LDS and evolution of "The Prophet"

Zippythepinhead · Mar 8, 2005

Romans5:1 said:
How much more simple can it get when Joseph Smith said,

So, please explain, just how did an eternal God become?

My understanding is that JS said that as we are now God once was. And as He is now we have the potential to become like him.

Romans5:1 · Mar 9, 2005

Zippythepinhead said:
My understanding is that JS said that as we are now God once was. And as He is now we have the potential to become like him.

Actually, JS never said that. Lorenzo Snow did. Yet, your explanation does not answer my question. So, lets try again.

How does an eternal God become? In other words, how does that which always and infinitely is, become something more or less than that which it is? For remember, JS did say,

"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."

Fit4Christ · Mar 9, 2005

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.

If we could answer all your questions that I highlighted to your satisfaction, would you leave the lds and become a Christian?

Fit4Christ · Mar 9, 2005

fatboys said:
FB: If you could explain these things, and I felt what you are teaching me was the truth through the scriptures and prayer, then yes I would follow you to Hell.

Just as I thought, another fatboys smoke screen to avoid addressing the actual question asked. You really don't want to have those questions answered, do you?

And, nice flamethrowing, saying that I would lead you to hell and thereby implying that that is where I am going.

Lyric's Dad · Mar 9, 2005

fatboys said:
FB: If you could explain these things, and I felt what you are teaching me was the truth through the scriptures and prayer, then yes I would follow you to Hell.

Fatboys, I am really shocked by such a post. Would you please edit that? I am not sure if you have had the time to think about what you posted here but I would hope that you had and have come to the place of feeling it was wrong and deserving of an apology. Thanks.

skylark1 · Mar 9, 2005

Lyric's Dad said:
Fatboys, I am really shocked by such a post. Would you please edit that? I am not sure if you have had the time to think about what you posted here but I would hope that you had and have come to the place of feeling it was wrong and deserving of an apology. Thanks.

Dear Lyric's Daddy,

You might want to consider sending a pm if you wish to ask people to edit their post. Or you might want to consider leaving the moderating for the moderators.

Romans5:1 · Mar 9, 2005

fatboys said:
FB: If you could explain these things, and I felt what you are teaching me was the truth through the scriptures and prayer, then yes I would follow you to Hell.

Since when did personal feelings become the foundation of truth? Could you possibly point me to a few scriptural references which say that they are? Here are few which say that they are not:

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Mark 7:21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.

fatboys · Mar 9, 2005

Fit4Christ said:
Just as I thought, another fatboys smoke screen to avoid addressing the actual question asked. You really don't want to have those questions answered, do you?

And, nice flamethrowing, saying that I would lead you to hell and thereby implying that that is where I am going.

FB: I was not throwing a smoke screen or a flame. I thought I was making a statement to you about if you could explain to me the questions I asked that was in fact true, I would follow you anywhere. For the life of me, I never thought that this might have even been considered a flame. So I apologise for the possibility that you perceived that it was a flame.

Now could you start to explain the questions I asked.

Apex · Mar 9, 2005

Lyric's Dad said:
Fatboys, I am really shocked by such a post. Would you please edit that? I am not sure if you have had the time to think about what you posted here but I would hope that you had and have come to the place of feeling it was wrong and deserving of an apology. Thanks.

Fit4Christ impleid that fatboys is not christian when he said "become a christian" which is against the rules.

fatboys · Mar 9, 2005

Romans5:1 said:
Since when did personal feelings become the foundation of truth? Could you possibly point me to a few scriptural references which say that they are? Here are few which say that they are not:

FB: Could you point to me the scriptures that say that truth can not be revealed to us throw feeling the spirit of God?

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Proverbs 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Mark 7:21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.

FB: We are here to control our carnal nature. The spirit is to overcome the earthly flesh, make it submissive to the will of the spirit. And our physical self is susceptable to all the weaknesses you quoted. That does not mean that the Lord leaves us defenseless. For if fall prey to these acts, then how can anyone believe that the Word of God is real. We have to have a foundation of faith in God. Faith in God means that we bend our will to come close to the will of the Father. If we do this, our spirit is more in control of our thoughts and feelings which make us more likely to be able to listen to the spirit of God. Listening consist of real feelings and thoughts.

Lyric's Dad · Mar 9, 2005

skylark1 said:
Dear Lyric's Daddy,

You might want to consider sending a pm if you wish to ask people to edit their post. Or you might want to consider leaving the moderating for the moderators.

You are absolutely right. I will refer such things in a P.M. in the future.

Fatboys, I hope I did not overstep my boundary there.

Lyric's Dad · Mar 9, 2005

Apex said:
Fit4Christ impleid that fatboys is not christian when he said "become a christian" which is against the rules.

I did not even notice the wording there but would take issue with that sort of language also. I don't see how any of us can make the judgment as to wether another has accepted and been accepted of Jesus if they say they have. God bless.

fatboys · Mar 9, 2005

Apex said:
Fit4Christ impleid that fatboys is not christian when he said "become a christian" which is against the rules.

FB: I was aware of the flame from Fit. I did not want to stir the pot, but was amused at the hypocracy. I thought, how can I address him calling me not a christian? I chose to be passive.

Apex · Mar 10, 2005

Romans5:1 said:
Although God is the final judge as to who is, and who is not, redeemed (regardless of the claim the everyone will give an account of themselves to Joseph Smith), one can easily determine who has, and who has not, accepted the biblical Jesus. This is done by simply analyzing the belief structure of the person making the claim. Mormons may claim that they have accepted Jesus as their savior, but when one takes into account the nature and personality of the Mormon Jesus, one easily discovers that he is not the same Jesus as the one revealed in scripture.

And without going into all the details, again, concerning just what kind of character the Mormon Jesus is, it is really a moot point if the Mormon Jesus has accepted the Mormon or not, for the Mormon Jesus could not redeem anyone if he wanted to. And if the Mormon Jesus cannot redeem, then one can readily "judge," if you will, whether or not the Mormon has been accepted by God.

And as I have stated before, if there are Christians in the Mormon Church, and there probably are some sorely misguided individuals that are, who have been proselytized into it, they are there in spite of what Mormonism teaches, not because of it. For Mormonism does not espouse a system of belief which makes it possible for anyone to become a Christian in the biblical sense; Mormon revised sense, okay. But, there is a great gulf fixed between what it means to be a biblical Christian, and a Mormon "Christian" (which is actually an oxymoron).

Romans, I think you better start backing up you statements. You just inderectly condemnd nearly an entire population of people to hell. Except for the ones that you say were "proselytized into it", of course. What you said was a very ignorant statement with out evidence. And the Bible wont be good enough to prove it, you can interpret just about every passage in the bible 10 different ways which leaves you no authority to say your interpretation is better then someone elses.

disciple00 · Mar 10, 2005

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.

Right, God is a ''learn from you mistakes kind of guy'' ? i mean common, truth is absolute and it doesn't matter who understands it. your trying to justify plain and simple back peddling. yes, lds don't want to believe, live, or be held to the teaching that were originally taught in their church. they wanna back away just slow enough so that they can keep the name ''LDS'' and not their former doctrines...

why dosn't Hinky just do the right thing and tell every one that Joe Smith was wrong. then they could al repent and get on with their lives...

desciple00

disciple00 · Mar 10, 2005

if you really wanna pin down mormons on what they believe, just examine the ''articles of faith'' especially the one thet says ''we belive we shall be punished for our own sins and not for adams transgression'' this obviously contradict what was taught y paul in romans, how that through adams transgression all were condemned, so that through Jesus' righteousness all may be saved... even teh mormon articles of faith Deny the grace of God.....

disciple00

stinkyjoe · Mar 10, 2005

Romans5:1 said:
Incorrect. For the Trinity is quite defensible from Scripture, whereas the idea of an eternal God becoming, as well as existence in an infinite line of finite beings is non-sense.

I will have to disagree with you there. If you read through the really long thread on whether god is one or three (which did not start out in unorthodox theology but was moved here because of the debate by orthodox christians over the nature of the trinity), you will realize that there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding as to the nature of the trinity, in orthodox theology. I don't even pretend to know the exact nature of God. I'm trying to figure it out, but I think Ammon made it clear in that thread that there in more than one being.

Actually, I guess you can prove either position using the Bible. Wouldn't it be nice if the Bible were a little more clear (and contained less contradictions and errors)?

stinkyjoe · Mar 10, 2005

Fit4Christ said:
Just as I thought, another fatboys smoke screen to avoid addressing the actual question asked. You really don't want to have those questions answered, do you?

And, nice flamethrowing, saying that I would lead you to hell and thereby implying that that is where I am going. http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_VSXXXXXX46US http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_VSXXXXXX46US

I would like to see them answered.

gort · Mar 11, 2005

Stinkyjoe quote:
Actually, I guess you can prove either position using the Bible. Wouldn't it be nice if the Bible were a little more clear (and contained less contradictions and errors)?

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.
Joh 1:9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the Word. Jesus is the Word made flesh. Jesus is God the Son.

Let no man fool you otherwise.

<><

Swart · Mar 11, 2005

disciple00 said:
why dosn't Hinky just do the right thing and tell every one that Joe Smith was wrong. then they could al repent and get on with their lives...

Yeah, I know how you feel. I sometimes wish the Pope will come out and tell evryone the shows over, Joseph Smith was a Prophet and the CoJCoLDS is the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Time to take down the statues, doff the robes and line up for baptism.

Of course, I do hope my reversal of the invective will illustrate an important point here: that just because people believe differently it doesn't mean they don't have the same level of faith, feeling and conviction that you do. In fact, it could be greater. To assume that because others believe differently that they must be knowlingly deceptive and deliberately perverting the teachings of Christ is a demonstration of arrogance and pride - both of which are sins in the sight of God and things that should be expunged from the heart of any disciple of Christ.

Of course, I don't for a moment assume that the Pope, The ArchBishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama or any other religious leader (except perhaps Rev Moon) isn't 100% convinced they are right and truly believe what they teach.

LDS and evolution of "The Prophet"

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

In awesome wonder

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Apex

Guest

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Apex

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

pedantric

ÜberChristian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency