Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

752 Excellent

About InCognitus

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

543 profile views
  1. Thank you for asking this question. I have wondered about the precise differences between our views myself. Yeah, I've only seen raining cats and dogs do baptisms (first by sprinkling, then by pouring, and then if it gets really really bad it is followed by immersion). It puzzles me how atheists could validly baptize but Latter-day Saints could not, given that the primary reason for disallowing the LDS baptisms has to do with a particular theological view of the Godhead. Is having no theological view better than having an incorrect one? Thank you for your responses, by the way. I appreciate your contributions to provide the Catholic point of view.
  2. Missionary work during COVID? We had a convert baptism scheduled for tomorrow but it is being postponed now because the person is being tested for COVID. So even the rare contact opportunities have setbacks in these crazy times.
  3. When this thread showed up last Tuesday I read a few things on the church web site about Priestcraft, and to me the most useful article I read was this "safety training" presentation to the CES community: The Dangers of Priestcraft, by Paul V. Johnson, CES Administrator —Religious Education and Elementary and Secondary Education at the CES Conference on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History 2002, 12 August 2002. Brother Johnson spoke of Priestcraft as a potential "occupational hazard" to CES employees, and much of what he said may also be applicable to the concerns expressed in the OP. In his presentation, Brother Johnson quoted 1992 devotional talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, where he said: He also quoted a 1989 Assembly Hall address by President Howard W. Hunter (who was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve at the time): There are a lot of other things mentioned in the article that are helpful, but I won't quote it all here. So the practice of priestcraft can be far more subtle than the examples of Nehor or Korihor in the Book of Mormon. And I would agree that someone claiming to be a "Spiritual Healer"would fall within this category.
  4. I would qualify that as "Latter-day Saint apologetics". There are people outside the church that make their entire career in apologetics (Josh McDowell comes to mind, and even some of the "ministries" that I won't name that attack on the church as part of their "apologetic" efforts.) But for people within the church I completely agree with your statement.
  5. The Russian musicians (and Ukrainian singer) posted a new cover last week:
  6. Page numbers to what? The link provided in the OP has a downloadable PDF file and both of the questions in the OP appear on page 120 of that manual (page 127 of the PDF document). You have "256 - Corianton believed....", and "258 - How can we use..." , and the very last numbered page of the manual is 211.
  7. I have a curiosity question for you: What are the numbers in front of the statements that you posted? You have "256 - Corianton believed....", and "258 - How can we use..." Where did those numbers come from?
  8. Well, that might explain the white salamander story, wouldn't it? Wait, that was Mark Hofmann's idea, maybe this theory is applied to the wrong person?
  9. I realize that, I have the book myself. But I was asking for the reason you referenced it.
  10. Answering the same questions over and over and over is getting tedious, so I’m going to group this post by category, and I will at times be referencing back to prior posts where the questions were answered previously: And: And: And: So those who “overcome” in Revelation 3:21 and sit with God in his throne are exalted and glorified human beings. I agree with that. That’s essentially the same way that we would describe it except you don’t like them to be called “gods” or “deities” for some reason. The early Christians called them “gods”, so why don’t you like using that word? As you already pointed out, there are many kinds of “thrones”, but only God’s throne represents the position and status of God. Whatever was Lucifer’s position, it wasn’t the same as sitting with God in God’s throne. And as I mentioned previously, Lucifer was trying to exalt himself, by putting his own status above Jesus. He did not want to follow God’s plan which would have required him to submit to Jesus and be humble. Satan wanted to do it his own way. Only those who sit with God in God’s throne would truly be “gods”. And: And: I answered this question previously here: Do you not read my responses? Neither Exodus 7:1 nor 2 Corinthians 4:4 have a context usage of the word “god” that implies that they are deities, as my answer explains above. It would not be the same thing as sitting with God in God’s throne. My answer above correlates with how Lexicons define the word for “God” or “god” in scripture. Here’s a link to Thayer's Greek Lexicon definition for Theos (Θεός) on Bible Hub. https://biblehub.com/str/greek/2316.htm The lexicon breaks down the definition into four categories, of which the forth one has a sub category that I will assign a separate number for clarity (Thayer’s #4 is divided into my #4 and #5). “A general appellation of deities or divinities”. This could be either false gods or gods that exist in reality. In application to Christ as God Spoken of the only and true God: with the article… and very often; with prepositions Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges Of the devil (“the god of this age”), 2 Corinthians 4:4; the person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, e. g. the belly in Philippians 3:19. So the Exodus 7:1 passage in application to Moses fits with #4, and the 2 Corinthians 4:4 verse in application to Satan fits #5, neither one of which would be considered deities in the real sense. Definition #1 could be applied to false gods or to real deities, gods who exist in reality like those who would be sitting with God in God’s throne. And #2 and #3 are most certainly Divine. I’ve been over this with you many times. A throne (in general) is a symbol of power and authority. The kings of the earth sit on thrones. Other people may sit on thrones for different reasons, and one throne may be figuratively “higher” than another when it comes to the position of authority. That is why the scriptures describe Jesus as the “King of kings”, because he is above all other “kings”. But we were talking about God’s throne in Revelation 3:21, which is a position of authority, power and glory higher than any other throne. As your favorite web site explained, God’s throne represents power and authority, majesty and honor, perfect justice, sovereignty and holiness, praise, purity, eternal life, and grace, all of which would be associated with those who sit with God in God’s throne. They have everything that God has and it is “granted” to them by God. You’ve brought up Alma 12:31 at least twice before, and both times I answered. The second time I referred you back to the first response (here and here). Do you not remember that? But why are you even asking this question, i.e. “But in either case, did Adam and Eve become deities?” You know better than that. The context should always tell us what’s going on, and neither Genesis 3:5 or Alma 12:31 says Adam or Eve “became deities” (gods). The verses are all clear in saying that Adam and Eve only gained one attribute of Deity, which was to know good and evil: Genesis 3:5 “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” And God himself affirms the result of this in Genesis 3:22: “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”. They didn’t become “gods” at that point, but they did become like God in that one attribute. I’ve explained to you why it uses the word “gods” instead of “Gods” previously (in case you forgot already, see here and here). Angels always minister to those who are “heirs”: “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” (Hebrews 1:13–14) But since you seem to be interested in the differences between the capitalization or lowercase usage of “God” or “god”, you might find this quote from the early Christian writings interesting too. I have often wondered why the translators of their works made a particular case choice in their translations. This quote is from Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD), from his work, THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES, Book 10, Chapter XXX, and it fits completely with the topic of our discussion: The original language of this text is in Greek, and I’m pretty sure that upper and lower case letters weren’t used in that language until a short time after Hyppolytus was around, so it makes me wonder who made the choice to capitalize “God” in the translation of this document. Why do you ask me this question when you just answered it yourself to my question on the Trinity? Each of the nine times that the word “exalt” or “exalted” is used in the Book of Mormon is in a quotation from the prophet Isaiah, so it’s not a word commonly used by the people in the Book of Mormon. But the fact that a specific word isn’t used doesn’t mean the meaning isn’t found in the text, just as you claimed for the doctrine of the Trinity. And I already addressed this by showing you where the Book of Mormon teaches that concept. So what is the point? But Origen was staying with scripture according to his presentation, didn’t you notice? Both the quotes I provided from the early Christians used scripture to back up the teachings, but it appears that you simply disagree with their version of Christianity and the way that they understood the scriptures (see more below). And as a Latter-day Saint I will say without reservation that our doctrines and teachings are completely in harmony with scripture. So which one of us is right and how will we know? You could try to understand how the earliest Christians viewed the verses that you have issues with. But since so many people disagree on how the scriptures should be interpreted the only way to really sort this out is by revelation from God. But then that’s exactly how the restoration of the gospel came about, through someone who was asking those same questions, and the original teachings were restored by God through revelation. We are distinct from God in our mortal state in the sense that God is the creator of our material world. But the scriptures also tell us that God is the “Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9) and that we are all the “offspring” [genos] of God (Acts 17:28-29). The Greek word “genos” in that verse is the root of our English word “genes”. The Greek word refers to the “kind” of being, and it is the same word used in the Greek Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word miyn (species), in verses like Genesis 1:25, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind [genos], and cattle after their kind [genos], and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind [genos]: and God saw that it was good.” So according to the Bible, we are the “kind” of being that God is, he is the “Father of spirits” and we are his “genos”. On the contrary. Origen says, “Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are called by that name or not”, and he uses scripture to demonstrate his case. This is from Origen, Contra Celsus, BOOK VIII, chapters III and IV: As you can see, Origen uses scripture to distinguish between those who are “truly gods” from those who aren’t. But if you want to consider the views of modern Christians instead and see if they are afraid of using the word “gods” in the translation of scripture, what did you think about the quote I provided from Deuteronomy 32:8 from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible? I noticed that you didn’t comment on that. In reference to John 10:23-39 (34-36), you said: I’d like to see you demonstrate that position from the context. Both are free gifts, and the resurrection is provided to all without qualification. But as we have discussed already (over and over and over) and as you agreed, you can’t receive eternal life if you haven’t been giving food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, providing accommodations to strangers, clothing to the naked, and visiting the sick and the captives. Eternal life comes to those who receive the gift and “by patient continuance in well doing” use it to bless the lives of others and become the kinds of individuals that God will trust to sit with him in his throne. And, as I have said since the beginning of this discussion (to quote a previous post): “It’s a free gift and a promise to inherit the kind of life that God enjoys. There’s simply no way that anyone can earn it on their own accord or boast in their ability to do so because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Consequently the only way to receive the promised inheritance is through the grace of God, by faith in his Son Jesus Christ and through his atonement.” This is not a black and white situation where a person is either a joint-heir or they are the children of the devil. I explained that previously in this post here. The “joint-heirs” are those who receive eternal life and they are exalted beings. Others will inherit a lesser kingdom as I discussed previously.
  11. As a former Scout Master until last September, I'm right there with you (wherever that may be!)
  12. But they won't be able to reproduce new librarians, but only new ward resource specialists (I'm not quite sure how that works exactly, I may talk to my mom and dad about this or maybe read up on Darwin)
  13. There's a good book about this. Celestial Symbols - Symbolism in Doctrine, Religious Tradition and Temple Architecture by Allen H. Barber The book you referenced is "good" for which part of what Urloony said? Exploring the historic symbolism to see that it's not the way that modern Christians interpret them? Or what did you mean?
  14. You may be thinking of The Restored Church, by William Edwin Berrett (it was the church history manual I used in Seminary):
  • Create New...