How Can We Know When We Hear

[Paul Ray]

...

continued from another post.

"Here, then, is eternal lifeâ??to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.â? (JS, Discourses of the prophet JS, Ch. 44, p. 341)

Joseph had his own way of speaking, so keep that in mind as you read what he said.

If I had been as aware of what he knew when he said that, I would have chosen to say it like this:

â??Here, then, is eternal lifeâ??to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods like God, yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods who are God have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.â? (JS, Discourses of the prophet JS, Ch. 44, p. 341)

I could also say Gods, as he did, but that would seem kinda confusing for some people.

As far as we are concerned there is only one God ultimate being, and that being exists as separate persons.

If we have to learn to become gods then it doesnâ??t sounds like we have always been gods.

If you're ever going to understand what I'm trying to tell you... not believe, necessarily, but understand... I think you're going to have to try to get past limiting yourself to using the words "God" and "gods".

Try to understand the ideas behind those words.

We are children of our Father in heaven with the power to become exactly like him.

... and it is only we, individually, who can choose to not become like him.

The power is there if we will ask and reach for the help that is given to us from our Father.

Godhood is something to be attained according to JS, correct?

OIOW, becoming exactly like our Father in heaven is something we can attain. Yes.

"I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that god was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for certainty the character of god and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us, yea, that God himself the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." (JS, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305)

If I had been as aware of what he knew when he said that, I would have chosen to say it like this:

"I am going to tell you how God our Father came to be God a perfected holy man. We have imagined and supposed that god our Father was God a perfected holy man from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for certainty the character of god and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us, yea, that God himself the father of us all dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible." (JS, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 305)

I hope you are getting the idea.

And btw, I'm using the word "perfect" because our Lord has commanded us to be perfect, as our Father is perfect. And I'm using the word "holy" becaused our Lord has commanded us to be holy, as God is holy. And I'm using the word "man" because our Father is a man, or a male. God is simply another word for a perfected holy male. And the word God can also be used to refer to be a perfected holy female, or woman.

... whether you personally believe that or not.

"Let me ask, are we not taught that we as sons of God our Father may become like him? Is not this a glorious thought? Yet we have to pass through mortality and receive the resurrection and then go on to perfection just as our Father did before us. The Prophet, Joseph Smith, taught that our Father had a Father and so on. Is not this a reasonable thought, especially when we remember that the promises are made to us that we may become like him?" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p. 12)

I translated that one a little bit too.

Are you sure you donâ??t just believe in The Gospel According to Paul Ray?

Yes. God is still assuring me that the "Mormons" have got it all right.

Your beliefs donâ??t seem to match Mormon or traditional Christian beliefs.

I'm simply using some different words to convey the same thoughts that God inspired all his prophets to have.

And I think you are trying to do that too. You just don't seem to have the same ideas that we have.

These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

2. They will become gods.

3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. (Gospel Principles, Ch. 47)

Let me know if I need to go over this too. I'm kinda hoping that you now see what we mean.

â??How many Gods perfected holy men there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods perfected holy men and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity.â? (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 333)

You seem to be getting stuck on the words "God" and "gods", which is why I suggest that you try to use some other words... like the names of the persons you're referring to or the qualites they each possess.

I'm kinda hoping my revisions will help at least a little bit.

â??Each God perfected holy man, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. As soon as each God perfected holy man has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God perfected holy man forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same. The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited.â? (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 37)

I used some other words in that quote you were using too.

It sounds like Pratt believes people have a beginning.

Nope. What makes you think he thought we ever had a beginning to our existence?

The essence of what we are is eternal. We are the children of God, and God is eternal.

Before you lightly toss off these quotes, please remember that these men are prophets - men who hear from God, just like you. And JS was a very special prophet, wasnâ??t he? If so, then we canâ??t take his words lightly.

I don't take any of their words lightly. I'm simply using other words to convey their ideas.

... and I am doing this with revelation from God.

You and I simply don't agree about what we, and they, were thinking.

Pratt would disagree with you - see above quote.

You simply don't understand what we're saying... or if you understand, you simply don't believe it.

Do you think matter is eternal?

I know it is.

Are you eternal?

Yes.

Even if there were an infinite number of â??god the fathersâ? there was a beginning. I worship The Beginning, The Creator.

There was no beginning to God. God is eternal, and separate persons are God.

God is a what. We are the who.

... it's just that all persons are not as perfect, nor as holy, as our eternal Father in heaven.

... but we can be, through the atonement of Jesus Christ... we now have the power through him.

...

I'll have to resume this, if I do, a little later. Try praying about what I have already told you.

It would be nice if you could at least undersstand what we're saying.

All the prophets of God are in agreement. You either just don't understand or don't believe what we are saying to you.

[TrashcanMan79]

I believe you can be one without admitting that you are one.

I don't know. . . Mustn't a Christian have some kind of witness of Christ?

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. It is nice to know that. I still consider you to be my brother.

Thank you. That's very kind.

Oh, I see. You're trying to reject your testimony.

I suppose that could be one way of putting it. (I thought One Nation Under Gods might help me along, but the Mormon apologetic propaganda that I read prior is proving too effective!)

[TrashcanMan79]

Doing my part to push this thread to page 40. Go go go!

I think Freedom in Truth, Paul Ray, and I can get it there on our own! But thanks for the support!

By the way, so that this post isn't entirely pointless, I don't believe that LDS or anyone else can articulate a clear and repeatable way to tell between "true" confirmation from God of knowledge by the Holy Ghost and simple emotion and enthusiasm, perhaps adrenaline-fueled "revelation" received by all these other folks around the world.

Amen.

[Paul Ray]

I don't know. . . Mustn't a Christian have some kind of witness of Christ?

Yes.

We all have "some kind of witness of Christ".

Some of us just don't know it, or admit that we know it.

[Paul Ray]

... I don't believe that LDS or anyone else can articulate a clear and repeatable way to tell between "true" confirmation from God of knowledge by the Holy Ghost and simple emotion and enthusiasm, perhaps adrenaline-fueled "revelation" received by all these other folks around the world.

I agree, in a sense.

We can't convey the power of the Holy Ghost because we are not the Holy Ghost.

... but I can tell the difference between the Holy Ghost and "simply emotion and enthusiasm, perhaps adrenaline-fueled "revelation" received by all these other folks around the world", OIOW, what other people tell me.

[Paul Ray]

...

continued from another post.

Was Jesus the only one there because he was the firstborn and everyone else wasnâ??t born yet?

The fact that Jesus was the firstborn of our Father doesn't necessarily mean he didn't exist before he was born or that he wasn't the essence of God before he was born. The children parents give birth to, even now as mortals, existed in some sense before birth. If God is eternal, and we are children of God, then the essence of us is eternal... and, personally, I know God is eternal and we are the children of God.

But . . . if you believe everyone is eternal (like Jesus) then wouldnâ??t you all have been around during earthâ??s creation?

Yes. And we also believe you were one of those who were among us.

It sounds like you are talking about Jesus here. I was talking about the god who began everything - the father of the father of the father . . . of your God the Father. This is the one I worship - The Beginning.

God has no beginning... whether you believe God is one person or 3 persons or many persons.

There was never a beginning to what is God, and God has always been more than only one person.

When the Bible says God is spirit I donâ??t think it means God is gas-like. I believe is a power, a energy, a Being like we canâ??t understand or imagine because we canâ??t contain the knowledge even if He told us.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want.

I believe the form and image of God consists of matter and we are in the form and image of God.

We can see part of His Radiance, His Glory - like seeing a lot of pure gold in the sun, you donâ??t see the gold but the radiance of the gold.

What you are seeing is a form of matter. Without matter there is nothing at all.

God is not gold though, and Heâ??s not human.

Who do you think came up with the word "human"? Who says "humans" are not children of God?

It is possible for a Being to exists that you canâ??t imagine or understand, right?

Maybe. I'm just saying that I can imagine and understand God at least a little bit.

But thatâ??s not what the references say - you have to add that in. And, read this plainly -

Isaiah 44:6-8 "This is what the LORD saysâ?? Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to comeâ?? yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

How would you ever be able to know if you were reading those words in the right context or not?

Do you recommend believing what other people tell you without asking for the guidance of our Father?

I could tell you how I interpret those words, but why should you believe me?

I recommend that you ask our Father for his guidance.

If you are a god like God, then God doesnâ??t know about you.

I don't claim to be perfected and perfectly holy like our Father is.

But I know I am his child and that I can be like him.

You believe the word God refers to 3 persons, don't you? What do you think he meant when he said that there was nobody else who was like him?

Does the BoM say you are a god?

Okay, since you keep wanting to use the phrase "a god" to refer to me, go ahead and tell me what you mean or have in mind when you use that phrase.

I've already told you what I think you mean when you say that, and what I mean when I say that.

If you are a god and always have been then why do you need help?

I'm not perfected yet. Duh.

I donâ??t think you are a very powerful god if you need help.

Yeah, well, what can I say. At least I know who is my Savior.

And, if you have always been a god then why didnâ??t you know it until someone told you?

I think I did. I think I just forgot to think of who I was.

Why didnâ??t God the Father tell you during the first 28 years of your life?

I think he did. I think there was just a lot of other people telling me what they thought.

... and for some reason I thought I should believe what they told me.

Are you saying He wouldn't tell you until you asked the right question?

No. I think he was just waiting for me to trust what he told me.

But God didnâ??t reveal it to you PERSONALLY. Why not?

I said he did.

He reveals everything personally to you now, but He wouldnâ??t back then.

He's revealing more to me now that I'm listening to him, but he has always tried to teach me about him.

You were in another church because you didnâ??t know any better (according to you) but you were calling out to God, right?

Yes.

But He wouldnâ??t tell you - some other person had to tell you?

I think it just took a while for me to be ready to listen to him about that thing.

... I had already accepted what he had told me about other things.

It doesnâ??t make sense, Paul.

I think he teaches us more when we are ready to learn more.

I don't think any of us (who we see on this planet) are ready for everything now.

Perhaps we should rename this thread to â??Paul Ray and Freedom in Truth Dialogue with TCM - Others Welcomeâ?

You can leave me out of it now. I think my work here, on this thread, is now finished.

It's been nice getting to know you, Freedom in Truth (and everyone else I have talked to).

Take care, and know that God is with us.

[TrashcanMan79]

You can leave me out of it now. I think my work here, on this thread, is now finished.

Me too, I think. We're just all over the place in this thread, and I'd rather narrow discussion to specific topics (like the Bible and occult spin-off threads I started).

See you there! (not here)

[Freedom in Truth]

TCM - Oh. When you asked if the BoM was necessary, I thought that maybe you had some criteria by which you judged scripture as necessary or not. Then I asked you about the Song of Solomon, Book of Ruth, Mark, and John's epistles to see if they were deemed necessary by your criteria. You'd rather not answer; that's okay. No biggie.

I didnâ??t address this right away because I sincerely wanted you to understand that the BoM should be able to stand on its own (as any book should). When someone throws me a Biblical challenge or criticizes the Bible would you care if I said â??Well, just look at the BoM - itâ??s SO much worse!â? Or â??Yeah, well thatâ??s nothing compared to the Koran!â? Isnâ??t that kind of ridiculous? Can the BoM stand or not? It was proclaimed to be the most correct book on earth written by a guy who was commissioned by God to set things right - to RESTORE the Gospel. JS made some unique claims - wouldnâ??t it be good to see if the BoM stands up to these claims instead of merely saying the Bible isnâ??t any better? The BoM was SUPPOSED to be better than the Bible, right? Therefore, it should show that it is. Every time a Mormon, in answer to a BoM challenge/critique, basically says to me â??Well, look at the Bible!â? I feel that they have just admitted that they know the BoM is NOT the most correct book on earth.

Look at this quote -

â??I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.â? (JS, BoM Intro.)

Look at what the quote is declaring. The BoM is the most correct book on earth, able to get one nearer to God than any other book, and the KEYSTONE of the Mormon religion.

Keystone - central supporting element of a whole

If the BoM is the KEYSTONE of the Mormon religion, then shouldnâ??t it have essential doctrines? Does it cover any of these doctrines?

God was once a man

Man can be a god

Exaltation - Eternal progression

The Aaronic Priesthood

Celestial marriage

Three degrees of glory

Baptism for the dead

Temple works (endowments, sealing, anointing, etc.)

If the BoM doesnâ??t cover these important doctrines, then why is it the KEYSTONE? How can it get man closer to God than any other book?

JS made claims about the BoM. The BoM should address these claims.

[Freedom in Truth]

TCM - Oh. When you asked if the BoM was necessary, I thought that maybe you had some criteria by which you judged scripture as necessary or not. Then I asked you about the Song of Solomon, Book of Ruth, Mark, and John's epistles to see if they were deemed necessary by your criteria. You'd rather not answer; that's okay. No biggie.

Iâ??m not sure you really want to know, but I will answer just in case you do. This is nice information, but it is irrelevant to the issue of the BoM for reasons I have already posted.

Song of Solomon - Even if one has no respect for the Bible one should recognize that this is quite a different book with a different perspective to offer. The Song of Solomon is a picture of Godâ??s love for His bride, the Church. The Church (those who love God) is pictured as a bride to communicate a deep, intense, intimate, and joyful love between God and His people.

Book of Ruth - Ruth is not an Israelite but a Moabite. She leaves her people and her land to stay with her mother-in-law Naomi. She desires to join the Israelite people. She gave up everything she once had (her people, her land, her customs) to follow Naomi and to be part of Godâ??s people.

Ruth 1:16-17 But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

Ruth also gives us Boaz, a picture of a kinsman-redeemer (symbolic of Christ) and Davidâ??s great-grandfather. Ruth is listed in Matthewâ??s genealogy.

Mark - I believe this was the earliest gospel written, so wouldnâ??t you be asking if the other gospels were necessary? Anyway, each gospel is a witness to Jesus and has a different viewpoint. I am sure that if we had other accounts of Jesusâ?? life that were considered authentic and credible we would include those as well.

1, 2, 3 John - These epistles give us a picture of early believers and their challenges (false teachers, persecutions, persevering in the faith, continuing to love another, etc.) If you believe that they were written by the apostle John or are his words, then they are precious in that they came from one who walked with Jesus on earth.

[Freedom in Truth]

I think there's a fine line between 'contradiction' and... and... whatever rationalizations people of faith use when confronted with contradictions (you know what I'm talking about here).

If new revelation somehow alters understanding or interpretations of previous revelation, do we have a contradiction? If so, then there's this book called the Bible which you may want to look a little closer at....

PROGRESSIVE REVELATION: Three Paradigm Shifts of Beliefs and Practices in the Bible: Satan, Ritual Animal Sacrifices, Holy Days

and

PROGRESSIVE REVELATION: Three More Paradigm Shifts of Beliefs & Practices Within the Bible: Transferability of sin, afterlife, status of women

Does the Bible contradict itself in these matters? Or is it just 'ongoing revelation'? Is it all in the eye of the beholder?

I donâ??t agree with the articles and I donâ??t respect the authorâ??s comprehension of the material, but I am not going to elaborate here because it seems we are all tiring of this thread. (Hopefully you know me well enough by now to know this isnâ??t a cop-out on my part.) I consider changing a word in a verse from â??whiteâ? to â??pureâ? to â??whiteâ? to â??pureâ? a different case (just one example). This is not on-going revelation, see-sawing back and forth between words, is it?

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth

Your church has changed on issues - blacks and the priesthood for one. I believe it is called ongoing revelation or something like that.

Paul - Yes.

1830 BoM (2 Nephi 30:6) â?¦ and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

1840 BoM The word â??whiteâ? was changed to â??pureâ?.

Later editions until 1981- The word â??pureâ? was changed back to â??whiteâ?.

1981 to current edition - The word â??whiteâ? was changed back to â??pureâ?.

Is this â??ongoing revelationâ? - changing a word back and forth? A word that was given to JS from God? Are Mormons doing scholarly research on the original language of the text and reconsidering the best word to use in translation? No - they donâ??t have the original language. And it doesnâ??t seem to be ongoing revelation to backtrack to a past word, does it?

Yes, what is most important to me is what God tells me, personally, but I wouldn't say that authorities (other than God) and scriptures don't matter. God has personally assured me that God has authorized certain people, so to me those persons are all God to me in those things in which they have God's authority. And the words that have been written by people who have God's authority are also as God's words to me, personally... at least insofar as they apply to me, personally.

God works through other people and inspires words to be written, so when God works through other people, they are God... at least to me.

The power of God is awesome.

Has God personally assured you that he authorized JS? JS says there are 3 gods (at least).

[Freedom in Truth]

Yeah, I've actually done a little reading up on it, and it does seem to be different from M.C. I think I may check it out after all.

Lewis wrote a lot more than apologetic works . . . The Great Divorce (not about marriage), The Chronicles of Narnia, The Space Trilogy . . .

[Paul Ray]

1830 BoM (2 Nephi 30:6) â?¦ and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

1840 BoM The word â??whiteâ? was changed to â??pureâ?.

Later editions until 1981- The word â??pureâ? was changed back to â??whiteâ?.

1981 to current edition - The word â??whiteâ? was changed back to â??pureâ?.

Is this â??ongoing revelationâ? - changing a word back and forth?

The ideas behind words are what is important.

The word "white" is often used as a symbol of purity, not only skin color. I think some words were revised to help prevent us from getting the wrong idea(s)... which is pretty much the reason I keep editing my posts.

The words we use to reveal what we think are not as important as the ideas behind them.

A word that was given to JS from God?

God generally gives us ideas and we then use words to correspond to those ideas.

The words Joseph used were the words that were common to him in his own language.

Do you think God speaks in KJV?

That is only a translation to try to give us the right ideas from the revelations of God.

God does sometimes give specific words, to some people, but generally we get only ideas.

Are Mormons doing scholarly research on the original language of the text and reconsidering the best word to use in translation? No - they donâ??t have the original language.

We don't get doctrine from God by studying words from scholars, or by studying books.

We get doctrine from God by personal revelation from God to us, personally.

The words I am using now are only symbols to try to give you the idea(s) that I have in my mind.

... and you don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

How can you expect to understand God when you can't even understand what I'm saying?

... or do you understand, and just ignore what I'm saying?

I really can't tell, at this point, and at this point I am really tired of trying to find out.

Has God personally assured you that he authorized JS?

Yes... and I've told you this several times before.

JS says there are 3 gods (at least).

I know that. And I say that too, personally, based on my personal revelations from God.

It might be more "technically" correct to say there are 3 persons who are God, but the idea is the same if you can understand the idea that I have... which is the same idea that Joseph Smith and all other prophets of God had when they were writing the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon... according to revelations from God to me, personally.

You can disagree if you want to, but I hope by now you understand the idea.

AND BTW, YOU ARE STILL STRAYING FROM THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.

If you want to keep talking about other issues, why don't you try posting on other threads?

Seriously.

What is it about this thread that makes you think this thread is to discuss any and all other topics?

Please address your questions in this thread to everyone in general.

I will no longer be responding to you about anything in this thread. I think 40 pages is long enough.

You can keep asking questions, but just know that I won't be answering you any more here.

[Freedom in Truth]

As opposed to all the original autographs of the Bible we have floating around available for close inspection?

O-K, Iâ??ll settle for a copy of the BoM hundreds of years old in its original language. It can have variants - thatâ??s O-K.

If you have trouble producing that, you can explain why the golden plates were not allowed to stay on earth. Did God need the plates with Him? Did God take original Biblical autographs too? Did God take any item other than the golden plates?

(Forgive me - I'm kind of working on replying to posts in reverse order.)

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ May 21 2007, 01:23 PM)

Are you saying that you personally donâ??t hold exaltation as Truth? (Iâ??m trying not to misunderstand you.)

TCM - Correct.

O-K, thanks.

Gosh, I link to things all the time! . . . . Are you talking about this one?

I think so - thanks.

[Freedom in Truth]

I'm actually trying to fully shake my testimony of the Book of Mormon so I can be a little more comfortable in my agnosticism, but some of those 'evidences' are so ingrained in my mind that it's taking some time! You'd think that my absolute dismissal of the Bible would include a whole sale rejection of the BoM (since the BoM presupposes the truthfullness of the Bible (muck ups, notwithstanding)), but it hasn't worked that way yet. It's complicated. But I put a book on hold at my library about the Spaulding Theory (as well as Dan Vogel's Smith bio), so I'm working on it!

It is very hard to shake that which we learned in childhood. It is hard to change our initial â??programmingâ? of our thoughts, even if they are totally illogical and wrong (not addressing the BoM). Think of how hard it is to shake illogical fears and harmful associations. If your father thought you were stupid you may still fight this at age 30 even though you have a doctorate degree. There is something about learning things when we are young - they have a sticking power. (Of course, this is not always bad.)

I believe our battles are predominately in our minds. One of the things God does when we open the door for Him and welcome Him into our lives is that He renews our minds. We also learn to recognize false thoughts and replace them with Truth.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5 â??The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.â?

Romans 12:2 â??Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will isâ??his good, pleasing and perfect will.â?

Colossians 3:9-10 â??Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. â??

Titus 3:5-6 â??he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,â?

Does Vogelâ??s bio include information on the possible psychological reasons why JS needed to be someone very grand? I have come across this now and then and it really interests me.

[Freedom in Truth]

Determining what is Mormon doctrine will depend upon the Mormon with whom you are speaking, this is true. But this has been my experience in speaking with Christians in general. This one believes in original sin, that one doesn't. This one believes in the absolute inerrancy of scripture, that one doesn't. This one believes in speaking in tongues, that one doesn't. This one believes in Calvinism, that one Arianism. This one believes in an Ontological Trinity, that one a Social. They all derive their beliefs from the Bible (so they will claim), yet they vary immensely.

And so it is with Mormons, although there is a bigger source pool.

I don't believe you could take all the (non-Mormon) Christians and get them to agree on what exactly constitutes correct Christian belief in every matter of doctrine, and I don't think you could get all Mormons to do likewise.

I think Christianity at large could be represented by the proverbial Jello.

I bet you could get all the traditional Christians to agree on who God is, who we are (including not being gods), that we sin and need a Redeemer, and that Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from our sins. And I bet all Mormons would agree on certain key doctrines as well. I think you miss the big picture because you get lost in non-critical details. I think you do this on purpose (though maybe subconsciously). In this way you avoid ever making a decision, a commitment. You would rather point out flaws than take a stand.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

I don't believe that LDS or anyone else can articulate a clear and repeatable way to tell between "true" confirmation from God of knowledge by the Holy Ghost and simple emotion and enthusiasm, perhaps adrenaline-fueled "revelation" received by all these other folks around the world.

I think this is a good point. Trying to describe a "true" confirmation is probably the equivalent of trying to tell someone what an almond tastes like.

[Freedom in Truth]

You do realize that TrashcanMan79 isn't a member of our (LDS) church, don't you FIT.

I don't believe he ever has been.

And I don't even think he is a Christian... or at least not someone who professes to be one.

And btw, the ideas behind exaltation can be supported with the Holy Bible.

... it's not just a teaching in the Book of Mormon or only members of our Church.

Our exaltation was and is basically the purpose of the atonement of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

He certainly didn't come here to save himself.

Exaltation can only be supported with the Bible with your particular interpretations from JS and other Mormons. It certainly isnâ??t CLEAR, for Israel (the Jews) didnâ??t (and donâ??t) believe it, and you didnâ??t know about it even though you read your Bible for 28 years. All those people reading the Bible for centuries (including YOU) and no one saw exaltation in its pages. Doesnâ??t that make you wonder?

No, Jesus didnâ??t come to save Himself - He came to save YOU. But if youâ??re his brother and you have the same Father, then why did you need saving when Jesus didnâ??t?

I haven't been excommunicated nor have I asked my name to be removed from the records, so, I guess, at least in a technical sense, I am a member of the Church. But it's true that I am skeptical of many of the Church's claims (as well as the claims of Christianity, in general).

Correct.

He told me he was a Jack Mormon (some months ago), so yes, I knew the above.

[Doctor Steuss]

Exaltation can only be supported with the Bible with your particular interpretations from JS and other Mormons. It certainly isnâ??t CLEAR, for Israel (the Jews) didnâ??t (and donâ??t) believe it, and you didnâ??t know about it even though you read your Bible for 28 years. All those people reading the Bible for centuries (including YOU) and no one saw exaltation in its pages. Doesnâ??t that make you wonder?

[...]

According to Tvedtnes (although he is LDS)

Though relatively unknown to most of western Christianity it is widely believed in some of the eastern churches. It was a prominent doctrine in Christianity of the second through the fifth centuries. Among the early Church Fathers who taught that men were destined to become gods were Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Heraclitus, Cyprian of Carthage, Novation, Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, the Persian Aphrahat of Syria and a number of Christian pseudepigrapha. Indeed, the rather large corpus of early Christian literature on the subject is too voluminous to discuss here, but I would refer you to the growing volume of Latter-day Saint studies of the topic.

The footnote has this:

See the following: Philip L. Barlow, "Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History." Sunstone 8 (September-October 1983): 13-18; Ernst W. Benz, "Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen, Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 201-219; K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992); Michael T. Griffith, "Godhood: Man's Divine Potential," chapter 14 in Griffith, One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Ealy Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon, 1996), 80-87; Keith E. Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone 1 (winter 1975): 15-19; Keith E. Norman, Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000); Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992); Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, eds., The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson (Provo Utah: FARMS, 2000); Margaret McConkie Pope, "Exaltation," in Daniel H. Ludlow, gen. ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992); D. Charles Pyle, "'I Have Said, 'Ye are Gods:' Conceptions Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text," in Proceedings of the First Annual Mormon Apologetics Symposium (Ben Lomond, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 2000), 137-155; Jordan Vajda, "Partakers of the Divine Nature" A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization, FARMS Occasional Papers 3 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002).

[Doctor Steuss]

More on the doctrine that requires "interpretations from JS and other Mormons"...

http://pronaos.byu.edu/ATS/Theosis/TheosisBibshort.pdf

Edit: Although, I acknowledge that the LDS probably take it a bit further than others.

[Paul Ray]

I think this is a good point. Trying to describe a "true" confirmation is probably the equivalent of trying to tell someone what an almond tastes like.

I think it gets even better.

Trying to describe a "true" confirmation is like trying to give a "true" confirmation.

How can someone describe that confirmation without conveying that confirmation to someone?

The only way I know what a revelation from God is like is to receive one from God, personally.

I like a scene from "City of Angels" on this issue, too.

I don't know what a pear tastes like to you. Can you describe it to me?

The only way I know what a pear is like like is to receive one, personally.

[TrashcanMan79]

I think you miss the big picture because you get lost in non-critical details. I think you do this on purpose (though maybe subconsciously). In this way you avoid ever making a decision, a commitment. You would rather point out flaws than take a stand.

*sigh*

Please don't psychoanalyze me. And please start a new thread to continue any of the topics we've been discussing here. (I like posting with you, but I prefer to do it in a more focused manner!)

I've read your posts to me, but I won't respond until/unless you bring it up in a new thread (my mind is on the verge of exploding in trying to follow all these threads within a thread!)

Oh, but I will acknowledge that I definitely don't think you're 'copping-out' on the progressive revelation in the Bible thing! This thread is a testament to the fact that you will see a discussion to its end!

On that note, this is my (second to) last post for this thread! In the words of Bill O'Reilly, I'll give you the last word.

[Paul Ray]

On that note, this is my last post for this thread! In the words of Bill O'Reilly, I'll give you the last word.

On that note, me too.

So if this thread is going to make it to 800 posts, it would seem that it will now have to happen without any more of our help.

[consiglieri]

I think this is a good point. Trying to describe a "true" confirmation is probably the equivalent of trying to tell someone what an almond tastes like.

Like an almond joy bar without the bar.

See how simple that was?

Let's see if I can make it to 800 all on my lonesome.

I expect some sort of prize for this, you know.

Dang it, that didn't work.

Let's try going back to the welcome and come on in section, and then reposting.

Okay, let's try logging out, then logging in and reposting.

More on the doctrine that requires "interpretations from JS and other Mormons"...

http://pronaos.byu.edu/ATS/Theosis/TheosisBibshort.pdf

Edit: Although, I acknowledge that the LDS probably take it a bit further than others.

Perhaps quoting some squib and reposting will do the trick.

Okay, let's try signing off, turning the computer off, pulling the plug, doing the watoosie on the hard drive, plugging the computer back in, turning the computer back on, signing back in, and reposting.

Well, you have no idea how frustrating an experience this has been.

All the Best to whoever gets to be lucky 800.

--Consiglieri

[TrashcanMan79]

All the Best to whoever gets to be lucky 800.

--Consiglieri

Thanks!