Jump to content

2 Ev Apologists Discussing What Constitutes "official" Lds Doctrine


cksalmon

Recommended Posts

We LDS accept it as "true", just not doctrine. It's the world that is not ready for it, not us.

Plus, all it states is that the "Father was once a man LIKE Christ".

While, not true to most other Christians, it at least isn't saying what their bearing false witness claims state, that is that the Father was "simply once a man".

I'm not reading the passage that way. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..."

It seems as if Joseph Smith was saying precisely that God was "simply once a man." Joseph Smith announced to his hearers that God was once "as we are now." Assuming his hearers were merely humans (which I take to be a safe assumption), I don't know how else to read this particular statement other than as espousing the claim that you suggest is false.

Best.

CKS

post-3151-1196975974_thumb.jpg

Link to comment

Thanks for hooking this up.

Mr. Owen,

If you by chance read this, I apologize for the confusion and appreciate your taking the time to correct my misinformation.

Humble regards,

Stuart

My thanks, too. Please convey to him that I'm sorry for listening to the Doc. :P

CKS

Link to comment

I'm not reading the passage that way. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..."

It seems as if Joseph Smith was saying precisely that God was "simply once a man." Joseph Smith announced to his hearers that God was once "as we are now." Assuming his hearers were merely humans (which I take to be a safe assumption), I don't know how else to read this particular statement other than as espousing the claim that you suggest is false.

Best.

CKS

I suppose you don't know the scripture Joseph used in connection with his teachings on the subject, then?

Link to comment
We LDS accept it as "true", just not doctrine. It's the world that is not ready for it, not us.
Plus, all it states is that the "Father was once a man LIKE Christ".

While, not true to most other Christians, it at least isn't saying what their bearing false witness claims state, that is that the Father was "simply once a man".

I'm not reading the passage that way. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..."

You are reading it correctly. Pahoran is currently not able to advance this discussion by providing official LDS references to support his claim against the LDS Church's long standing claim about it's own doctrine.

It seems as if Joseph Smith was saying precisely that God was "simply once a man." Joseph Smith announced to his hearers that God was once "as we are now." Assuming his hearers were merely humans (which I take to be a safe assumption), I don't know how else to read this particular statement other than as espousing the claim that you suggest is false.

Semantics. While John 5:19 is a good reference to indicate that if the Son came to an earth and got a physical body then so did the Father, there is no real reason to believe that the Father also was a Savior/Messiah on another world other than speculation. Therefore, we can also speculate that the Father was simply just a mortal man like we are today. After all, the Biblical doctrine of the Deification of mortal men (and women) like us is the only Biblical description of how Gods are made.

Hence, your assumption is very safe.

I have a message from Paul Owen.....
Thanks for hooking this up.

Mr. Owen,

If you by chance read this, I apologize for the confusion and appreciate your taking the time to correct my misinformation.

Humble regards,

Stuart

My thanks, too. Please convey to him that I'm sorry for listening to the Doc.

CKS

You're both welcome! I'm finding Paul to be an interesting fellow.

Link to comment

Paul makes the following comment, regarding whether the Priesthood manual defines official doctrine:

"I agree that anything in the Priesthood manual can be considered doctrinally sound, that is, not in disharmony with the official doctrines of the Church, but as I have repeated many times here, that does not mean that everything in it, or any other Church publication, counts as official doctrine. There is a difference between what Mormons commonly do believe, and what Mormons officially must believe. The amount of doctrine in the latter category is much smaller."

Any comments on the idea on what I must believe vs what I can believe.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...