LDS teachings on God

[RevelationTestament]

Rome thinks it speaks for you, too. So, what else is new? They think they are God's one and only church, but the LDS makes the same claim. Both can make all the claims in the world, but it doesn't mean that any of these claims are true, does it?

That has nothing to do with having the true priesthood....
but then when you are losing an argument obfuscation seems like a good strategy....

 

[RevelationTestament]

He is actually not an orthodox member of the LDS church. Many of his theological views are of his own determination and do not conform to those of the LDS. My advice is to take his posts with a grain of salt.

Well thank you for those gracious words 7bs....
Who died and made you judge?
Again, when you don't have a scriptural leg to stand on the old faithful ad hominem comes out blazing...

 

[RevelationTestament]

And FYI I am a Temple Recommend Holding High Priest of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - main SLC church with 16 million members world wide.

 

[TheBarrd]

And FYI I am a Temple Recommend Holding High Priest of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - main SLC church with 16 million members world wide.

What does all that mean, RT?

 

[TheBarrd]

And FYI I am a Temple Recommend Holding High Priest of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - main SLC church with 16 million members world wide.

What is "Temple recommend Holding"?
How many "High Priests" are there?
Main SLC....Salt Lake City?

 

[bbbbbbb]

That has nothing to do with having the true priesthood....
but then when you are losing an argument obfuscation seems like a good strategy....

So, what do you think the "true priesthood" was in the primitive church and if it was similar or identical to the LDS priesthood, please show use evidence to that effect? Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well thank you for those gracious words 7bs....
Who died and made you judge?
Again, when you don't have a scriptural leg to stand on the old faithful ad hominem comes out blazing...

Well, your own posts have revealed to us that you do differ from the Four Standard Works in a number of areas. For example, your eschatology is markedly different.

One can be a member of a church and even an ordained officer in it and hold varying personal beliefs. This is certainly true in the mainline denominations and it does not surprise me that you are also in that situation.

If I wish to understand orthodox LDS beliefs I will consult the Four Standard Works and not rely on the posts here by you or others. When I see a discrepancy I will note it and I frequently ask about it, as you know.

 

[RevelationTestament]

So, what do you think the "true priesthood" was in the primitive church and if it was similar or identical to the LDS priesthood, please show use evidence to that effect? Thank you.

The church had prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20; Acts 15:2), seventy (Luke 10:1 Lord appointed other 70; Num 11:16 Lord requested Moses appoint 70 elders), high priests (Hebrews 5), elders (Acts 14:23; 15:2), bishops (1 Timothy 3:1-10 which says bishops should be married - obviously Catholic bishops are not), the Melchisidec priesthood (Hebrews 7:11), and the Aaronic priesthood (Hebrews 7:11; 2 Kings 23:4 the priests of the second order)
Thank you.

The Seventy were also mentioned in a few early historical documents.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Well, your own posts have revealed to us that you do differ from the Four Standard Works in a number of areas. For example, your eschatology is markedly different.

Who is "us?" Are there 7 different b's posting as 7bs? Please describe how I differ from the 4 standard works, and I will show I don't.

One can be a member of a church and even an ordained officer in it and hold varying personal beliefs. This is certainly true in the mainline denominations and it does not surprise me that you are also in that situation.

I believe everyone is in that situation to a certain extent. It is by human nature that we interpret things differently. However, you are accusing me of being unorthodox. I am quite orthodox according to the 4 standard works.

If I wish to understand orthodox LDS beliefs I will consult the Four Standard Works and not rely on the posts here by you or others. When I see a discrepancy I will note it and I frequently ask about it, as you know.

It is good not to rely on others' interpretations. I do the same, and go to the Lord in prayer all the time for the scriptures are of no private interpretation. The Holy Ghost will make them manifest to those who truly seek.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Who is "us?" Are there 7 different b's posting as 7bs? Please describe how I differ from the 4 standard works, and I will show I don't.

I believe everyone is in that situation to a certain extent. It is by human nature that we interpret things differently. However, you are accusing me of being unorthodox. I am quite orthodox according to the 4 standard works.

It is good not to rely on others' interpretations. I do the same, and go to the Lord in prayer all the time for the scriptures are of no private interpretation. The Holy Ghost will make them manifest to those who truly seek.

Unfortunately, I am in China now and do not have access to the Four Standard Works. I do recall that your eschatology was unique to my understanding of LDS theology. However, I cannot prove that it diverges from anything in the Four Standard Works. Perhaps others, especially LDS posters, might be able to make this determination. If you are orthodox then I offer my sincere apology. As it is, you have presented a number of interesting and challenging views which I have never seen from other LDS posters.

 

[Ran77]

You are judging Christ, God, here, because He created the Eucharist.

First - please show me where in the Bible the word Eucharist is used.

Second - I'm pretty sure that I wasn't judging Christ or God at all. My comments were intended to show the double standard involved in claiming that baptism for the dead was ghoulish while participating in a ritual that symbolizes the eating of flesh and drinking of blood. Especially since mythology defines ghouls as flesh-eating creatures.


Do children have nightmares because they participate in the Eucharist?


:o

 

[Ran77]

However, since Ran seems offended by such things, I have tried to comply with his wishes. Even when it means I have to edit my posts...

I appreciate that.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Unfortunately, I am in China now and do not have access to the Four Standard Works. I do recall that your eschatology was unique to my understanding of LDS theology. However, I cannot prove that it diverges from anything in the Four Standard Works. Perhaps others, especially LDS posters, might be able to make this determination. If you are orthodox then I offer my sincere apology. As it is, you have presented a number of interesting and challenging views which I have never seen from other LDS posters.

And which I supported with scriptures from the 4 standard works - virtually always the Bible. The fact that Jews interpreted the Tanakh differently from Jesus didn't make them "Orthodox" did it? Do my views differ from other LDS - most certainly. That doesn't make me "unorthodox." The fact that other LDS have never presented things from the scriptures that I have, doesn't make them "orthodox" nor me "unorthodox." It may put me in the minority of one sometimes, but cey la vie. I normally agree with LDS doctrine. Some such as Bruce McKonkie have written things on their own accord, and which have never been accepted by the general authorities as church doctrine even though he put them in a book called "Mormon Doctrine." Now there may be many LDS who agree with him, but in this very forum I have seen other LDS state that his work is not accepted as official doctrine. While I usually agree with him, I sometimes do not. That does not make me unorthodox either. He made speculations in areas I feel he should not have and which I firmly know him to be incorrect, and which time will show him to be incorrect.
So, in sum if you cannot show how I am unorthodox using the 4 standard works, I will expect an apology from you when you get your hands on some. But since you obviously have access to the internet, may I point you here for easy searching of the 4 standard works?
https://www.lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng

As it is, you have presented a number of interesting and challenging views which I have never seen from other LDS posters.

I would accept this as a complement, however, I maintain that these views are probably ones inspired by God. I have been amazed at how as my understanding has grown that they all fit together scripturally, and how I continue to find more scriptures which support these views. I humbly posit that the reason you find them "challenging" is because they are indeed scriptural - but just not previously seen in the light with which I have been able to present them.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

 

[Ran77]

In fact, Ran, you and I have agreed on a great many things, as I recall.
Our main disagreement seems to be on the nature of God. I simply cannot understand how you can believe that God was once a man...born on another world, yet...and "exalted" (gotta love that word) to godhood by ANOTHER god, who was god of that world, who was also "exalted"...and evidently this process has no definitive beginning? No earthly (or Kolobly?) idea how it all began? Ran, you strike me as being a very intelligent person, which is something I have deep respect for. I just do not get how you can seriously believe such...uh...believe that stuff.

I suspect that we disagree on a large number of matters. For the most part I don't bother to weigh-in on the topics. The reason I participate on the forum is to make sure that LDS beliefs are correctly represented.

The level of my intelligence is not the topic. I am requesting that you comment on the topic or about the statements I've made and leave out any discussion about me as a person.

As far as the nature of God: a communication method I've been taught is to listen to the other person and attempt to repeat what you heard. If what is repeated sounds different from what the person originally said, then the communication process needs to be improved.

I don't feel that what you presented sounds like what I have said.

 

[TheBarrd]

I suspect that we disagree on a large number of matters. For the most part I don't bother to weigh-in on the topics. The reason I participate on the forum is to make sure that LDS beliefs are correctly represented.

The level of my intelligence is not the topic. I am requesting that you comment on the topic or about the statements I've made and leave out any discussion about me as a person.

As far as the nature of God: a communication method I've been taught is to listen to the other person and attempt to repeat what you heard. If what is repeated sounds different from what the person originally said, then the communication process needs to be improved.

I don't feel that what you presented sounds like what I have said.

I'm not sure...I think I may have confused you and RevelationTestament.
I apologize for that.

 

[Ran77]

I'm not sure...I think I may have confused you and RevelationTestament.
I apologize for that.

That is possible. Thank you for your willingness to apologize. Although, I don't think one is necessary.

 

[Ironhold]

Unfortunately, I am in China now and do not have access to the Four Standard Works. I do recall that your eschatology was unique to my understanding of LDS theology. However, I cannot prove that it diverges from anything in the Four Standard Works. Perhaps others, especially LDS posters, might be able to make this determination. If you are orthodox then I offer my sincere apology. As it is, you have presented a number of interesting and challenging views which I have never seen from other LDS posters.

I know I already explained how to reset the page to English...

 

[bbbbbbb]

I know I already explained how to reset the page to English...

Yes, you did and, unfortunately, it does not work on this computer. I do not know why it does not work and whether it is limited to just this computer or others. I appreciate your patient understanding of my dilemma.

 

[TheBarrd]

Could you explain to me the doctrine about God being once a human on another planet and now being God here, please? I'm talking about the LDS teaching.

Thank you.

I think we have sort of gotten off the topic of this thread.

I, for one, still need this doctrine clarified.

Thank you.

 

[Ironhold]

Yes, you did and, unfortunately, it does not work on this computer. I do not know why it does not work and whether it is limited to just this computer or others. I appreciate your patient understanding of my dilemma.

If you can get Google Translate to work on the main page you should be able to toggle the language manually from the "select country" button.

I'm looking at the Chinese page - lds.org.hk/ - and I see the globe icon on the top right of the home page.

If nothing else, here's the direct link to the Canadian English site: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Canada

US English: www.lds.org/?lang=eng