Man is god in embryo

smaneck said:

Protected from what?

Click to expand...

Think about how often Heavenly Father's name is slandered and taken in vain.

Ironhold said:

Think about how often Heavenly Father's name is slandered and taken in vain.

Click to expand...

My earthly mother always taught me "stick and stones may break my bones . . . "

smaneck said:

Protected from what? And why wouldn't She reveal herself? This doesn't sound much like equality.



Shame on them for wanting actual equality!

Click to expand...

One has to understand what the priesthood is;

Luke 22
“25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.”

The priesthood holder is the servant. My Bishop is my servant, he is there to help me not the other way around. My husband is under commandment to provided for me and our children. I am not under commandment to wash a single dish or bake a loaf of bread.

In D&C 121 we’re told;
“ 37 That they (the rights of the priesthood) may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.”
These women want to gratify their pride and vain ambitions so Amen to their priesthood before they ever get it.

There is another point.

Wilford Woodruff, Sr. was the fourth prophet of the Church and a close friend of Joseph Smith said;

"Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connections with their husbands a wife has certain blessings and powers and rights and is a partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband"

When I was sealed to my husband his priesthood became my priesthood because we are one. As we grow in our oneness and our oneness with our Father in Heaven this priesthood power grows or our ability to use it grows.

These feminist want to pit men against women they see everything from a worldly dynamic or a power struggle rather than an eternal oneness.

withwonderingawe said:

The priesthood holder is the servant. My Bishop is my servant, he is there to help me not the other way around.

Click to expand...

And a woman can't do that, why?

My husband is under commandment to provided for me and our children. I am not under commandment to wash a single dish or bake a loaf of bread.

Click to expand...

Same as Islam.

These women want to gratify their pride and vain ambitions so Amen to their priesthood before they ever get it.

Click to expand...

So women shouldn't be priests because they want to be priests?

"Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connections with their husbands a wife has certain blessings and powers and rights and is a partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband"

Click to expand...

So women get blessings by virtue of being auxiliaries to men, not by virtue of their own capacities?

These feminist want to pit men against women they see everything from a worldly dynamic or a power struggle rather than an eternal oneness.

Click to expand...

Muslims make very similar arguments. Sad that wishing for equal rights is interpreted as a power struggle.

withwonderingawe said:

What is the physical nature of God?

Click to expand...

Hi withwonderingawe, what is the nature or, perhaps better, the essence of God? I believe there are only three different nouns used in the NT to describe the nature of God, and they are:

1) "God is Love" 2) "God is Light" 3) "God is Spirit"

We've already established that God is not a collection of photons, and His most popular description of all, "God is Love", doesn't give us much to go on in this particular case. That leaves us with the one description of God's essence that was given to us from the lips of Jesus Himself, "God is Spirit"! This is the description of the nature of the Father in the Bible, and as such, has been the description taught by Jews and Christians throughout history. You continue:

withwonderingawe said:

To answer that let me ask what is the purpose of the resurrection? Why did Jesus rise from the grave? He said in Luke 13:32 “and the third day I shall be perfected” What did he mean, I shall be perfected? Wasn’t he already perfect? No in fact he was not. He was perfectly righteous, he had perfect knowledge and the elements obeyed his will so what did he lack? Well what happened on that third day, he was resurrected with a perfect immortal body of flesh and bone. A body which would never feel pain and die again. A perfect body which could enjoy eating.

Click to expand...

Wait, your question was, "what is the physical nature of God?". Then you began to talk about Jesus' HUMAN BODY, which, quite frankly, has absolutely 'nothing' to do with the divine nature/essence of God the Father (or the 'divine' nature of Jesus, for that matter). "God is not a man". Numbers 23:19

As for Luke 13:32's, "I shall be perfected*" (KJV/ASV), it is more properly understood and therefore now translated as, "I reached my goal" NASB/NIV, or "I finished my course" ESV, or "I will complete my work" HCSB, or "I'll be through" CEV, etc. τελειόω (teleioō)* 'can' mean the kind of perfecting you are talking about (2A add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full), but it clearly does not in this case/context ..

Along with definition "2A" above, τελειόω (teleioō)* also means:


Read in context, τελειόω (teleioō)'s ... "perfected" (in the KJV) ... is best understood as a combination of definitions 1A-4, but especially 4, 4A and 4A1.


In reality, it's not the context of Lk 13 'alone' that precludes the use of definition "2A" in this case, it's also because using it speaks of something which has nothing to do with Jesus' entire purpose in coming here!! He didn't leave Heaven and come to dwell among us for His sake, to die for something He was lacking, rather, He came here for our sake and to die for something we were lacking .. You continue:

withwonderingawe said:

In Deut 4 Moses makes a prophecy concerning the scattering of Israel. “And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.” The idea that God was an immaterial substance wasn’t even in his realm of thought, never occurred to him that a god could be made of nothing. His assumption is God is like us he sees because he has very real eyes. Have you ever wondered how an immaterial substances eats?

Click to expand...

When God told the Israelites that the pagan gods they will serve in exile, "neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell", He meant it as a further description of the nature of these man-made idols, IOW, that they were fake, fashioned by man, that they weren't alive, in fact, that they couldn't even do what the artisans who fashioned them can (see, hear, eat or smell). Our Almighty God wasn't comparing Himself to a block of wood

God sees and hears EVERYTHING. Does He "eat"? Does He actually require 'sustenance' to be able to continue to live? Surely you cannot believe that! Quite frankly, does anyone in Heaven "eat"? Is there any Biblical evidence of that? I can't think of any, can you? You continue:

withwonderingawe said:

*John 4:23-24 “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” This is not a doctrinal theses on the physical nature of God. Who are the worshipers of God, mortal men ...

Click to expand...

In reality, God's worshipers are 1) The entire host of Heaven 2) those who have already died 3) those saints who are still alive. But in context (v23-24) yes, it speaks of those worshipers who are still alive.

I agree that the context of John 4 is "not a doctrinal thesis on the physical nature of God". That, however, does not mean that, "God is Spirit", does not define the kind of nature He possesses. It, in fact, does just that.

The overall context of the passage, first and foremost as he addressed the Samaritan woman, was that the worship of God would no longer be something people did at a particular physical location or in a particular physical way.

“In spirit” means: from a heart renewed by the HS (Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17). No rituals, body movements, or devotional formalities constitute worship without the involvement of the heart, which the Holy Spirit alone can induce.

And no single place on earth is now prescribed as the only center for worship. God’s symbolic dwelling in the earthly Jerusalem was replaced when the time came (John 4:23) by his dwelling in heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22–24). In the Spirit means, “the LORD is near to all who call on Him, to all who call on Him in truth,” wherever they may be (Ps. 145:18; cf. Heb. 4:14–16). This worldwide availability of our omnipresent God is part of the good news of the gospel; it is a precious benefit, and should not simply be taken for granted.

“In truth” means: on the basis of God’s revelation of reality, which culminates in the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

John 4's comments concerning worshiping, "in spirit and in truth", has nothing to do with men's physical, emotional, or spiritual nature or make-up, it has nothing to do with life and death, nor does it have anything to do with some perceived need to somehow separate our "spirits" from our bodies so that our "spirits" can worship His "Spirit".

Does Mormonism teach that

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - praying for you and your teenagers

Historical Christianity ALWAYS conceived of the resurrection as physical - both in relation to Jesus and in relation to judgment day. The idea of a wholly spiritual afterlife is a relatively modern (and surprisingly gnostic) concept.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Historical Christianity ALWAYS conceived of the resurrection as physical - both in relation to Jesus and in relation to judgment day. The idea of a wholly spiritual afterlife is a relatively modern (and surprisingly gnostic) concept.

Click to expand...

Hi Jane, you are correct. The risen Son of man, our glorified Lord, remains God with two natures, Divine and human, even today. That does not mean He always had both natures (He did not prior to the Incarnation), or that God the Father or the God the Holy Spirit will ever possess a second, human nature (nor will the heavenly host). Ours is to be a bodily resurrection, but that (obviously) has not occurred yet

smaneck said:

So women shouldn't be priests because they want to be priests?

Click to expand...

Most women in the church don't want the priesthood; they'd rather not deal with the demands it places on people. As it is, more than a few IIRC regard "the ability to have children" as an equal trade.

The people in question, meanwhile, are in it as much for the attention and media spotlight as they are for any prospect of actual "reform". Every move is calculated not on the basis of "will this actually cause change?" but on the basis if "how many reporters will show up?". In most instances, this has backfired spectacularly: moderates who would prefer the priesthood but are willing to work within the system have to fight the glory hogs along with the red tape.

Ironhold said:

Most women in the church don't want the priesthood

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, most men don't want the priesthood either.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ironhold said:

Most women in the church don't want the priesthood; they'd rather not deal with the demands it places on people. As it is, more than a few IIRC regard "the ability to have children" as an equal trade.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this is the opinion of those who have never gone through labor. If my husband had wanted to do it the next time around, I would have been happy to let him.

The people in question, meanwhile, are in it as much for the attention and media spotlight as they are for any prospect of actual "reform".

Click to expand...

I'm glad you know their motives. Easy to discount someone if you ascribe nefarious motives to them.

In most instances, this has backfired spectacularly: moderates who would prefer the priesthood but are willing to work within the system have to fight the glory hogs along with the red tape.

Click to expand...

Okay, that's a valid complaint. I have known some within my own religion that have stymied change by going about it the wrong way.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi withwonderingawe, what is the nature or, perhaps better, the essence of God? I believe there are only three different nouns used in the NT to describe the nature of God, and they are:

1) "God is Love" 2) "God is Light" 3) "God is Spirit"

Click to expand...

Okay. So i guess you could say that the Mormon conception of God is more in line with the earlier texts of the Tanakh than the NT.

smaneck said:

I'm glad you know their motives. Easy to discount someone if you ascribe nefarious motives to them.

Click to expand...

One of the leaders of the movement literally made a statement to the effect that the reason why she wanted to be able to attend the General Priesthood session of Conference in person was because she wanted people to see her attend the session. Why? She figured that if people saw her there it'd start a revolution.

So yeah - ego problems.

Or we have the whole "Show solidarity for the movement by wearing pants to church instead of dresses!" protest that the movement planned... which completely missed the fact that there's no requirement for women to wear dresses in the first place and so such a protest would largely be meaningless aside from more tradition-bound congregations.

Hi smaneck, you will have to enlighten me and our Jewish participants on where, or perhaps better, "why" (because I don't believe you are going to find what you are proposing in the Jewish Scriptures), you believe the Tanakh teaches that the Lord God was once a man, just like we are now (because that's what Mormonism teaches ).

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches us that YHVH was, is, and always will be God (Psalms 90:2), that He is unique as the only God and Savior that has ever existed or will ever exist (Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 46:9), that He is our Creator and Lord who existed before the universe (space/time) itself began/existed (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 102:25; .. John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), and that He is sovereign over all of His creation (Isaiah 46:10).

God did manifest Himself into various physical forms in the Tanakh (i.e. burning bush, cloud, pillar of fire, etc.) for the sake of being able to communicate with us, but He never became a man (Numbers 23:19) or took on a second nature to do so (as His Son did when He came here 2,000+ years ago).

If you know of some place in the Bible that describes Him as the Mormons do, please point it out to me/us however.

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

Ironhold said:

One of the leaders of the movement literally made a statement to the effect that the reason why she wanted to be able to attend the General Priesthood session of Conference in person was because she wanted people to see her attend the session. Why? She figured that if people saw her there it'd start a revolution.

So yeah - ego problems.

Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily denote an ego problem. What it denotes is a belief that change comes about only by political pressure. And that may well be incorrect. Blacks weren't allowed into the priesthood due to the political pressure of the Civil Rights movement or desegregation. Blacks were admitted into the priesthood because if they didn't, they would have no priesthood in places like Brazil. It became a necessity due to success of their own missionary activities.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi smaneck, you will have to enlighten me and our Jewish participants on where, or perhaps better, "why" (because I don't believe you are going to find what you are proposing in the Jewish Scriptures), you believe the Tanakh teaches that the Lord God was once a man, just like we are now (because that's what Mormonism teaches ).

Click to expand...

I don't think the Tanakh indicates so much that God was a man as the early parts of the Tanakh conceive of God in anthropomorphic terms. Hence, He walks with Adam in the garden, He holds court with the gods, the 'sons of God' make love with the children of men, etc. God even feeds of the fragrance of burnt offerings.

A couple of clarification about the Mormon position --

St_Worm2 said:

Lord God was once a man, just like we are now (because that's what Mormonism teaches ).

Click to expand...

God's does have a body, but His body is not "just like ours". God's back doesn't ache in the morning. In fact, God's body doesn't hurt at all, nor grow weary, or sick, or age, or so many things that our frail current bodies do. Rather, God's body is Perfect, and He is Perfect. Note: Perfect also means Complete (as described earlier).

St_Worm2 said:

The Tanakh, on the other hand, teaches us that YHVH was, is, and always will be God (Psalms 90:2), that He is unique as the only God and Savior that has ever existed or will ever exist (Isaiah 43:10-11; Isaiah 46:9), that He is our Creator and Lord who existed before the universe (space/time) itself began/existed (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 102:25; .. John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), and that He is sovereign over all of His creation (Isaiah 46:10).

Click to expand...

Mormons do believe the verses quoted, but have a different interoperation than traditional Christianity. Going into said interpretations would be big tangent, worthy of it's own thread.

Hi again smaneck, as I said, He does manifest Himself into various forms (anthropomorphic or otherwise) in the OT for various purposes, and is clearly capable, though omnipresent, of existing in some manner within space/time at a particular location. He is, after all, God

"Holds court with the gods"? Did you get this from the Book of Job? I will let our Jewish friends explain it to you from their perspective, but I'm pretty sure they will concur with us that the beings surrounding God in Heaven were comprised of the created host of Heaven, IOW, the angels, and that the Nephilim (sons of God) who married human women were the same. For Jews and Christians, there was, is, and ever will be ONE God and Savior (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11).

Jane_Doe said:

God's does have a body, but His body is not "just like ours". God's back doesn't ache in the morning. In fact, God's body doesn't hurt at all, nor grow weary, or sick, or age, or so many things that our frail current bodies do. Rather, God's body is Perfect, and He is Perfect. Note: Perfect also means Complete (as described earlier).

Click to expand...

Hi Jane, we actually believe those things of Jesus' risen/glorified body, so that is similar, but we do not believe His Father has such a body or nature, or ever will (which I know you know).

Question, does LDS theology teach that God's "perfect" body needs to be nourished for Him to survive? If so, what do you guys teach that He eats? Are there things like Heavenly farms, herds, gardens ............. (slaughterhouses ), etc., up there?

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - one of the reasons that we and the Apostles knew that Jesus still had a human body (albeit a "glorified" one) following the Resurrection, is because He chose to eat, so clearly His glorified body is still capable of being nourished in that manner. We do not believe it is necessary however, or that He has any reason to do so now (IOW, Jesus does not need to eat at this point and there is no Biblical evidence that He does).

p.p.s. - LDS do teach that God was once, just like we are now, right? I realize you teach He has a "perfect" body now, but at a time in the past, while He was still a "human being" on whatever planet He existed on, He did have a body just like we do now, yes? (I'm sorry for not being clearer about that particular point in my earlier post)

Hi David!

St_Worm2 said:

Hi Jane, we actually believe those things of Jesus' risen/glorified body, so that is similar, but we do not believe His Father has such a body or nature, or ever will (which I know you know).

Click to expand...

I acknowledge that. And then it always baffles me why traditional Christians act like the idea of the Father having one is so offensive.

St_Worm2 said:

Question, does LDS theology teach that God's "perfect" body needs to be nourished for Him to survive? If so, what do you guys teach that He eats? Are there things like Heavenly farms, herds, gardens ............. (slaughterhouses ), etc., up there?

Click to expand...

Official LDS theology doesn't touch on this. As you stated: from the NT, we observe resurrected Jesus did eat, so eating certainly seems possible. Beyond that, we don't know (lack of evidence one way or another).