LDS Mormon Families Can't Be Together Forever

[mmksparbud]

Everything from the mouth of God != every single statement from the mouth a single person.

I clearly said when it is instruction about how we are to live and what God wants us to believe---He best be accurate otherwise they are a false prophet. If a prophet says that God was human before He was a God----if his word can not be trusted---then he is a false prophet. This is a major believe about God. How the Son of God came to this world is not a minor thing. To say that Jesus came about in the same way that we came about from our mother and father means only one thing and it has nothing to do with how we are in the womb---that is talking about a baby being in her womb already so the father is not even in need of being mentioned at that point. It is her job to carry that child alone now, man has nothing in it being carried. That is not a natural part between mother and father--it only natural for her to carry it. To say that he was referring to a child being carried can't be accurate as I said--that is not a man and woman job--just hers. --in the physical sense. If he had said, Jesus came about in the same manner that every woman carries a child, then it would make more sense. that it means what you now say it does. As it stands---this is talking strictly about what the man and woman do to get pregnant.
Now this is instruction---this is being said about God whom this person is supposed to the voice of---to then say that not every word about that statement is accurate is ridiculous. He is either a prophet or not and if not--why listen to anything he says??

 

[Jane_Doe]

How so?? I asked a question.

It is an question based on false premises (straw man style), and hence cannot be answered.

 

[mmksparbud]

It is an question based on false premises (straw man style), and hence cannot be answered.

Yes it can. A prophet either speaks for God, or he doesn't. If you pick and choose which of his statements are from God and which aren't--how are you going to tell? And who makes that decision---you or another prophet that you can't be sure is speaking for God??

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes it can. A prophet either speaks for God, or he doesn't.

Neither. A prophet is man of God. Yes, he speaks/does as God's servant when fulfilling the role of Prophet, but all other times he is still a man. The only perfect person to walk this Earth was Christ.

If you pick and choose which of his statements are from God and which aren't--how are you going to tell? And who makes that decision---you or another prophet that you can't be sure is speaking for God??

There is a systematic level of authority, as I've explain before. And systematic chorus of many witnesses. And simply asking God yourself for confirmation. This is by no means a whimsical "picking and choosing". Nor is it falsely trying to elevate a man to the level of perfection and idol worship.

If you would like me to further explain things, I can. But please don't act like someone beliefs are whimsical haphazard things simply because they're not (even if you're not currently understanding the developmental process).

 

[mmksparbud]

Neither. A prophet is man of God. Yes, he speaks/does as God's servant when fulfilling the role of Prophet, but all other times he is still a man. The only perfect person to walk this Earth was Christ.

There is a systematic level of authority, as I've explain before. And systematic chorus of many witnesses. And simply asking God yourself for confirmation. This is by no means a whimsical "picking and choosing". Nor is it falsely trying to elevate a man to the level of perfection and idol worship.

If you would like me to further explain things, I can. But please don't act like someone beliefs are whimsical haphazard things simply because they're not (even if you're not currently understanding the developmental process).

When a man that is supposed to be a prophet says that something happened in a certain way---then that is they way it happened if he speaks for God. This man is writing down in print something here---that is not just an opinion that he is thinking about. He is speaking here an a figure of church authority and leadership. These many articles that are written and in which your LDS.org website has posted are not just off the cuff statements. These are men with position in the church, supposedly those who have the "keys" you speak of. Article after article, yet when one of them is quoted you say that is not an LDS publication even when it is posted by your own site. Any way you want to word it--you are still saying that you can't even state that what your very own founding father or any of his prophets can be trusted to be saying what your church believes. How is that possible? Then why does you church publish these things? Why put to print what isn't true? It's posted on what you say is your web site but they still can not be quoted as statements that your church believes in! Makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Rescued One]

They did not tell you that. You might have (mis)heard that, but that's not what they told you.

I replied: "Not only were you not present, you don't even know where the location was. You do NOT know what anyone told me."

I also said: "Nor can you say what my experience was or was not."

Actually I do care. About your past and your present. Same with every poster here. But again, this isn't about any poster. I'm just clarifying what LDS doctrine actually is.

No, you were not clarifying anything. You were stating that people you don't know did not say what I told you was said. I was present. You were NOT present.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not sure what you mean by "doesn't say God is in the midst of all things" because it says;

"The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things."


I'm afraid I'm entering the realm of the mysteries or speculation.

1John 1
.... God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

John 4
.... God is Spirit (not that this is the real intent of the passage)

and then in Rev 21, but first remember Jesus called his body his temple and our own bodies are called temples.

"...And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes...."

and D&C 93
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; .....

God has a tabernacle of element complete with hands to wipe away our tears.

So God is light+spirit+Tabernacle/body (that is your real trinity, some how it got all mixed up into this immaterial substance)

When the Bible speaks of the glory of God it says that no man can see his face or look upon him and live, without the Holy Spirit upon him. When John sees the risen Lord in Rev 1 it says "and his eyes were as a flame of fire" I take that to mean his countenance is so bright we can not stand in his presence.

Now this from D&C 88;
67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.
68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.

So our resurrected bodies will become filled with light matching his own so that we can see his face.

Now here comes the way out there speculation part; my Mormons friends will roles their eyes at me.

I'll go back to E=mc2, Einstein came up with this formula in 1905 and means the denser the matter the more energy is stored within, and it has something to do, which beyond my finite mind, with the speed of light. A lump of coal has more stored light than a equal amount of oil which has more than a gas which has more than pure sun light.

However there is this; "Solid light is a hypothetical material, made of light in a solidified state. Theoretically, it is possible to make such a material, and there are claims this material was already made, including claims from MIT and Harvard." (Wiki )

So my theory is; while God is in the shape of a man he is solid light of some kind.

Do you see what I'm saying; to create, control and govern the universe it takes real power and not magical power, my solid God would have more real energy than your God of immaterial substance.

Now pack to D&C 88 written in 1832, there is a play on truth and light but I'm interested in the real physical light.

7...This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made......

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

This revelation is address the real power of God and is really beyond any kind of knowledge Joseph Smith could of had.

So in your claim that God is

Not sure what you mean by "doesn't say God is in the midst of all things" because it says;

"The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things."


I'm afraid I'm entering the realm of the mysteries or speculation.

1John 1
.... God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

John 4
.... God is Spirit (not that this is the real intent of the passage)

and then in Rev 21, but first remember Jesus called his body his temple and our own bodies are called temples.

"...And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes...."

and D&C 93
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; .....

God has a tabernacle of element complete with hands to wipe away our tears.

So God is light+spirit+Tabernacle/body (that is your real trinity, some how it got all mixed up into this immaterial substance)

When the Bible speaks of the glory of God it says that no man can see his face or look upon him and live, without the Holy Spirit upon him. When John sees the risen Lord in Rev 1 it says "and his eyes were as a flame of fire" I take that to mean his countenance is so bright we can not stand in his presence.

Now this from D&C 88;
67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.
68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.

So our resurrected bodies will become filled with light matching his own so that we can see his face.

Now here comes the way out there speculation part; my Mormons friends will roles their eyes at me.

I'll go back to E=mc2, Einstein came up with this formula in 1905 and means the denser the matter the more energy is stored within, and it has something to do, which beyond my finite mind, with the speed of light. A lump of coal has more stored light than a equal amount of oil which has more than a gas which has more than pure sun light.

However there is this; "Solid light is a hypothetical material, made of light in a solidified state. Theoretically, it is possible to make such a material, and there are claims this material was already made, including claims from MIT and Harvard." (Wiki )

So my theory is; while God is in the shape of a man he is solid light of some kind.

Do you see what I'm saying; to create, control and govern the universe it takes real power and not magical power, my solid God would have more real energy than your God of immaterial substance.

Now pack to D&C 88 written in 1832, there is a play on truth and light but I'm interested in the real physical light.

7...This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made......

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

This revelation is address the real power of God and is really beyond any kind of knowledge Joseph Smith could of had.

It's interesting that you can saying a being beyond beyond, the ground of all reality would be less powerful than your embodied God who is contingent upon elements foreign to himself rather than being the source of all things (after all he was but a man like us at one point). I don't agree with that premise and you could hardly prove the source of all being, the very thing that holds the universe and existence together is less powerful than your God (since matter within Mormonism has an integrity unto itself and can exist independently of god and indeed God is dependant on matter into shaping creation and perhaps himself). So the conclusion is unwarranted.

Now you are making a distinction between your God's Bodily existence and his Spiritual existence in which case I am confused as to why your God, if he is truly everywhere, why he needs the Holy Spirit. Presumably God could do what the Holy Spirit does, so why delegate the role of inspiration to the Spirit if Heavenly himself pervades all things along with his Holy Spirit?

Finally I would ask, is the essence of God his flesh or both his Spirit and flesh? Mormons emphasise the flesh to a degree Christians do not, going so far as to require God be married to a flesh and bone woman in order that he himself might be God (another limitation) which implies a superiority of the flesh above that of an un-embodied existence. Given that we need to be embodied with a glorified body in order to truly exist, doesn't this imply that Heavenly Father in his essence is his body?

We can take Joseph Smith Seeing Heavenly Father as evidence. If the spiritual presence of Heavenly father were enough he wouldn't have needed to appear bodily in the flesh and bone before Joseph. Instead he appeared with his body on display, revealing himself in his glory to Joseph. You are interpreting God's light as being a literal light that is so bright that no one can see him, yet physical brightness can be dimmed and God we can presume is in control of how bright he is (if he cannot control his brightness he is limited in that capacity). Given that Joseph Saw heavenly Father it's safe to assume he saw what Moses did not, the physical face of God (which could not be so mind bending as scripture implies for the Mormons).

Also, can you address the characteristics of limitation that the body necessarily comes with? You have tried to deal with these by appealing to the Spiritual side of heavenly Father but still doesn't make up for the Physical limitations of Heavenly Father. Assuming God looks like how he is depicted by the LDS church, his very body carries with it limitations that prevent it from being something other. God's jawline, his physique, his width, his height, his feet are in such a way as that they cannot be other than what they are now. I presented the possibility that there could be people taller than Heavenly Father, something I don't think the LDS could say is out of the realm of possibility. So your explanations of God's Spirit (not the Holy Spirit) pervading all reality only demonstrates that his spirit is less limited than his body (his spirit perhaps cannot go beyond the section of/or the universe/worlds that he has been given. The body of Heavenly Father is still limited, limited to the physical traits it has at the current moment. That is the consequence of Physicality, it cannot be more than what it actually is.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Look at it this way -

"I heard Jimmy just paid $100 for one of those body pillows with the image of an anime girl on it."

"I heard Jimmy just paid $100 for a new pseudo-girlfriend."

Both statements are true in a sense, but you can probably guess that more people will be shocked by the second statement than the first. Paying money for a girlfriend? Imagine how the average person would process that.

It's a bit of an outrageous example, but it still demonstrates what's going on here.

The critics are deliberately ripping the theology from context and presenting it in such a fashion that the average person is going to be shocked by it. That's where the falsehoods come in.

I agree. Mormonism says we are all brothers and sisters of Jesus and Satan right? That seems much more shocking than the idea that Jesus and Satan are only brothers to each other.

 

[Ironhold]

McConkie was ordained to the Seventy and called to the First Council of the Seventy in 1946. He served this position until 1972. During that time he was also President of the Australia South Mission from 1961-1964. In 1972 McConkie was ordained an Apostle and sustained to the Twelve Apostles. He served in this position until his death in 1985.

Anything that's meant to be taken as official material must be submitted to the church leadership as a body for investigation and acceptance. This way, any biases or errors on the part of the author or assembler are more likely to get caught and corrected.

The work was never put forward in this way, instead being published through a third-party publisher.

It's actually that simple.

And sure enough, the first edition of the work did indeed contain much that was McConkie's own personal theology rather than the established theology of the church.

 

[Ironhold]

Natural means? This clearly is against scripture
Virgin birth??

"Natural means" also include such methods as parthenogenesis - Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia - and other types of asexual reproduction as well.

Half the critics of the church I've pointed this out to responded by going "deer in the headlights", with most of them acting as if they'd never heard of it; I find this funny, as for me that was high school biology.

 

[Jane_Doe]

When a man that is supposed to be a prophet says that something happened in a certain way---then that is they way it happened if he speaks for God. This man is writing down in print something here---that is not just an opinion that he is thinking about. He is speaking here an a figure of church authority and leadership. These many articles that are written and in which your LDS.org website has posted are not just off the cuff statements. These are men with position in the church, supposedly those who have the "keys" you speak of. Article after article, yet when one of them is quoted you say that is not an LDS publication even when it is posted by your own site. Any way you want to word it--you are still saying that you can't even state that what your very own founding father or any of his prophets can be trusted to be saying what your church believes. How is that possible? Then why does you church publish these things? Why put to print what isn't true? It's posted on what you say is your web site but they still can not be quoted as statements that your church believes in! Makes absolutely no sense at all.

Let's try a different angle here:

I'm going to go on The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church and grab a publication by the SDA church. Here's one (Play Time: Tips to get your children active) about kid's health. Written by Kelly James-Enger. In it talks minimizing screen time, quotes a doctor from John Hopkins, tells parents to play frisbee with their kids, etc.

Is this article about playing frisbee a doctrinal statement by the SDA to be held on the same level as the Bible itself?
I'm assuming not. Could you explain to me why not?

 

[mmksparbud]

Let's try a different angle here:

I'm going to go on The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church and grab a publication by the SDA church. Here's one (Play Time: Tips to get your children active) about kid's health. Written by Kelly James-Enger. In it talks minimizing screen time, quotes a doctor from John Hopkins, tells parents to play frisbee with their kids, etc.

Is this article about playing frisbee a doctrinal statement by the SDA to be held on the same level as the Bible itself?
I'm assuming not. Could you explain to me why not?

Nobody said this Enger is a prophet speaking for God. He is not the General conference President, I do not know if he holds any office of leadership. And there is nothing in that statement for me to get upset about. Unless you're 96 years old and bedridden, nothing wrong with going out to play Frisbee with the kids instead of watching TV. Now, if Enger claimed to be a prophet of God and made such a statement stating that it came from God---I'd have a slight problem---but even then not much of a one as not watching so much TV and being more active is not contradicting the bible. That this statement is not written in the bible is obvious. As are the statements made by your prophets stating we existed before being born, it does contradict the bible though you do not wish it to and twist scripture. That God the Father was human once does contradict the bible. Many health issues are not sated in the bible and are strictly a health issue. They didn't have TV back then, nor Frisbees and being more active was not much of a problem---no cars. And there is no reason for any SDA, or non SD to not follow that line of thinking--doctrinal or not.

 

[mmksparbud]

Anything that's meant to be taken as official material must be submitted to the church leadership as a body for investigation and acceptance. This way, any biases or errors on the part of the author or assembler are more likely to get caught and corrected.

The work was never put forward in this way, instead being published through a third-party publisher.

It's actually that simple.

And sure enough, the first edition of the work did indeed contain much that was McConkie's own personal theology rather than the established theology of the church.

If it is oriented in an official LDS site---it is up for grabs and can be quoted as a Mormon believe, whether it is doctrinal or not. Do not print what you do not want repeated. Nothing states it is his own personbal believe and not to be believed by other members.

 

[Ironhold]

If it is oriented in an official LDS site---it is up for grabs and can be quoted as a Mormon believe, whether it is doctrinal or not. Do not print what you do not want repeated. Noth9ng state4s it is hi9s own oersonbal believe and not to be believed by other members.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

You won't find the book as a whole here.

Individual passages may be cited as they were found to have merit, but the work as a whole is absent for a reason.

 

[mmksparbud]

I have no doubt.

 

[Rescued One]

Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine has been quoted over and over again in official LDS articles:

Some Bruce R. McConkie Quotes

I own several Mormon manuals published by the LDS church that contain so many of these quotes which because of their number I can't list them all. I own Mormon Doctrine, copyright 1966. It is the Second Edition, and eliminates what the church decided was offensive or incorrect in the first edition.

 

[BigDaddy4]

If you want to discuss LDS doctrine, please post doctrinal statements. Not other things.

Are you going to admit that your church is teaching false doctrine?

 

[Rescued One]

Are you going to admit that your church is teaching false doctrine?

Do you think he wants to be excomminicated?

Hold to the rod, the iron rod;
’Tis strong, and bright, and true.
The iron rod is the word of God;
’Twill safely guide us through.
The Iron Rod

 

[BigDaddy4]

Do you think he wants to be excomminicated?

Hold to the rod, the iron rod;
’Tis strong, and bright, and true.
The iron rod is the word of God;
’Twill safely guide us through.
The Iron Rod

I think you mean "she", as I was quoting Jane_Doe.

And she backs herself into a corner with the 4 Standard Works only approach. If that were true, then the lds.org website and all of the lds student and priesthood manuals must be teaching false doctrine, as they freely quote from non-standard lds works.

 

[Rescued One]

I think you mean "she", as I was quoting Jane_Doe.

And she backs herself into a corner with the 4 Standard Works only approach. If that were true, then the lds.org website and all of the lds student and priesthood manuals must be teaching false doctrine, as they freely quote from non-standard lds works.

Oh. You are right.