Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jenda said:No. And it depends on what you mean by "last". Wallace B. was the last president of the church who was a Smith, but there are other direct male descendents that could occupy that position had they done it the way God specified in the D&C.
One received a blessing as a baby from the then prophet of the church (his grandfather), indicating in that blessing that he was to be in line to receive the mantle of the presidency, but his grandfather died when he was very young and the presidency went to his grandfather's brother, W. Wallace Smith, and from there to his son, Wallace B. Smith. So, Wallace B. was the one to make the decision whether or not to pass the mantle onto the one who was previously blessed for that responsibility, and he chose to pass over him and choose someone who is not a Smith. So, it was never a question of whether or not there was interest, it is a question of there not being given the opportunity.christopher123 said:Are they not interested?
Does Wallace think it ought to be a Smith (i'm assuming he still doesn't want the mantel back)?
Chris <><
AMMON said:I'm Happy. That is what I wanted.
A principle is singular in nature, and--therefore--the primary message of the above quote is, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God." Period. That, according to the above quote, is the first principle of the Gospel. And "character" is defined as, inter alia, "The combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another; a distinguishing feature or attribute, as of an individual, group, or category; moral or ethical strength; a description of a person's attributes, traits, or abilities." Thus, one should learn the combination of qualities or features of God, among other things, pursuant to that quote.
Moving on to the rest of the quote, these are not part of the priniciple of knowing for a certainty the Character of God... that principle is far-reaching, requiring a lifetime of study and relationship building with God, a pure exercise in faith, which is the first principle of the Gospel. The attributes listed in the quote are examples of the kinds of things that one might learn about God in one's lifelong quest to know for a certainty the Character of God, but it's not an exclusive list, for God's attributes are without number.
Hence, the first principle of the gospel, according to that quote, is NOT that God was once a man, etc., but instead that our task is to exercise faith and learn the Character of God, whatever that might be.
Romans5:1 said:The problem, though, with your explanation is that when it is applied to Mormons, the Mormon cannot (or will not) consistently define just who God is as a character. In fact, if the average Mormon just went with what his church leaders have said about the character of God (i.e., that he "became," as Joseph Smith said), then he is faced with so many insurmountable contradictions and illogical inconsistencies that before long he abandons the discussion, or simply chooses to hide behind some kind of convoluted "testimony" that he knows such and such to be true, when he knows no such thing. Therefore, if the Mormon does not know the character of God, then how can he know the gospel, if one abides by the Mormon formula as described by his prophet, Joseph Smith?
Well, if it takes a lifetime, or longer, to know the character of God, which in Mormonism has been as shifting sand, then how in the world will the Mormon ever realize what the gospel is? The fact of the matter is, he cannot.
Romans5:1 said:The problem, though, with your explanation is that when it is applied to Mormons, the Mormon cannot (or will not) consistently define just who God is as a character. In fact, if the average Mormon just went with what his church leaders have said about the character of God (i.e., that he "became," as Joseph Smith said), then he is faced with so many insurmountable contradictions and illogical inconsistencies that before long he abandons the discussion, or simply chooses to hide behind some kind of convoluted "testimony" that he knows such and such to be true, when he knows no such thing. Therefore, if the Mormon does not know the character of God, then how can he know the gospel, if one abides by the Mormon formula as described by his prophet, Joseph Smith?
Well, if it takes a lifetime, or longer, to know the character of God, which in Mormonism has been as shifting sand, then how in the world will the Mormon ever realize what the gospel is? The fact of the matter is, he cannot.
See what I mean? Thank you for another prime example of what I just wrote about.![]()
fatboys said:FB: Are you upset that the Gospel evolved and continues to evolve? We are given line upon line, just as Joseph Smith was given line upon line. The gospel is a work in progress, that is our understanding of it. And it makes little difference that the D&C we have today is different than the one at the time of Joseph Smith, or different than that RLDS.
My understanding of the gospel is different than when I was 22, 25,30, 40, or 50. The more I learn, my understanding is different. I would expect that everyone, including Joseph Smith is the same way.
Romans5:1 said:The problem, though, with your explanation is that when it is applied to Mormons, the Mormon cannot (or will not) consistently define just who God is as a character. In fact, if the average Mormon just went with what his church leaders have said about the character of God (i.e., that he "became," as Joseph Smith said), then he is faced with so many insurmountable contradictions and illogical inconsistencies that before long he abandons the discussion, or simply chooses to hide behind some kind of convoluted "testimony" that he knows such and such to be true, when he knows no such thing. Therefore, if the Mormon does not know the character of God, then how can he know the gospel, if one abides by the Mormon formula as described by his prophet, Joseph Smith?
Well, if it takes a lifetime, or longer, to know the character of God, which in Mormonism has been as shifting sand, then how in the world will the Mormon ever realize what the gospel is? The fact of the matter is, he cannot.
See what I mean? Thank you for another prime example of what I just wrote about.![]()
fatboys said:FB: Romans, the same could be said of mainstream Chrisitans when asked to explain the trinity from the bible. It is not there and many scriptures teach they are seperate beings. When asked for explanation, Trinitarians have tried to explain, and even though they may understand it in their own minds, but it still eludes me. So to me it is illogical that God would express himself in what I see as deception, that he calls himself God the Father, and then calls himself his own son. There are just to many things that you could not explain away in the bible that teaches differently. It does make perfect sense that God is the Father, as it says, and that Jesus Christ is his true Son. Seperate identities. Seperate beings. It makes sense to me that they are perfect, and perfectly work together so that they were of one mind in unity. That makes more sense that God saying he is the only one, and then sends himself to earth to call himself the Son.
FB: The only thing that changes as we gain more knowledge is more pure understanding of God. We begin with knowing him on a basic level and then as we learn and experience things of God, our understanding of God becomes more perfect. It is a shame that our doctrines confuse you. They are so clear to me. And I know that they are correct. I have a testimony that that they are so. Now there may be some who can not express their understanding of God as you twist words and try to trap them in one way or the other. They are not perfect and many do not have your education, or probably your gift of language. So if your attempts at destroying a person's faith satisfies you, then I guess you have that right. I just wonder what God would say?
FB: The first principle of all things pertaining to God is faith.
fatboys said:FB: Romans, the same could be said of mainstream Chrisitans when asked to explain the trinity from the bible.
It is not there and many scriptures teach they are seperate beings.
When asked for explanation, Trinitarians have tried to explain, and even though they may understand it in their own minds, but it still eludes me. So to me it is illogical that God would express himself in what I see as deception, that he calls himself God the Father, and then calls himself his own son. There are just to many things that you could not explain away in the bible that teaches differently.
It does make perfect sense that God is the Father, as it says, and that Jesus Christ is his true Son. Seperate identities. Seperate beings. It makes sense to me that they are perfect, and perfectly work together so that they were of one mind in unity. That makes more sense that God saying he is the only one, and then sends himself to earth to call himself the Son.
FB: The only thing that changes as we gain more knowledge is more pure understanding of God. We begin with knowing him on a basic level and then as we learn and experience things of God, our understanding of God becomes more perfect.
It is a shame that our doctrines confuse you.
They are so clear to me. And I know that they are correct. I have a testimony that that they are so.
Now there may be some who can not express their understanding of God as you twist words and try to trap them in one way or the other. They are not perfect and many do not have your education, or probably your gift of language. So if your attempts at destroying a person's faith satisfies you, then I guess you have that right. I just wonder what God would say?
See what I mean? Thank you for another prime example of what I just wrote about.
Zippythepinhead said:I agree with FB. The Gospel is not learned in one sermon. It is a process that the Good News is learned over time. JS had to learn it that way. So does any other man. More of the Gospel continues to be revealed to man individually and collectively. God knows it all of course, but man is given what her or she is able to handle with the will of the Maker in mind.
Zippythepinhead said:See the LDS Articles of Faith. It has stated our belief since Joseph Smith's time.![]()
Romans5:1 said:Why not just deal with Joseph Smith's comments about what he believed about the person of God? Do they not count?
Zippythepinhead said:They count. But in the constraints of time I like to keep things simple.
I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 345.
Romans5:1 said:How much more simple can it get when Joseph Smith said,
So, please explain, just how did an eternal God become?
christopher123 said:Romans5:1, this is rather a recent phenomena that mormons are forced to deal with, the complete rewritting of their doctrine and history. A good example of this was my Smith to Hinkley progression.
As recently as in my life, LDS apostles from the pulpit in general conference were able to answer your question.
------------
We all know that like begets like and that for the offspring to grow to the stature of his parent is a process infinitely repeated in nature. We can therefore understand that for a son of God to grow to the likeness of his Father in heaven is in harmony with natural law. We see this law demonstrated every few years in our own experience. Sons born to mortal fathers grow up to be like their fathers in the flesh. This is the way it will be with spirit sons of God. They will grow up to be like their Father in heaven. Joseph taught this obvious truth. As a matter of fact, he taught that through this process God himself attained perfection."
- Elder Marion G. Romney, General Conference, October 1964
--------------
Does Hinkley really not know what his own church founders teach or just feels better pretending it didn't happen?
Chris <><
fatboys said:FB:.Chris you know better than this
fatboys said:So when you start yammering about our belief that God progressed as we can progress....well it makes much more sense than what mainstream christians have faith in.
fatboys said:FB: Chris you know better than this. Do I believe that God progressed? Actually God is a title given to a being with all knowledge and power. Do I believe that God the Father was a being that has always been all knowing and powerful, and was always as he is now? No. I believe that mainstream Christianities very core belief that God created makes God not the same as he was before he created. You hammer us on a statement that God the Father progressed as we will have the chance to do. I have never heard explained why a complete God would want to create. I have never heard any explanation why God created Satan when he knew he would choose evil before he ever created him and thus God created evil. No one has explained why God wanted to have Adam and Eve tempted. Why God allowed Adam and Eve to disobey when he already knew before they were ever born what they were going to do. And why God could not create a person that would always choose right. Not by force, but because they chose to. And why God did not destory Adam after they disobeyed. Surely he could have destroyed him and started over. What stopped God from doing this? Did God want to pay for our sins? There was no other way? So when you start yammering about our belief that God progressed as we can progress....well it makes much more sense than what mainstream christians have faith in.
I believe that the eternal plan of progression has been going through the cycle we are going through for eternity. It has always been going on, and there is enough space to carry it out.
Do you belive that God is Gods actuall name?Wrigley said:Wow. god is just a title. the being who got the "god" title was not always all knowing. By implication that the being who got the "god" title wasn't always god. And the mormons wonder out loud constantly why Christians don't consider mormons as Christians.
An absolutely amazing post.