How do mormons get around galatians 1 verse 8

[drstevej]

The actual couplet is...

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

Lorenzo Snow, the 5th LDS prophet

President Hinckley seems a little embarassed by this statement of a former leader..

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else.

source

Ya gotta love this line...

Now that's more of a couplet than anything else.

 

[Koontzy]

the new prophet also said the mormons dont worship the same Jesus as christians.....

 

[Ran77]

NOW I've heard everything.

I'm afraid I might have to give GWiT some credence on this one. Along the lines of "it takes one to know one" sort of logic. Personally, as much experience as she has in this she should be able to recognize it in others.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Heya mormons, I was just wondering actually, I read that on the RCC's website and wasn't sure if it was right. Although I did learn something from the article which is that "esoteric" means "intended only for the elect". Isn't that weird? Anywho, I've never met any mean mormons and as far as i can see mormonism is just a Christian sect with some kinda bizarre particular beliefs (come on guys, you gotta admit they're weird). Hope you're in good health, peace.

 

[fatboys]

Why from Brother Brigham among others... that's where.



That Journal of Discourses is some mighty interesting reading. Wonder if the Marriott could have a copy of that in their hotel rooms.

And for a more modern 1988 source...



And correct me if I am wrong, her published this while he was President of you church.

Your wrong. In the literal sense is that God is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is literally the Son of God. Just as my son is literally my son. We do know why my son is literally mine, we do not know how it came to be with God the Father and his Son. You want to read more into it that what there is. You always do.

 

[fatboys]

Heya mormons, I was just wondering actually, I read that on the RCC's website and wasn't sure if it was right. Although I did learn something from the article which is that "esoteric" means "intended only for the elect". Isn't that weird? Anywho, I've never met any mean mormons and as far as i can see mormonism is just a Christian sect with some kinda bizarre particular beliefs (come on guys, you gotta admit they're weird). Hope you're in good health, peace.

And your normal? :funny:

 

[gort]

It is my personal belief that man was immortal during the GoE - ergo he could not have injured himself.

This admittedly poses the question "Why did he eat, and how could he eat?". There are two possible answers to this:

1) The 'eating' was metaphoric and referred to some other act.
2) Adam and Eve did not need to eat and this was the first time they had. This also raises the question of the immortality of vegetation, which is far too abstract for this discussion.

It is difficult for us to comprehend our current state, let only an abstracted GoE state, so our musings will be inaccurate at best. Jesus ate after he was resurrected, however I believe he did this to prove he was physically resurrected and not because he needed sustenance.

I have mused long and hard on these questions over the years and trust me, there are theoretical pathways doen this road that really don't end!


I agree.



I don't believe this is supported by scripture, however it is not discounted. It still leaves the remaining questions.



Again we come to the conundrum. The point is not moot and the corollaries beg for answers. LDS consider this to be a higher law/lesser law thing. After Eve had partaken of the fruit, she was to be cast out of the Garden. Adam was given the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, something he could not do without Eve so he chose willingly to partake of the fruit.

I can present the GoE story in symbolic terms which has more application than the strictly carnal one we are used to addressing and it would have more application.



Whether physical or symbolic, it doesn't matter. There are many layers of symbolism and application for the GoE experience.



This is an important lesson of the GoE experience - that all are free to choose liberty and eternal life or to refuse it. God will not force our hand, no matter what the consequence is.

I find that too much "opinion" and "reading into the given text" is ascribed to in discussions such as these. This can happen on both sides of the street.

As a summary, I find clear, literal text depicting that procreation was clearly a potential IN the Garden, from the text in the Bible.

In the BofM, the potential is not there, and stated as "not possible".

By literal reading of text only.


As an aside, man could'nt have been immortal. If he was, he could never have died, in any form. Regardless of potential.

In the bible, I don't believe there is any statement of man being immortal.
There is a verse that refers to only God being immortal.

<><

 

[I <3 Abraham]

And your normal? :funny:

Come on, we believe that a dead guy is going to forgive us for killing him only if we go swimming and practice cannabilism regularly. That thar is as normal as the day is long!

 

[RULDS2?]

Why from Brother Brigham among others... that's where.



That Journal of Discourses is some mighty interesting reading. Wonder if the Marriott could have a copy of that in their hotel rooms.

And for a more modern 1988 source...



And correct me if I am wrong, her published this while he was President of you church.

Yeah, he didn't say that God came down and litterally had sex with Mary. He is refering to Christ's Eternal nature. Christ was the Only Begotten. However, when He came to earth, it was throught he power of the Holy Ghost.

I can't stand it when people spout off stuff against another's faith, but don't really know anything about the subject.

 

[Swart]

(come on guys, you gotta admit they're weird)

Yep! I admit it. I'm definitely weird!

 

[Swart]

I find that too much "opinion" and "reading into the given text" is ascribed to in discussions such as these. This can happen on both sides of the street.

I agree. I am guilty of this myself.

As a summary, I find clear, literal text depicting that procreation was clearly a potential IN the Garden, from the text in the Bible.

In the BofM, the potential is not there, and stated as "not possible".

By literal reading of text only.

Pretty good synopsis. From the Bible, two possible interpretations. From the combined BoM and the Bible - only one.

As an aside, man could'nt have been immortal. If he was, he could never have died, in any form. Regardless of potential.

In LDS parlance, we consider the immortality that existed in the GoE was a terrestrial mortality and not a celestial (or Heavenly) one. We believe that God could not create imperfection, so He created perfection that chose willingly to fall from grace.

The argument of whether an immortal being could become mortal is a separate discussion altogether and not one that I think can be proved or disproved from scripture. It comes down to definitions.

In the bible, I don't believe there is any statement of man being immortal.
There is a verse that refers to only God being immortal.

I suppose it comes back to the penalty for partaking of the fruit. Would Adam have died if he didn't partake of the fruit?

 

[gort]

Swart quote:

Pretty good synopsis. From the Bible, two possible interpretations. From the combined BoM and the Bible - only one.

I'm limited to the bible only. I only have one interpretation literally. Between bible and BofM, regarding GOE only, a contradiction.
You have the rest of your beliefs, etc. to draw upon.

I only have the bible. And in the bible, it speaks only of God and the Son.
In my life, the dross is burned off, and I'm only left with the Father and Son and Holy Spirit to gaze upon.

It's all I have. It's a real nice place to be, with no extra baggage to weigh me down, metaphorically speaking.

I suppose it comes back to the penalty for partaking of the fruit. Would Adam have died if he didn't partake of the fruit?

How could he, if he partook of the Tree of Life?

You'll find in the book of Revelation, only the Tree of Life is there, fed by living water from the Throne of God.

In the Garden, the tree of knowledge, had it's roots coming from disobedience. With death as the result. No life there.


btw, "Vern" comes from those Ernest movies.

<><

 

[A New Dawn]

Dagnabit, Daneel! Would you put your thumb up so I can send you some reps????

 

[gort]

Dagnabit, Daneel! Would you put your thumb up so I can send you some reps????

No.

......but the thought is much appreciated!



<><

 

[A New Dawn]

No.

......but the thought is much appreciated!



<><

I will slowly count backwards from 10, and when I say "1" you will be asleep. You will hear my "voice", and do as I say.

10 . 9 . 8 . 7 . 6 . 5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1

You are now asleep.

You will go to your control panel and readjust your settings so you can receive reputation. After you have done that, I will snap my fingers and you will wake up.

 

[gort]

I will slowly count backwards from 10, and when I say "1" you will be asleep. You will hear my "voice", and do as I say.

10 . 9 . 8 . 7 . 6 . 5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1

You are now asleep.

You will go to your control panel and readjust your settings so you can receive reputation. After you have done that, I will snap my fingers and you will wake up.

Jeepers...I'm getting tuckered out here........





......I was supposed to do something.....

.....I remember......

 

[A New Dawn]

*SNAP*

Now class, did you see how that worked?

 

[gort]

*SNAP*

Now class, did you see how that worked?

:o What happened???



...where am I??




<><