-existing principle. God is an intelligence. The greatest of all, in fact! This means that whatever the case may be in regards to God the Father’s godhood, it is never true in Mormonism that God was created ex nihilo, or rather that He did not exist at some point. God is eternal.

Yes Finrock, I know this. Are you, as an “eternal intelligence” created? If not, how do you discount the many, many scriptures that say you are?

Nor does God change, at least not in any of His perfections or Godly attributes. But, neither do we believe God is passionless. His feelings can change. He can feel sorrow for the sinfulness of His children, for instance. Also, because we believe God is anthropomorphic, He can change locations in space and time. Or change the position of His hand or foot, etc. So, in that sense, God can change.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Finrock, Mormon teaching most certainly is that your god became a god. Just as you believe that you can become a god. To become something, it naturally and logically infers, that you were something else before becoming. Unless of course, you are telling me that right now your are a god. Which, no matter you look at it, you are describing a change.

 

[ricko]

So they’ve changed. Good! Why do you keep holding them to old standards? Even the Catholic Church changes. Look at our Mass, look at the sale of indulgences, etc. I think they are changing in a good direction. Not all of our popes were good people, and what they said was not infallible.

Christine, do you believe that if a person goes to hell that they will stay there forever??

The Catholic Church has never changed a basic teaching or doctrine. You should know that being a Catholic.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So they’ve changed. Good! Why do you keep holding them to old standards? Even the Catholic Church changes. Look at our Mass, look at the sale of indulgences, etc. I think they are changing in a good direction. Not all of our popes were good people, and what they said was not infallible.

Mormon doctrines. Maybe. The difficulty in conversing with non-Mormons is Christian doctrine of GOD, cannot change. To say it does, is to say GOD changed.

The other is, this is not an “old” standard. As Finrock has said, there is a group of Mormons who believe that their god was once a man, the same as any other man walking around today.

Pretty much, you can believe whatever you like in Mormonisms, as long as what you teach is inline with the current leadership. Finrock has said he is “teaching” what he believes, which, is inline with the current Mormon leadership. Other Mormons who are here, I think perhaps they believe something else but teach what is inline with the current leadership. Which, in the Mormon world, is not only acceptable, it is expected. To do otherwise would be a sign of a person in apostasy. (Non-Mormons find it dishonest.)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine, do you believe that if a person goes to hell that they will stay there forever??

The Catholic Church has never changed a basic teaching or doctrine. You should know that being a Catholic.

I’m not so sure about that. How about St. Christopher? Once he was considered a saint, then he was stripped of his sainthood!

In any case, I’m really not trying to compare the Catholic Church to the Mormon Church.

The way I see it, some of the prophets in Mormon history got a little carried away with some of their revelations. If you look at the LDS website, it clearly states that God is eternal, and I believe that Hinkley even said that Mormons no longer believe that God was once a man. So they’ve progressed. What’s wrong with that?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m not so sure about that. How about St. Christopher? Once he was considered a saint, then he was stripped of his sainthood!

In any case, I’m really not trying to compare the Catholic Church to the Mormon Church.

St Christopher being a Saint is not a dogma or doctrine. That is the difference.

The way I see it, some of the prophets in Mormon history got a little carried away with some of their revelations. If you look at the LDS website, it clearly states that God is eternal, and I believe that Hinkley even said that Mormons no longer believe that God was once a man. So they’ve progressed. What’s wrong with that?

Yes, Mormons use the word eternal, but they have given it a different definition. Their god has not always been a god, but his existence as something, what they call “intelligence”, is eternal. That is Finrock’s view.

What I was taught, when I was Mormon, is that God is eternal, going forward, from the point he became a god (ie, from the point he was exalted from man to god).

Either way, the word “eternal” is being used with a definition that doesn’t really even fit the word.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

St Christopher being a Saint is not a dogma or doctrine. That is the difference.

Yes, Mormons use the word eternal, but they have given it a different definition. Their god has not always been a god, but his existence as something, what they call “intelligence”, is eternal. That is Finrock’s view.

What I was taught, when I was Mormon, is that God is eternal, going forward, from the point he became a god (ie, from the point he was exalted from man to god).

Either way, the word “eternal” is being used with a definition that doesn’t really even fit the word.

Well it does not make any sense whatsoever to me that God was once a man, so I don’t really see how it could make much sense to any one. Unless they are talking about Jesus, which in that case could be true.

My real point is that Catholics and Mormons are not as unique as they used to be.

Catholics no longer have Latin Mass with the priest facing the altar. A lot of people join hands in singing the Our Father now. Hardly any one brings their rosary to church or wears a head covering in church. Fasting has been dumbed down. We can eat meat on Fridays now, it’s not a sin anymore. Mary isn’t emphasized as much as before. The Catholic Church has changed.

I don’t know enough about Mormons to know how much they have changed, but I know the young people are wearing the cross, and they seem to focus more on the Bible now than in the past. It sounds to me that people don’t really believe some of the odd things that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith came up with. They definitely don’t practice polygamy any more!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine, do you believe that if a person goes to hell that they will stay there forever??

The Catholic Church has never changed a basic teaching or doctrine. You should know that being a Catholic.

In 2006 the Catholic Church changed its doctrine on Limbo. Now there is no such thing as Limbo for unbaptised babies.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well it does not make any sense whatsoever to me that God was once a man, so I don’t really see how it could make much sense to any one. Unless they are talking about Jesus, which in that case could be true.

My real point is that Catholics and Mormons are not as unique as they used to be.

Catholics no longer have Latin Mass with the priest facing the altar. A lot of people join hands in singing the Our Father now. Hardly any one brings their rosary to church or wears a head covering in church. Fasting has been dumbed down. We can eat meat on Fridays now, it’s not a sin anymore. Mary isn’t emphasized as much as before. The Catholic Church has changed.

I don’t know enough about Mormons to know how much they have changed, but I know the young people are wearing the cross, and they seem to focus more on the Bible now than in the past. It sounds to me that people don’t really believe some of the odd things that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith came up with. They definitely don’t practice polygamy any more!

The theologies between the two remain very unique. Unique enough that the Catholic Church does not accept Mormon baptisms as valid.

Not wearing a veil to church is a far cry from doctrines regarding the nature of the god you worship, changing.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine, do you believe that if a person goes to hell that they will stay there forever??

The Catholic Church has never changed a basic teaching or doctrine. You should know that being a Catholic.

How about the doctrine of a geocentric universe? Galileo proved that the earth orbits the sun and was condemned for it. Later the Church recanted.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

How about the doctrine of a geocentric universe? Galileo proved that the earth orbits the sun and was condemned for it. Later the Church recanted.

I’m no history buff, but from what I understand Galileo Galilei was condemned essentially for a form of insubordination, not his actual theory.

I was also under the impression that the church never recanted any doctrinal teachings, rather Pope John Paul II apologized on behalf of the church for her treatment of Galileo.

I’ll go do some searching and get back to you.

 

[ricko]

In 2006 the Catholic Church changed its doctrine on Limbo. Now there is no such thing as Limbo for unbaptised babies.

Limbo for unbaptised infants has never been doctrine in the Catholic Church.

There has never been a change in doctrine in the Catholic Church and never will be.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Well it does not make any sense whatsoever to me that God was once a man, so I don’t really see how it could make much sense to any one. Unless they are talking about Jesus, which in that case could be true.

My real point is that Catholics and Mormons are not as unique as they used to be.

Catholics no longer have Latin Mass with the priest facing the altar. A lot of people join hands in singing the Our Father now. Hardly any one brings their rosary to church or wears a head covering in church. Fasting has been dumbed down. We can eat meat on Fridays now, it’s not a sin anymore. Mary isn’t emphasized as much as before. The Catholic Church has changed.

I don’t know enough about Mormons to know how much they have changed, but I know the young people are wearing the cross, and they seem to focus more on the Bible now than in the past. It sounds to me that people don’t really believe some of the odd things that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith came up with. They definitely don’t practice polygamy any more!

On the contrary, the Latin Mass is still celebrated, the Church does not want you to be holding hands during the Our Father, bringing rosaries isn’t dogma nor is headcovering, Fasting is still encouraged, Meat isn’t dogma, and Mary is still emphasized.

None of my LDS friends wear a cross, and they’ve always focused on the Bible.

 

[ricko]

Just so I can understand the Mormons teachings I would like clear answers to the following questions:

1. Was the heavenly father (God) ever a man of flesh and bones? That is was there a time when he was just a plain man and not god?
2. Does the heavenly father (God) have a body now or is he spirit?
3. Where does the heavenly father live or reside at?
4. What parts of the universe does the heavenly father rule over?
5. Is there more than one god in the entire universe?

Please answer simply without going into great detail.

 

[Finrock]

Good evening ricko. I hope you’ve enjoyed your weekend thus far!

My answers are below:

Just so I can understand the Mormons teachings I would like clear answers to the following questions:

1. Was the heavenly father (God) ever a man of flesh and bones? That is was there a time when he was just a plain man and not god?
   I believe Heavenly Father experienced a mortal life in the same way as Jesus Christ experienced a mortal life. Meaning he was both fully human and fully God.
2. Does the heavenly father (God) have a body now or is he spirit?
   Heavenly Father has a glorified and immortal body of flesh and bones
3. Where does the heavenly father live or reside at?
   Where ever He wants. I can tell you that it is not Kolob, but other than that, I have no idea.
4. What parts of the universe does the heavenly father rule over?
   “God the Father is the supreme ruler of the universe” (lds.org).
5. Is there more than one god in the entire universe?
   Little “g” gods, maybe (meaning any mortals that have been deified/exalted). The answer to number 4 is relevant here too; regardless of any little “g” gods, God the Father remains the supreme ruler of the universe.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Finrock:

You say something very intriguing here that I have never heard in Mormon circles:

I believe Heavenly Father experienced a mortal life in the same way as Jesus Christ. Meaning he was both fully human and fully God.

Now there’s a very good chance that I grossly misunderstood you, but my impression is that you’re saying while Heavenly Father was living his mortal probation, he was simultaneously divine. Is this correct? Or do you mean to say that he was first human, and then after his exaltation he was divine?

Regards,
X

 

[zaffiroborant]

Finrock:

You say something very intriguing here that I have never heard in Mormon circles:

Now there’s a very good chance that I grossly misunderstood you, but my impression is that you’re saying while Heavenly Father was living his mortal probation, he was simultaneously divine. Is this correct? Or do you mean to say that he was first human, and then after his exaltation he was divine?

Regards,
X

I’ve heard this before but I still don’t understand just what it was that made Jesus divine. Was is just that he was the first born spirit child making him the heir to the throne by default, or was he some sort of special “intelligence” that brought to his spirit body divine attributes?

 

[zerinus]

I’ve heard this before but I still don’t understand just what it was that made Jesus divine. Was is just that he was the first born spirit child making him the heir to the throne by default, or was he some sort of special “intelligence” that brought to his spirit body divine attributes?

Jesus was divine because He received of the “fullness of the Father” in the preexistence:

D&C 93:

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

That scripture also provided the theological explanation as to why in the scriptures Jesus is sometimes referred to both as the Father and the Son.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Jesus was divine because He received of the “fullness of the Father” in the preexistence:

D&C 93:

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

That scripture also provided the theological explanation as to why in the scriptures Jesus is sometimes referred to both as the Father and the Son.

That really doesn’t explain it at all. Why could no one else receive the “fullness of the Father” after all, they were all just “intelligences” living out their existence before being given a spirit body. Why was Jesus given the fullness and not the next intelligence in line?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I’ve heard this before but I still don’t understand just what it was that made Jesus divine. Was is just that he was the first born spirit child making him the heir to the throne by default, or was he some sort of special “intelligence” that brought to his spirit body divine attributes?

However Finrock is talking about God the Father, not Jesus the Son.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Jesus was divine because He received of the “fullness of the Father” in the preexistence:

D&C 93:

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

That scripture also provided the theological explanation as to why in the scriptures Jesus is sometimes referred to both as the Father and the Son.

Sort of ironic: This particular scripture always troubled me as verse 3 seems to imply the Father and the Son are one in substance. One might believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are physically separate yet united in their mission: “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39) but this position seems untenable to me when hearing that “[Jesus is] in the Father, and the Father in [him], and the Father and [he] are one.”

The intimacy expressed here seems too close to be mere “purpose”.