Hi,
And no maybe here I have not presented, not my understanding so much as my day to day expiences that I have had with Him. It is in other posts, yet you are right I think, as I don't really recall all of my converastions online, I may not have put my knowledge of God here anyplace yet.
You are not asking me, nor do I feel you have asked me, so out of respect for you, I shall not tell you of that, until you do ask.
And I don't really follow anyone's creed, per se. That may be a little complicated to say along with this next part. I don't believe in God. I also do not believe in The Bible of the Chrisitians. I do have to believe in something. It seems is God's world having to believe in Him or something else is needed and important. He gave me an item like that, in late fall I think of 2007. Only in faith do I have that. Even with all the proofs and confirmations, I still believe that in Faith somehow, also as I progress in faith on that item, it seems ever so pleasing to God.
The reason I do not believe in God is the word believe does not apply, in my relationship with God. I can't tell whether you are male or female from the way you write for sure. So I will put this next part in the neutral gender hopefully. A man does not believe his wife exists. She just does. In that exact way, I don't believe in God, He just is.
Never could I have said that at one time. Never. Yet after God, The God, was asked by Someone to give me a gift, He was part of that gift to me. Then I instantly fell in love with God and could not live without him. After He went away, moving a scant 10 to 15 feet away, words without terror, words of shock, words of things I didn't know of (love), escasped. I looked over to where God The Trinitarian God, that the Christians speak of. "You can' t leave me like this. You can't." In my desparation this was said internally: "Eighteen months. Eighteen months. I can last that long. In Eighteen months He will take me." Only those were my words of eighteen months, they were not His. I waited.
Eighteen months happened soon. I prepared myself. I went to church. Surely then he will take me. The Mass ended. I was still here.
Then three months later after two very Biblical and very Catholic things happened, Gabriel, who I don't know, is talking. I am upset. Why is it not God The Father. I was really uspet. I calmed down when I had no more internal objections. His words continued. When he was done, I was.......... After that, was all done on the third day, when I gave my answer to God The Father, for the question he had put to me, All of my relationships changed.
That is in no detail, but holds much in how I relate to God. It is personal, in human terms. I know the personal voice of Jesus, and didn't know why I knew it when He spoke to me. I almost missed the voice of The Holy Spirt earlier, when He also spoke to me, twice. Jesus did that also. He spoke to me twice. Yes, The Father also spoke to me twice and maybe three times. One of them talked to me thrice, but it is hard to remember, as I was in a work moment, and all of this was for someone else at the time.
I have seen. I have been talked to, and there is more, but it is quite off the point, of I know God personally, Trinitarianly, and in not other, not by the words of men, by the Act of God, for some else, to give me something.
I was told by two LDS here, knowing nothing of LDS theology, that no, I do not have to give up God, to be LDS.
That intrigued me. Soon with those statements by two of your members, I was reading and I read much. Then this conversation happened, and at the end I was told, I cannot keep my God, and be LDS.
Originally Posted by RevelationTestament View Post
Hi Katherina,
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. My God is the God of scripture. If that is your God, then they are compatible. If you are saying you heard the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I say wonderful!
Indeed, you will not find it written so clearly in the Bible as in the Book of Mormon that they are one.
2 Nephi 31:21
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
So if you believe the scriptures, which is sounds as if you try to follow, look up those scriptures which I posted, and confirm what they say about God. Can I suggest you use a Restored Name KJV? One is available for free at Theword.net. Learning the titles of God will help you to understand Him don't you agree since that is how He describes what He is being for us? That is a great start rather than just thinking in terms of the amorphous English word "God." Then add to them those passages from Isaiah and Hebrews(esp 1 & 5). There is also The Acts 13. These are the truth about Jesus our Savior. I am not trying to undermine your faith in the God of the Bible but to strengthen it! That is where His truth is - not in the creeds.
The Nicean Creed was promulgated in controversion of a prior council that ruled the term homoousios was heretical. Did you know that?
The Nicean Creed was not promulgated nor approved by even a simple majority of the approx 1200 bishops of the church. Did you know that? When did that become the proper means by which to promulgate new doctrine? The apostles were nominated by majority vote of the apostles based on the Holy Spirit, and then chosen by lot according to The Acts. Bishops were married family men chosen because of their proven ability to govern their families well. 1 Timothy 3. History shows they were the heads of the local churches. They were not the apostles. There was no precedent for the bishops to receive revelation on new doctrine for the entire church, much less being able to do so based upon a vote of 1/4 of their numbers. Now is it possible they could? If they were called as prophets of the Lord, I would say yes. But I see no evidence of this in the ecumenical councils. Indeed, the creeds promulgated are conflicting or inconsistent, and evolved over time. They are also dogmatic. There is no evidence that they were written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost or even the result of prayer. The bishops do not even state that they were of any agreement based on prayer. They do not state that the words were inspired through the Holy Spirit either. They just state that this is the way it is going to be presented to the church and if you don't agree you will be anathema or excommunicated. They represent an interpretation that was thrust down the throat of the church even though history shows a good number of bishops disagreed with them and held other councils to try to undo what had been done.
While as an LDS Christian I do believe in progressive revelation, such revelation should not conflict with itself or existing scripture. The creeds promulgated by the early councils have the hallmark fingerprints of being uninspired. They certainly were not universally agreed upon by the church. Since they contradict scripture, I do not follow them. Because I do not follow them, my mind is open to the truth of God as revealed in His scriptures which are His word. By these truths I am set free, and not by those half-truths promulgated by men. Whatever scriptures you would like to discuss with me, I am open to. I will discuss the apocrypha as well, but I do not consider them as inspired scripture nor do I accept the Septuagint as an inspired translation of the Tanakh, and will be happy to discuss why.
Cheers
Hi,
To bring you up to speed, because you said you do not know what I am refereing to.
1.) I know virtually nothing, not nothing, but almost nothing about LDS.
2.) God has revealed Himself, to me, and like one other has asked, am I mentally ill in any way, outside of what I say about God revealing Himself to me. The answer to that by five mental health professionals over the years is no. I even have the last one in writing, but it is for a Government Priveledge, thus maybe off topic, but if I have to I will publish that for you.
3.) I was told that I would not have to give up God, the revealed God, the one I intereact with, who is Trinitarian, and to which I have said that many times.
4.) Yesterday I was told.
Originally Posted by katerinah1947 View Post
Hi,
It is said Joseph Smith said that, and taught that. It is also said that the Trinitarian God, who is exactly what the Christians say He is, is totally acceptable to the LDS. If both these statements are true, then it is up to many here to try and find out why. Once explanation might be, even Joseph Smith, did not know what he translated, if the Book of Mormon is correct. Another explanation might be The Book of Mormon is wrong.
Who has the answer, or is the answer unknown? I don't see why I should have to do research here, someone surely must have done the work by now. I hope.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
I think you're confusing yourself. The substantial nature of the Trinitarian God is not compatible with the substantial nature of God as taught in the Restored Gospel.
__________________
Thus, I am not allowed to keep my God as I was told. That is what I am talking about. I was told I can, then the same person tells another person, I cannot keep my God, as my God is incompatible with your religion.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
Upvote
0
