Log Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Actually, no I didn't. Actually, yes, you did. If you wish to revise your previous statement, feel free.
jskains Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Actually, yes, you did. If you wish to revise your previous statement, feel free.Actually, no I didn't. I listed a collection of works that represent the entire picture.JMS
jskains Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Really? You missed the whole great mystery revealed if the veil were lifted and we found God was a Man just like us? It's pretty well known.JMSHere is my clarification of what KFD said. Did you read this post?JMS
Log Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) Actually, no I didn't. I listed a collection of works that represent the entire picture.JMSYes, the theory is that God was once a man, He had a Father who gave Him the ability to run this universe, and if we are perfect, we will be granted that same privilege. It's part of the King Follete Discourse, it is part of the teachings of eternal progression.But then again, the Hebrews were polytheistic....JMSA collection of works which solely contains a single work. Edited April 3, 2012 by Log
jskains Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 A collection of works which solely contains a single work.Do you act like a jerk for fun or is this just part of your normal nature?JMS
Log Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Do you act like a jerk for fun or is this just part of your normal nature?JMSI like it better when people who represent the Church and its actual - as opposed to folk - doctrines do so accurately.
jskains Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I like it better when people who represent the Church and its actual - as opposed to folk - doctrines do so accurately.So now you are the arbitration of doctrine for the Church?JMSYou and Log have been removed from thread.
zerinus Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) I'm going to make it REAL easy for you.http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htmCite the sections that teach what you claim the KFD teaches:1. God [The Father] had a Father.2. God had a Father who gave Him the ability to run this universe.3. If we are perfect, we will be granted that same privilege [of running this universe].CFR.KFD teaches the first, but not the second or the third:If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He [i.e. the Father] had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.That doctrine, however, is not found in the standard works; and after a repudiation by Gordon B Hinckley, it definitely cannot be regarded as a doctrine of the Church. The context also implies that Joseph Smith was not speaking by revelation, but getting carried away a bit with his own rhetoric. I don't consider the doctrine to be inspired; and it is certainly not binding on Church members, given that it is not found in the standard works. Edited April 3, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Limbo has never been dogma but was more of a popular theory once upon a time.The "dogma" had been that they will go to hell. Limbo was proposed to ameliorate the injustices inherent in that dogma, which then itself became the dogma for several centuries until it was replaced by something else.
blueadept Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I make it a point not to tell LDS what they use to believe that was later replaced by something else. A moot point IMHO. In talking with enough authorities within the church, I'm still of the opinion limbo was never dogmatic.
why me Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 Since he tried to describe Henotheism which is a closer understanding of what LDS believe, I give him a reasonable grade in his attempt at the question since he is obviously not a LDS apologist but he didn't make you sound like a cult either. If it was me, I would have probably left off the portion of being gods of your own planet(s) as well as the polytheistic parts, but I would have mentioned about everything else.I think that that was the point: he mentioned being gods of other planets. I think that he got bogged down alittle trying to show off his knowledge. But he did handle it all like a gentleman and not like a mormon hater.
why me Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 I think that the quotation that Analytics gave is an interesting one but it can be interpreted in a couple of ways. That being said, I always admire what was said there. I think that it makes perfect sense. But it does not say that we will be gods as heavenly father is a god. But certainly we have the opportunity to be like god.
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I think it is always for the best to let believers define their own beliefs. IE; I wouldn't presume to try and tell Catholics what they believe.
why me Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 I make it a point not to tell LDS what they use to believe that was later replaced by something else. A moot point IMHO. In talking with enough authorities within the church, I'm still of the opinion limbo was never dogmatic.In a sidenote, our friend Parker was banned from their forum. I was shocked to see this happen. I think that he was scoring points in his posts and some of the catholics could not handle it.
blueadept Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 While ParkerD didn't have the touch of a TomNosser and a couple other LDS apologists, I did respect his apologetic skills.
zerinus Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I make it a point not to tell LDS what they use to believe that was later replaced by something else. A moot point IMHO. In talking with enough authorities within the church, I'm still of the opinion limbo was never dogmatic.That depends I suppose on how you define dogma. If something is accepted by the Pope and the Vatican, I would have thought that can be called dogma. But I could be wrong. You would know better. Limbo, however, was accepted by the Pope and the Vatican for a time:Pope Innocent III accepted Abelard’s Doctrine of Limbo, which amended Augustine of Hippo’s Doctrine of Original Sin. The Vatican accepted the view that unbaptized babies did not, as at first believed, go straight to Hell but to a special area of limbo, “limbus infantium”. They would therefore feel no pain but no supernatural happiness either (only natural) because, it was held, they would not be able to see the deity that created them. Source.
blueadept Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Well, I at least thank you for pointing out that you do not understand how things in the Catholic church becomes 'dogmatic.'Many Popes said that the only hope for salvation was through the RCC which isn't 'dogmatic.' It wasn't until Vatican II 'Lumen Gentium' that an actual 'dogmatic' understanding was actually established. That said, it's not always necessary for a council to be held for something to be 'dogmatic.' Humanae Vitae IS a 'dogmatic' document that isn't associated with any council.
zerinus Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 In a sidenote, our friend Parker was banned from their forum. I was shocked to see this happen. I think that he was scoring points in his posts and some of the catholics could not handle it.I hadn't visited that place for a while, and I didn't know that he had been banned. But I am not altogether surprised. There has been a systematic effort to cull all the LDS out of that site for quite some time, and it was inevitable that his turn would come eventually. And I don't blame the "Catholics" for it either. There are a bunch of Mormon apostates in there who pretend to be Catholics, but who in reality have no more faith in Catholicism than in Mormonism; and they have banded together to undermine Mormon posters by repeatedly alerting the mods with bogus complaints, and have succeeded in turning forum administration against them. There have also been changes in administration and new moderators who have been sympathetic to the apostates' cause, and all of this has combined to turn the entire board against the Mormons. But things don't always stay the same. Some day the tables will be turned against them.
blueadept Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 I hadn't visited that place for a while, and I didn't know that he had been banned. But I am not altogether surprised. There has been a systematic effort to cull all the LDS out of that site for quite some time, and it was inevitable that his turn would come eventually. And I don't blame the "Catholics" for it either. There are a bunch of Mormon apostates in there who pretend to be Catholics, but who in reality have no more faith in Catholicism than in Mormonism; and they have banded together to undermine Mormon posters by repeatedly alerting the mods with bogus complaints, and have succeeded in turning forum administration against them. There have also been changes in administration and new moderators who have been sympathetic to the apostates' cause, and all of this has combined to turn the entire board against the Mormons. But things don't always stay the same. Some day the tables will be turned against them.Life as I know it must be ending!!! I'm in agreement with zerinus. OH MY!
zerinus Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 http://www.catholic....ve-in-many-godsDid he get it right or was he off base?Unfortunately the doctrines that he teaches were once upon a time a widely held belief among LDS, so one cannot entirely blame the anti-Mormons for repeating them. The blame in the first instance rests with the Church for not being sufficiently alert to safeguard the purity of Church doctrine. Having said that, however; it is correct to say that while the doctrines of the deification of man and plurality of gods is a doctrine of the Mormonism, the idea of men becoming "gods of their own planets," or there being an infinite regression of Gods, is not. 1
blueadept Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Unfortunately the doctrines that he teaches were once upon a time a widely held belief among LDS, so one cannot entirely blame the anti-Mormons for repeating them. The blame in the first instance rests with the Church for not being sufficiently alert to safeguard the purity of Church doctrine. Having said that, however; it is correct to say that while the doctrines of the deification of man and plurality of gods is a doctrine of the Mormonism, the idea of men becoming "gods of their own planets," or there being an infinite regression of Gods, is not.Now if you can apply this string of logic to the issue of Limbo, we're home free.
zerinus Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Now if you can apply this string of logic to the issue of Limbo, we're home free.I will take your word for it if that is what you say!
why me Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 While ParkerD didn't have the touch of a TomNosser and a couple other LDS apologists, I did respect his apologetic skills.It would be great if he would post here. Not many lds posters left on that site now. The mods are picking off the good ones now. And catholics are still somewhat mocking the lds church. Good that we are more civil here.
why me Posted April 3, 2012 Author Posted April 3, 2012 Having said that, however; it is correct to say that while the doctrines of the deification of man and plurality of gods is a doctrine of the Mormonism, the idea of men becoming "gods of their own planets," or there being an infinite regression of Gods, is not.And this is where the misunderstanding comes and why we need some clarification. Even on the ldsnewsroom site with its mormonism 101 segment, it states that mormons do not believe that they will get their own planet. But there are still members who think that they will get their own planet.
3DOP Posted April 3, 2012 Posted April 3, 2012 Hey it isn't just the Mormons that get the boot at Catholic Answers! I am not banned but decided to stay away after being twice suspended.
Recommended Posts