LDS teachings on God

[TheBarrd]

And where were the apostles? and the seventy? Where was your earthly church you are so certain will never go away? I never said all truth left the earth, but just that there was a great apostasy in the church that eventually covered basically the whole world. Only a few peoples escaped.

So, there never was a time when the gospel was not being taught, somewhere. It never needed to be "restored".

I don't have any problem. I know what I believe, and I know what scriptures in Daniel apply to the time period, and I know that the time period also fulfills the prophecies of the beast and the harlot of Revelation. So I have no problem at all. It is orthodoxy that has the problem.

That's amazing, considering how many different interpretations I've heard on those scriptures. I have my own ideas about what Daniel was talking about. And I don't think you've got it quite right.

Being that you and I consider Jesus to be "God" that is not the case. It was foremost in the debates of the time.

I never once considered the possibility that Jesus was ever born on another planet.

Again foremost in the debates concerning Christ.

Or that He ever needed to be "exalted" to godhood, as He was always God, from before time began.

The fact that the Father didn't seem to enter the debate doesn't concern me. I know what the scriptures say and mean. Jesus followed everything He had seen the Father do, and was doing likewise. That tells me He had seen the Father lay down His life, and was merely following the Father just as He tells us to follow Him. It is not complicated. It is a simple matter. The Father will bare His holy arm to all nations...

If the father had laid down his life on some other world, as you seem to think, then why is he not still sitting at the right hand of the god of that world, as Jesus sits at his right hand here? And if we are to follow him as he follows the father, does that mean we will all have to lay down our lives as he did?
Uh...no, I don't see this as being "simple"...rather it gets more and more complicated as we go along...

 

[RevelationTestament]

So, there never was a time when the gospel was not being taught, somewhere. It never needed to be "restored".

The priesthood was lost, baptisms for the dead, true baptism has been lost for most of the world etc. No, it definitely needed restoring.

That's amazing, considering how many different interpretations I've heard on those scriptures. I have my own ideas about what Daniel was talking about. And I don't think you've got it quite right.

You of course are welcome to share.

I never once considered the possibility that Jesus was ever born on another planet.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the debates in the earliest church after Jerusalem was destroyed. Perhaps you ought to brush up on your history. The debates on the subject were a major reason the Nicene Council was convened.

If the father had laid down his life on some other world, as you seem to think, then why is he not still sitting at the right hand of the god of that world, as Jesus sits at his right hand here? And if we are to follow him as he follows the father, does that mean we will all have to lay down our lives as he did?
Uh...no, I don't see this as being "simple"...rather it gets more and more complicated as we go along...

So you believe Jesus saw the Father do nothing? That is your solution? Jesus was just spinning yarn?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The priesthood was lost, baptisms for the dead, true baptism has been lost for most of the world etc. No, it definitely needed restoring.

You of course are welcome to share.

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the debates in the earliest church after Jerusalem was destroyed. Perhaps you ought to brush up on your history. The debates on the subject were a major reason the Nicene Council was convened.

So you believe Jesus saw the Father do nothing? That is your solution? Jesus was just spinning yarn?

There is not a scintilla of evidence of any Mormon priesthood or baptisms for the dead prior to 1830. You cannot restore something that never existed.

 

[RevelationTestament]

There is not a scintilla of evidence of any Mormon priesthood or baptisms for the dead prior to 1830. You cannot restore something that never existed.

There is no such thing as "Mormon priesthood." However, history shows bishops were priests, and priests attended the Nicene Council. If you have a problem believing in the priesthood, maybe you should reject the Nicene Creed.
As for baptisms for the dead, there definitely were early Christians who performed them, which is why a later council ruled the practice anathema. Look it up

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is no such thing as "Mormon priesthood." However, history shows bishops were priests, and priests attended the Nicene Council. If you have a problem believing in the priesthood, maybe you should reject the Nicene Creed.
As for baptisms for the dead, there definitely were early Christians who performed them, which is why a later council ruled the practice anathema. Look it up

Okay, so if you believe that Catholic bishops were priests and that priests attended the Council of Nicea, we have the firm foundation of a church which never underwent anything like an apostasy. The priesthood and bishopric of the RCC has a proven lineage, as does that of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Now, the fact is that the priesthood developed by Mr. Smith is vastly different than that of orthodox Christianity and has absolutely no historical evidence of having ever existed prior to his development of it.

 

[TheBarrd]

The priesthood was lost, baptisms for the dead, true baptism has been lost for most of the world etc. No, it definitely needed restoring.

Did Jesus ever teach about baptism for the dead? I don't think so. What about the apostles?
The only place such an idea is mentioned is in 1 Corinthians...a rather vague reference, at that. It is my contention that baptism for the dead was not a wide spread practice even then...basically because it never was a true Christian teaching. I'm not even sure that the "they" Paul talked about in this verse were actually Christians. I do know that he wasn't referring to "we"...
As for whether or not a church in hiding had priests, or ministers, or whether they were baptizing new people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...there is absolutely no way you could know those things. We do know that, long before there was a "restored gospel", the RCC lost her power, and Christians did have ministers and baptism, and all the rest of it. No, the gospel did not need to be restored.

You of course are welcome to share.

Not tonight, dear, I have a headache.
Seriously, there would be little point in introducing yet more arguments right now.
Perhaps another time...

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the debates in the earliest church after Jerusalem was destroyed. Perhaps you ought to brush up on your history. The debates on the subject were a major reason the Nicene Council was convened.

Do you honestly think that these early Christians were debating about whether or not God was a man who was born on another world? Really????
I understand that there were debates about the nature of the Godhead...there are still folks to this very day who cannot wrap their minds around the idea that Jesus is actually God in the flesh...but somehow, I very seriously doubt that other planets, or the gods of those other worlds, were ever included in any of these debates. There is nothing whatsoever at all to indicate that these people had any notion that God was once a man who was born on another world, or that there were an infinite number of such gods who had been exalted by other gods on other worlds...In fact, I don't think there were any such ideas in all of the history of the Christian church, not from the day the Magi first began following the star, right to the day Joseph Smith brought the idea forth. If his father had been born on another planet, I'm pretty sure Jesus would have mentioned it.

So you believe Jesus saw the Father do nothing? That is your solution? Jesus was just spinning yarn?

I'm pretty sure Jesus never saw the father crucified. I'm positive that he never saw his father resurrected from the dead. I'd bet the last brick in my house that he never saw his father ascend into heaven.
No, I think Jesus saw His Father breathe His spirit into the man He had created from the dust of the ground and into every created man since then (including women, of course.) I think He saw His Father's love, and His great mercy. I think He saw His Father sending angels to give aid and comfort to His people when it was needed.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Did Jesus ever teach about baptism for the dead? I don't think so. What about the apostles?
The only place such an idea is mentioned is in 1 Corinthians...a rather vague reference, at that. It is my contention that baptism for the dead was not a wide spread practice even then...

No, it apparently wasn't wide spread.

basically because it never was a true Christian teaching. I'm not even sure that the "they" Paul talked about in this verse were actually Christians. I do know that he wasn't referring to "we"...

It's the same "they" that will be resurrected as he talks about. But I know, you don't believe Paul here. You only believe when he talks about being saved by grace...

As for whether or not a church in hiding had priests, or ministers, or whether they were baptizing new people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...there is absolutely no way you could know those things. We do know that, long before there was a "restored gospel", the RCC lost her power, and Christians did have ministers and baptism, and all the rest of it. No, the gospel did not need to be restored.

I didn't talk about a church in hiding with priests? Are you inferring the priesthood survived in secret? If so where is it now? Still hiding in secret?
No Protestants have a problem here they ignore. The Nicene Creed was promulgated by priests which they deny.... very ironic.

Not tonight, dear, I have a headache.
Seriously, there would be little point in introducing yet more arguments right now.
Perhaps another time...

I await with baited breath

Do you honestly think that these early Christians were debating about whether or not God was a man who was born on another world? Really????

Asked and answered. I have read such queries myself by early Christian writers concerning Christ. Don't know that I can dig it up now, but there was this question of when Christ was begotten you see....

I understand that there were debates about the nature of the Godhead...there are still folks to this very day who cannot wrap their minds around the idea that Jesus is actually God in the flesh...but somehow, I very seriously doubt that other planets, or the gods of those other worlds, were ever included in any of these debates.

They were.

There is nothing whatsoever at all to indicate that these people had any notion that God was once a man who was born on another world, or that there were an infinite number of such gods who had been exalted by other gods on other worlds...In fact, I don't think there were any such ideas in all of the history of the Christian church, not from the day the Magi first began following the star, right to the day Joseph Smith brought the idea forth. If his father had been born on another planet, I'm pretty sure Jesus would have mentioned it.

He did. You aren't hearing it tho.

I'm pretty sure Jesus never saw the father crucified. I'm positive that he never saw his father resurrected from the dead. I'd bet the last brick in my house that he never saw his father ascend into heaven.
No, I think Jesus saw His Father breathe His spirit into the man He had created from the dust of the ground and into every created man since then (including women, of course.) I think He saw His Father's love, and His great mercy. I think He saw His Father sending angels to give aid and comfort to His people when it was needed.

So you believe Jesus lied... That He didn't do all things He saw the Father do, and did likewise. You believe Jesus did more than the Father. Sounds like you are saying Jesus was greater than the Father....
Yet when Christians say God created everything they insist that means He created our spirits too...Hmm. I seem to not be able to find that specific verse in Genesis tho...Adam's body was created from the dust, but not His spirit, it got breathed into Adam from God, and Lamentations says shall return to God who "gave" it. Boy this Orthodox thing sure is confusing!

 

[RevelationTestament]

Okay, so if you believe that Catholic bishops were priests and that priests attended the Council of Nicea, we have the firm foundation of a church which never underwent anything like an apostasy.

No, I don't believe Catholic bishops attended the Council. There was no RCC at the time despite the assertions of the RCC. There were probably more than 1200 bishops of the church spread throughout the Roman Empire. I am just citing history on the subject which says bishops and priests attended the Council.

The priesthood and bishopric of the RCC has a proven lineage, as does that of the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Unfortunately the lineage of the priesthood got overshadowed by the office of the pontifex maximus later taken by the bishop of Rome - not a very "Christian" lineage. Do you know the prior time this happened? Yes, it was Rome too. Rome replaced the office of the High Priest in Jerusalem with appointed puppets. Which is why it had to be restored by Christ. It seems Rome's track record in these matters isn't very good.

Now, the fact is that the priesthood developed by Mr. Smith is vastly different than that of orthodox Christianity and has absolutely no historical evidence of having ever existed prior to his development of it.

Really? So you don't believe in the Melchizedek Priesthood or the Aaronic priesthood or either or what? The Bible talks about high priests, elders, Aaronic priests, deacons and even teachers. Oh yeah, and bishops too...how many Protestant churches have that office? It seems like the LDS church is a mite more biblical than any other you could point to.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, I don't believe Catholic bishops attended the Council. There was no RCC at the time despite the assertions of the RCC. There were probably more than 1200 bishops of the church spread throughout the Roman Empire. I am just citing history on the subject which says bishops and priests attended the Council.
Unfortunately the lineage of the priesthood got overshadowed by the office of the pontifex maximus later taken by the bishop of Rome - not a very "Christian" lineage. Do you know the prior time this happened? Yes, it was Rome too. Rome replaced the office of the High Priest in Jerusalem with appointed puppets. Which is why it had to be restored by Christ. It seems Rome's track record in these matters isn't very good.

Really? So you don't believe in the Melchizedek Priesthood or the Aaronic priesthood or either or what? The Bible talks about high priests, elders, Aaronic priests, deacons and even teachers. Oh yeah, and bishops too...how many Protestant churches have that office? It seems like the LDS church is a mite more biblical than any other you could point to.

Okay, if I understand you now, your view seems to be that the Roman Catholic Church demolished the true Church and dominated the world. This probably happened sometime in the fourth century, if I am not mistaking your understanding. That varies from the orthodox LDS position that the Great Apostasy began shortly after the death of the last Apostle.

You seem to be unaware that the Eastern Orthodox Churches were never controlled by Rome and that, after the Great Schism in 1054, both went their separate ways. EO priests, monks, and bishops are, assuredly not RCC priests, monks, and bishops, nor are they LDS priests and bishops.

You have yet to provide any historical evidence of the presence of LDS priests and bishops prior to 1830. The fact that various historic Christian churches have priests and bishops in a lineage that can be traced at least to the ECF's merely undermines the LDS claim that the priesthood disappeared.

 

[Wryetui]

I didn't even hear a mention here about the planet Kolob, or the fact that you baptise little children to symbolioze dead people that died unbaptised.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Okay, if I understand you now, your view seems to be that the Roman Catholic Church demolished the true Church and dominated the world. This probably happened sometime in the fourth century, if I am not mistaking your understanding. That varies from the orthodox LDS position that the Great Apostasy began shortly after the death of the last Apostle.

You seem to be unaware that the Eastern Orthodox Churches were never controlled by Rome and that, after the Great Schism in 1054, both went their separate ways. EO priests, monks, and bishops are, assuredly not RCC priests, monks, and bishops, nor are they LDS priests and bishops.

You have yet to provide any historical evidence of the presence of LDS priests and bishops prior to 1830. The fact that various historic Christian churches have priests and bishops in a lineage that can be traced at least to the ECF's merely undermines the LDS claim that the priesthood disappeared.

That is about as convincing as the Protestant argument that everyone who accepts Christ is a priest and a bishop - not. You're leaving out the Syrian church and the Church of the east which went their separate ways by the fifth century. I suppose that all these churches too have "the true priesthood" which is why Rome thinks it speaks for all of them LOL.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I didn't even hear a mention here about the planet Kolob, or the fact that you baptise little children to symbolioze dead people that died unbaptised.

I brought up baptism for the dead:

There is no such thing as "Mormon priesthood." However, history shows bishops were priests, and priests attended the Nicene Council. If you have a problem believing in the priesthood, maybe you should reject the Nicene Creed.
As for baptisms for the dead, there definitely were early Christians who performed them, which is why a later council ruled the practice anathema. Look it up

"Little children" might be a mite misleading. One has to be 12 to perform baptisms for the dead ie adolescent.
Do you believe Jesus went in spirit to teach the dead?
As far as I am concerned our scriptures don't teach about a "planet" Kolob. Read Abraham 3 - it talks about a star: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng

 

[srphoenix]

I'm being completely serious here, if you truly believe that God was once a man then you should check out Scientology because its more similar to mormonism than mormonism is to real Christianity.

 

[TheBarrd]

I'm being completely serious here, if you truly believe that God was once a man then you should check out Scientology because its more similar to mormonism than mormonism is to real Christianity.

Do Scientologists think that god was once a man?
That's another sect I know almost nothing about.

 

[Wryetui]

Do Scientologists think that god was once a man?
That's another sect I know almost nothing about.

Same here, we don't have scientologists here at the forum, do we?

 

[TheBarrd]

Same here, we don't have scientologists here at the forum, do we?

Not that I know of...if we do they're keeping it on the downlow...

 

[TheBarrd]

I brought up baptism for the dead:

"Little children" might be a mite misleading. One has to be 12 to perform baptisms for the dead ie adolescent.
Do you believe Jesus went in spirit to teach the dead?
As far as I am concerned our scriptures don't teach about a "planet" Kolob. Read Abraham 3 - it talks about a star: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3?lang=eng

I dare someone to try to talk any 12 year old in my family to undergo such a ghoulish rite as baptism for the dead. That person would find him/herself fighting a running chainsaw...and I don't necessarily mean me.

What a horrible thing to do to a kid. Can you even imagine the nightmares?????

 

[RevelationTestament]

I dare someone to try to talk any 12 year old in my family to undergo such a ghoulish rite as baptism for the dead. That person would find him/herself fighting a running chainsaw...and I don't necessarily mean me.

What a horrible thing to do to a kid. Can you even imagine the nightmares?????

Don't be ridiculous. My children did it for some of their ancestors, and quite enjoyed it. I remember large smiles on their faces. I certainly did not tell them they had to do it - I wouldn't dream of it. There is nothing compulsory about any baptism. Instead of being baptized for yourself, you just get baptized in the name of someone who is dead. But then, I suppose most modern Christians have come to believe baptism is a "ghoulish" work. Water baptism is a semblance of bodily resurrection, so I imagine those wanting to be resurrected are quite happy about it. I say shame on you for your ignorant characterization.

 

[RevelationTestament]

Same here, we don't have scientologists here at the forum, do we?

No. Srphoenix's comparison is inappropriate. Scientologists don't believe in God or the Bible. They aren't Christians so wouldn't be allowed on this forum.

 

[Ran77]

I dare someone to try to talk any 12 year old in my family to undergo such a ghoulish rite as baptism for the dead. That person would find him/herself fighting a running chainsaw...and I don't necessarily mean me.

What a horrible thing to do to a kid. Can you even imagine the nightmares?????

These statements are obviously made from a position of ignorance. Since you are not familiar with how baptisms for the dead are conducted or pretty much anything to do with the experience it is ridiculous to make claims about how anyone else might react to them. This is pure rhetoric and has no basis in fact. It provides a good example of why I have learned to discount the arguments of our critics.