LDS Make a list of all your LDS doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Wh

[Peter1000]

Correct.
And the Scripture , Yahuweh's Word, says IF ANYONE brings a different gospel than the one once delivered, have nothing to do with them (other than exposing the false gospel).

Nowhere is it written or stated in Yahuweh's Purpose and Plan in Christ Jesus to try to "make friends" nor to "have fellowship" with those who
bring that false gospel (mormonism or any other one).

I think you will read in the bible many times that Jesus made friends and healed people that were not going to fellowship with him. You on the otherhand do not have this same spirit.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I think you will read in the bible many times that Jesus made friends and healed people that were not going to fellowship with him. You on the otherhand do not have this same spirit.

If you had read the one true Bible, Yahuweh's Word, you would know that I simply posted what is in perfect harmony with all Scripture -

sorry but the false gospels (like mormonism) are just as I posted - deadly and destructive and meant to KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING SAVED AT ALL.

 

[D.A. Wright]

There is a place that is safe for all of us to express this statement: Christ, and Him crucified; first, last, and always.

Regardless of what we all think and believe beyond this statement is less important that this ultimate statement. I can make it with a straight face with out a disingenuous though in my head, because that is what I believe, first and foremost.

So in this statement there is 100% accord with you and should be with all on this forum.

That is why I keep saying, if someone accosted you and I on the street, and threatened to gun us down if we did not deny Christ, you and I would both give our lives at that moment rather than deny Christ. At that very moment, what we believe beyond that statement is irrelevant, and our biases are suddenly reduced to zero. Does that make sense.

Friend, you are merely engaging in mental gymnastics here. Christ and what He did is the focus here, not what you or I would or would not do. And as we are not of one accord about Who Christ is, then we are not of one accord at all. Christ is God, not a god. What qualifies Him as a savior to mankind is that He is the only member of mankind Who possesses life unborrowed. The Christ of the Mormon Church is a counterfeit.

This is a hard thing to say to someone whom I'm certain means no harm and is very sincere and devout. But it is the Truth. I know what it is to have one's faith challenged. I had to abandon the faith of my fathers thirty years ago when I was faced with the fact that it was not in accordance with God's revealed will in His Word. It was an ordeal I would not care to pass through again.

You may not sense the urging of the Spirit now, but you will, and if you pass away before that time, I declare to you now that if and when (I trust, is the case) God sees that you have lived up to all the light you have received and finds you fit for redemption, it will be by the efficacy of the shed blood of the King of Kings, the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace, all one and the same.

Peace To You, and Amen, Brother.

 

[Peter1000]

If you had read the one true Bible, Yahuweh's Word, you would know that I simply posted what is in perfect harmony with all Scripture -

sorry but the false gospels (like mormonism) are just as I posted - deadly and destructive and meant to KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING SAVED AT ALL.

Sorry, but your tone is not of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Peter1000]

Friend, you are merely engaging in mental gymnastics here. Christ and what He did is the focus here, not what you or I would or would not do. And as we are not of one accord about Who Christ is, then we are not of one accord at all. Christ is God, not a god. What qualifies Him as a savior to mankind is that He is the only member of mankind Who possesses life unborrowed. The Christ of the Mormon Church is a counterfeit.

This is a hard thing to say to someone whom I'm certain means no harm and is very sincere and devout. But it is the Truth. I know what it is to have one's faith challenged. I had to abandon the faith of my fathers thirty years ago when I was faced with the fact that it was not in accordance with God's revealed will in His Word. It was an ordeal I would not care to pass through again.

You may not sense the urging of the Spirit now, but you will, and if you pass away before that time, I declare to you now that if and when (I trust, is the case) God sees that you have lived up to all the light you have received and finds you fit for redemption, it will be by the efficacy of the shed blood of the King of Kings, the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace, all one and the same.

Peace To You, and Amen, Brother.

Friend, am I your friend?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Peter I would still like to hear why it is you think the Didache wrong to recommend baptizing in ways other than full immersion if the situation doesn't allow it. There are potentially all sorts of situations where baptism could never be performed properly if we follow your legalistic understanding of Baptism. That it must be done in a temple in full immersion according to Mormon rites? Not even the Apostles had access to Mormon Temples.

What is the problem with this text? Please identify the specific corruption of the practice of Baptism that the author of the document ought to have known.

"Regarding baptism, baptize thus. After giving the foregoing instructions,1 ‘Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’2 in running water.3 4 and, if you cannot in cold water, then in warm.5 6 ‘in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.’ 4 But, before the baptism, let the one who baptizes and the one to be baptized fast, and any others who are able to do so. And you shall require the person being baptized to fast for one or two days."

 

[D.A. Wright]

Friend, am I your friend?

That would be up to you, obviously. Perhaps i presumed. Sorry.

 

[Peter1000]

Peter I would still like to hear why it is you think the Didache wrong to recommend baptizing in ways other than full immersion if the situation doesn't allow it. There are potentially all sorts of situations where baptism could never be performed properly if we follow your legalistic understanding of Baptism. That it must be done in a temple in full immersion according to Mormon rites? Not even the Apostles had access to Mormon Temples.

What is the problem with this text? Please identify the specific corruption of the practice of Baptism that the author of the document ought to have known.

"Regarding baptism, baptize thus. After giving the foregoing instructions,1 ‘Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’2 in running water.3 4 and, if you cannot in cold water, then in warm.5 6 ‘in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.’ 4 But, before the baptism, let the one who baptizes and the one to be baptized fast, and any others who are able to do so. And you shall require the person being baptized to fast for one or two days."

First of all it is not necessary to be baptized in a temple, that is reserved for the baptism of the dead only.
Baptism for the living is done in a regular church, or a place where a natural pool of water can accommodate immersion, everywhere throughout the world.

We do not do this for legalistic purposes, but we do follow the example of the Savior as to how he was baptized, and his last instructions to the apostles to teach and baptize the world. If you think Jesus was instructing in a legalistic manner then so be it. We simply follow Jesus.

Not long after the death of the apostles, men started to play with the rules of many doctrines. I bring up baptism because it is a simple procedure and very well documented as to how it was to be performed and what to say over the initiate while being baptized.

But men in their own wisdom started to say: wait a minute, what about this and what about that, and you can't do that, and you can't do that, and what if this is the case, and what if that is the case, and on, and on, and on, and on. So they started to make rules that if this is the case then you can forget the instructions and the example of the savior, and just do what is more convenient. If you don't have enough water, then sprinkle. If you can't walk into the pool, then sprinkle, etc., etc., etc.

This debate has gone on over 2,000 years and has run down a slippery slope to the point that in the wisdom of men, baptism does not save anyway, so if you want to, do it, but if you don't think it necessary, you don't have to do it.

So from this: we baptize and this is how you do it, (from the bible), to: do it or not, it is up to you, because it really doesn't save you to get wet (from the wisdom of men).

The Didache was one document that started that whole process downward, and you did not quote from the Didache the part that says, if you don't have enough water, then sprinkle 3 times.

 

[Peter1000]

That would be up to you, obviously. Perhaps i presumed. Sorry.

I would like to be your friend. Thank you. It is that you say friend, and then blast away. It seems disingenuous.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

First of all it is not necessary to be baptized in a temple, that is reserved for the baptism of the dead only.
Baptism for the living is done in a regular church, or a place where a natural pool of water can accommodate immersion, everywhere throughout the world.

We do not do this for legalistic purposes, but we do follow the example of the Savior as to how he was baptized, and his last instructions to the apostles to teach and baptize the world. If you think Jesus was instructing in a legalistic manner then so be it. We simply follow Jesus.

Not long after the death of the apostles, men started to play with the rules of many doctrines. I bring up baptism because it is a simple procedure and very well documented as to how it was to be performed and what to say over the initiate while being baptized.

But men in their own wisdom started to say: wait a minute, what about this and what about that, and you can't do that, and you can't do that, and what if this is the case, and what if that is the case, and on, and on, and on, and on. So they started to make rules that if this is the case then you can forget the instructions and the example of the savior, and just do what is more convenient. If you don't have enough water, then sprinkle. If you can't walk into the pool, then sprinkle, etc., etc., etc.

This debate has gone on over 2,000 years and has run down a slippery slope to the point that in the wisdom of men, baptism does not save anyway, so if you want to, do it, but if you don't think it necessary, you don't have to do it.

So from this: we baptize and this is how you do it, (from the bible), to: do it or not, it is up to you, because it really doesn't save you to get wet (from the wisdom of men).

The Didache was one document that started that whole process downward, and you did not quote from the Didache the part that says, if you don't have enough water, then sprinkle 3 times.

I would note that not even the presence of a Prophet prevents change in the Church, since we see in Mormonism how far your Church has strayed from the Gospel of Joseph Smith. Blacks now can be priests, men cannot marry multiple women, polygamy and polyamory is now forbidden. What was then moral is now immoral and forbidden in your Church. So what is your argument regarding baptism? That the method has changed so much? That may be the case with the Roman Catholic Church, of which I will let them defend themselves on this matter. The Orthodox Church still does emphasis full immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we follow the Didache regarding it's teaching on Baptism.

In your excited rush to condemn the Didache as an example of the arrogance of men, you haven't actually considered the situation the Church was in. There were no prophets to answer this question. God was not revealing anything (by your own reckoning) and there were complications which arose in the course of time which scripture didn't deal with. Your solution it seems would have been to not baptize certain people at all because the correct procedure could not be performed. That is legalistic and don't tell me you expect them to have baptized for the dead because they had no knowledge of your Mormon ceremony.

The didache is not a corruption, it is the result of men trying to apply the Gospel based on what they have in front of them, namely the scripture and the tradition of the Church. You can't blame them for using the tools at their disposal. So given potential situations where full immersion is impossible or a river is unavailable it does not seem wrong to baptize in a Baptistery. It does not seem wrong to pour water over the head.

Let's use an example. Say a bedridden man converts but dunking him fully int he water may kill him. Should he not be baptized because it cannot be full immersion without risking his life? I would like your answer to this. Seems to me you resemble the Pharisee here, demanding the sick man not healed because it violates the sabbath.

 

[Peter1000]

I would note that not even the presence of a Prophet prevents change in the Church, since we see in Mormonism how far your Church has strayed from the Gospel of Joseph Smith. Blacks now can be priests, men cannot marry multiple women, polygamy and polyamory is now forbidden. What was then moral is now immoral and forbidden in your Church. So what is your argument regarding baptism? That the method has changed so much? That may be the case with the Roman Catholic Church, of which I will let them defend themselves on this matter. The Orthodox Church still does emphasis full immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and we follow the Didache regarding it's teaching on Baptism.

In your excited rush to condemn the Didache as an example of the arrogance of men, you haven't actually considered the situation the Church was in. There were no prophets to answer this question. God was not revealing anything (by your own reckoning) and there were complications which arose in the course of time which scripture didn't deal with. Your solution it seems would have been to not baptize certain people at all because the correct procedure could not be performed. That is legalistic and don't tell me you expect them to have baptized for the dead because they had no knowledge of your Mormon ceremony.

The didache is not a corruption, it is the result of men trying to apply the Gospel based on what they have in front of them, namely the scripture and the tradition of the Church. You can't blame them for using the tools at their disposal. So given potential situations where full immersion is impossible or a river is unavailable it does not seem wrong to baptize in a Baptistery. It does not seem wrong to pour water over the head.

Let's use an example. Say a bedridden man converts but dunking him fully int he water may kill him. Should he not be baptized because it cannot be full immersion without risking his life? I would like your answer to this. Seems to me you resemble the Pharisee here, demanding the sick man not healed because it violates the sabbath.

First of all, a prophet JS set up the church in a way that he was instructed by Jesus Christ.
In the church their are 2 divisions.
1) doctrines (set in stone, very rare that a doctrine is changed)
2) policies (changeable, according to the needs of the church and instructed by Jesus through the current prophet)

Blacks holding priesthood and plural marriage are both policies determined by the current prophet by revelation with Jesus. That is why the current prophet and the revelations that he receives from Jesus is way more important than the past prophets and all their writings, when it comes to the different policies of the church.

The doctrines of faith, repentance and baptism will never change. Baptism is deeply symbolic and must be performed in this way to realize the symbolism that was obviously important to Jesus.

The men that wrote the Didache were not apostles and just thought it was OK to change a doctrine for various reasons. It is not OK, when you sprinkle, all of the symbolism is lost and you have disobeyed the will of the Lord.

The case of the sick man on his bed. If you sprinkle his head, you have done just the same thing as if you did not baptize him at all. The Lord does not recognize sprinkling.
If I were faced with this problem, I would wait until he is well enough to baptize properly, or if he dies, then we will baptize him by proxy in a temple. Either way, he receives the ordinance of baptism properly.

 

[D.A. Wright]

I would like to be your friend. Thank you. It is that you say friend, and then blast away. It seems disingenuous.

If you consider what I said "blasting away," then I suppose it was ill-advised for me to presume that you would assume my sincere concern and fondness for you.
I apologize.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

First of all, a prophet JS set up the church in a way that he was instructed by Jesus Christ.
In the church their are 2 divisions.
1) doctrines (set in stone, very rare that a doctrine is changed)
2) policies (changeable, according to the needs of the church and instructed by Jesus through the current prophet)

Blacks holding priesthood and plural marriage are both policies determined by the current prophet by revelation with Jesus. That is why the current prophet and the revelations that he receives from Jesus is way more important than the past prophets and all their writings, when it comes to the different policies of the church.

The doctrines of faith, repentance and baptism will never change. Baptism is deeply symbolic and must be performed in this way to realize the symbolism that was obviously important to Jesus.

The men that wrote the Didache were not apostles and just thought it was OK to change a doctrine for various reasons. It is not OK, when you sprinkle, all of the symbolism is lost and you have disobeyed the will of the Lord.

The case of the sick man on his bed. If you sprinkle his head, you have done just the same thing as if you did not baptize him at all. The Lord does not recognize sprinkling.
If I were faced with this problem, I would wait until he is well enough to baptize properly, or if he dies, then we will baptize him by proxy in a temple. Either way, he receives the ordinance of baptism properly.

I find it interesting that you attempt to justify the change in your Church by an appeal to it being practice. Mind you marriage is such an important thing in the LDS since it is required to become gods yourself one wonders why it needed changing. It surely had nothing to do with conforming to the Christian world around the Mormons. Still my point remains true, your Church has changed fundamental aspects of the Church. Why are you so upset at things changing in the ancient Church then?

You are right the people who wrote the did ache were men. They were men educated in the Church, men who read the scripture and men who had to deal with problems your God was unwilling to deal with. Baptism by proxy simply didn't exist at this time. You can pretend otherwise but this would be Mormon historical revisionism in that you expect the ancients to act like 21st century LDS.

Baptism was done to the person themselves to bring them into the Church. We cannot be baptised for others, so given this understanding of Baptism how is what the Didache says a critical corruption of Baptism? How were they not justified? The essence of Baptism, being buried in water, the name of the father and the son and the holy Spirit. All these things remained intact in the Baptism but you would discount because it is not full immersion because they were unable to Baptise? You can continue to deny it, but that's legalism.


Remember, God had abandoned them and was no longer telling them directly what to do.

 

[Peter1000]

I find it interesting that you attempt to justify the change in your Church by an appeal to it being practice. Mind you marriage is such an important thing in the LDS since it is required to become gods yourself one wonders why it needed changing. It surely had nothing to do with conforming to the Christian world around the Mormons. Still my point remains true, your Church has changed fundamental aspects of the Church. Why are you so upset at things changing in the ancient Church then?

We are justify because Jesus told us to do plural marriage. We were told to do it and then told we were to end it, because it had served his purposes. This is how a living, dynamic church operates, with current revelation from Jesus Christ.

Plural marriage, the policy on blacks etc, were not fundamental aspects of the church. The fundamental aspects are: needed ordinances, priesthood functions and authority. The fundamentals will never change.

The Didache is messing with a fundamental issue, which, as you can see, has led to the concept that you do not even need baptism if you do not want to. Not a good idea.

You are right the people who wrote the did ache were men. They were men educated in the Church, men who read the scripture and men who had to deal with problems your God was unwilling to deal with. Baptism by proxy simply didn't exist at this time. You can pretend otherwise but this would be Mormon historical revisionism in that you expect the ancients to act like 21st century LDS.

Yes, you are right, their education was better than direct revelation from Jesus. Our God deals with a person that cannot be baptized, as I explained above. In fact he dealt with it perfectly. Whereas their God (their wisdom) dealt with it with an inferior method that was worthless to the recipient.

We don't revise, anything, we know proxy baptism did not exist then, so there is a lot of work for us to do before the second coming gets here. Oh, they knew about proxy baptism, but it was corrupted by the time of Paul, and the people doing it, did not even know why they were. But it is clear that they were doing baptism for the dead.

We don't expect the ancients from 120 on to act like we act. From 0 to 100 they acted a lot like we do, with a very similar organization as we do, and same kinds of offices of leadership that we do. It should be similar, the church of Jesus Christ should look similar whether in the first century or the 21st century.

Baptism was done to the person themselves to bring them into the Church. We cannot be baptised for others, so given this understanding of Baptism how is what the Didache says a critical corruption of Baptism? How were they not justified? The essence of Baptism, being buried in water, the name of the father and the son and the holy Spirit. All these things remained intact in the Baptism but you would discount because it is not full immersion because they were unable to Baptise? You can continue to deny it, but that's legalism.

Sprinkling does not bury anyone in a watery grave, only full immersion does that, so no, all these things did not remain in tact. That was the problem. They started a slide away from the true baptism that you can see the result today.

How is anything about the true way to baptize legalism?

Remember, God had abandoned them and was no longer telling them directly what to do.

Remember they abandoned God and were no longer willing to receive direct revelation. So they struck out on their own, and with their educated wisdom. Not good. What is the result. Look around at the tens of different ways that Christian churches express baptism. Not good.

 

[Peter1000]

If you consider what I said "blasting away," then I suppose it was ill-advised for me to presume that you would assume my sincere concern and fondness for you.
I apologize.

Apology accepted my friend. Now if you have a question about a particular doctrine that you would like to ask about, let me know and I will tell you the answer.

 

[D.A. Wright]

Yes, how would you rate Christ in universal authority?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

We are justify because Jesus told us to do plural marriage. We were told to do it and then told we were to end it, because it had served his purposes. This is how a living, dynamic church operates, with current revelation from Jesus Christ.

Plural marriage, the policy on blacks etc, were not fundamental aspects of the church. The fundamental aspects are: needed ordinances, priesthood functions and authority. The fundamentals will never change.

The Didache is messing with a fundamental issue, which, as you can see, has led to the concept that you do not even need baptism if you do not want to. Not a good idea.

Except plural marriage is a fundamental issue in Mormonism. You can deny as much (since you have to) but since marriage relates to salvation within Mormonism, for you to deny the connection is implausible. Likewise it is absurd to suggest that the blacks being forbidden from the priesthood is a non essential issue. Why were blacks forbidden? Because they were the Children of Cain and therefore subject to the curse of Cain, at least according to Brigham Young. Yet in the name of Political correctness your Church has abandoned that idea despite it coming from a Prophet whom you feel free to dismiss because a later Prophet said something different and now it's okay for blacks to be part of the priesthood. Yet you want to judge the fathers for trying to apply rules or doing things differently from the Apostles? You have no leg to stand on when not even your own Church acts in an Apostolic fashion and can change things whenever it wants to suite it's own fashion.

Yes, you are right, their education was better than direct revelation from Jesus. Our God deals with a person that cannot be baptized, as I explained above. In fact he dealt with it perfectly. Whereas their God (their wisdom) dealt with it with an inferior method that was worthless to the recipient.

They had no choice in receiving revelation peter, that was up to God. You continue to blame them and consider them Godless when I see no hint of that in the Didache. The problem with isolating one verse or sentence in a text in order to condemn the entire thing or the person in question is that it's an unfair interpretation devoid of any grace. I would criticize Joseph Smith and accuse him of being many evil things, but I would not do this to all Mormons.

Did the author of the Didache prefer his own wisdom to that of God's? Have you read the Didache in depth to conclude that? That would be a reading of the text which is incongruous with what it sets out to do, namely provide an orderly Christian practice for Churches where the New Testament doesn't provide any information. This is in the Orthodox view of things the tradition of the Church, handed down from one generation to the next orally because contrary to Mormon claims the Apostles didn't just up and leave the Church without anything to hold on to. They laid the foundation which the Church built upon.

We don't revise, anything, we know proxy baptism did not exist then, so there is a lot of work for us to do before the second coming gets here. Oh, they knew about proxy baptism, but it was corrupted by the time of Paul, and the people doing it, did not even know why they were. But it is clear that they were doing baptism for the dead.

Provide evidence of it being directly known. You can quote Paul and interpret him to mean proxy by Baptism but this is only proof of a Mormon interpretation. The lack of this practice anywhere within the historic Church indicates it didn't exist. We can contrast this to other practices of the Church which we do have evidence for, such as reading the Gospels on Sunday, Fasting before Baptism, sermons and Homilies being given on recited scriptures. These were

If you are going to accuse the latter Church of conspiracy to get rid of proxy baptism then demonstrate they knew about it to conspire against it. A difficult task I do not envy you in.

We don't expect the ancients from 120 on to act like we act. From 0 to 100 they acted a lot like we do, with a very similar organization as we do, and same kinds of offices of leadership that we do. It should be similar, the church of Jesus Christ should look similar whether in the first century or the 21st century.

You expect them to act like 21st century Mormons and that's where the fault in your understanding lies. Because they lack so many Mormon distinctive you automatically conclude corruption whereas the more obvious answer is that Mormon Practices and beliefs did not exist. For instance the Mormon Church of Jospeh Smith doesn't look like the Apostle's Church. Peter for instance didn't engage (to our knowledge) in polyamory or Polygamy. Paul encouraged people to be celibate. The Apostles did not gather in LDS style temples for worship. There were consecrated virgins in the Apostolic Church which the LDS never accepted.

So I don't buy this claim that your modern LDS CHurch which doesn't even act like the LDS Church of Joseph Smith, actually resembles the Apostolic Church. It doesn't.

Sprinkling does not bury anyone in a watery grave, only full immersion does that, so no, all these things did not remain in tact. That was the problem. They started a slide away from the true baptism that you can see the result today.How is anything about the true way to baptize legalism?

Pouring water over the head of someone unable to be immersed is legitimate. If they have the desire for Baptism and have proven they have faith then they can be baptized in such a manner because it is the only method available to them. Baptism

Now it is legalism when you deny a person because of physical impracticability or potential harm the inability to be baptized. To say to them because they are unable to be immersed fully they themselves cannot be Baptised is to be legalistic and not understand that God's grace is not so strictly limited by the externals as to make it impossible for people to receive his ordinances?

Remember they abandoned God and were no longer willing to receive direct revelation. So they struck out on their own, and with their educated wisdom. Not good. What is the result. Look around at the tens of different ways that Christian churches express baptism. Not good.

This is a view you cannot justify. Not of the Didache and not of the Church as a whole. There were plenty of faithful people who were willing to die for God and live for him and receive his wisdom, yet the LDS tell us God didn't deign to reveal anything until Jospeh Smith. He did abandon them, unless you want to tell me you believe everyone before Joseph Smith preferred their own wisdom to God's?

Answer the bold. Don't ignore it.

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, how would you rate Christ in universal authority?

Jesus Christ is the Son of the Most High God, with all the meaning that the word "Son" infers. Therefore he is always in a 2nd position. But because of his superior intelligence, he has attained to Godhood also, with the same kinds of qualities, power and authority of his Father. He is so much like the Father that if he or the Father were talking to you, you would not know which one it was.

We believe that because of Jesus's Godhood, God the Father gave Jesus the power and authority to even create the natural earth and the natural universe. So, although he is in a second position, he is so much like the Father, I would rate Christ in universal authority, #1, with the Father.

 

[Peter1000]

Jesus Christ is the Son of the Most High God, with all the meaning that the word "Son" infers. Therefore he is always in a 2nd position. But because of his superior intelligence, he has attained to Godhood also, with the same kinds of qualities, power and authority of his Father. He is so much like the Father that if he or the Father were talking to you, you would not know which one it was.

We believe that because of Jesus's Godhood, God the Father gave Jesus the power and authority to even create the natural earth and the natural universe. So, although he is in a second position, he is so much like the Father, I would rate Christ in universal authority, #1, with the Father.

my mistake.

 

[D.A. Wright]

So, although he is in a second position, he is so much like the Father, I would rate Christ in universal authority, #1, with the Father.

My level of logical, mental development is not sufficient to comprehend that. Could you, perhaps, put it another way?