Are We The Offspring Of God

[Paul Ray]

It would not. "Having" and "having access to" are two different things.

I'll suppose that means you believe a person can have the keys to everything without actually having everything, and I can see how you could think that, but I would still say that such a person actually has everything if he/she has the way to get it and rightfully claim it as his or her own.

I have a hundred dollars in my wallet. It is mine.

I agree, and just in case you may not see this, I will say that it is also God's too. God has it all.

Through my work, I have access to several thousand more, but it is not mine.

Well, if you're a banker and you have the keys to the vault, right, that's not your money.

But if you own the bank, or are partners with the owners of the bank, that money is yours, unless you are just holding it for someone else.

I believe God is the owner of everything, and by being joint-partners with him, we have it all to the extent that we can rightfully claim what God has as our own.

We as a Church have access to all good things. That doesn't mean they are necessarily ours.

I say they are ours, as long as we don't do something to limit our access to all good things like limiting our relationship with God.

It would not- for the same reason above.

It's nice to know how you think, but I do not think we agree on all things.

You DID say that. I quoted you.

Quote me again to show me where I said what you think I said.

I don't see where I said what you say that I said.

Considering your willingness to accuse Mopologists of being anti-Mormons, your list of allies grows thin.

Are you saying that I should no longer consider you to be my friend?

I've said that I consider anyone to be anti-Mormon to the extent they don't agree with all things that are "Mormonism", and I still stand by that statement.

It's not me who determines how much someone disagrees with Mormonism, though.

You or anyone else can be 100% in agreement with Mormonism and I won't have any complaints about that at all.

I would be happy to admit that someone agrees 100% with Mormonism, without disagreeing with Mormonism in any way whatsoever, just as soon as I can see someone who is like that.

There is one person I know who is like that, or 3, if you count them separately, but I think the rest of us still have a long way to go, and I will continue to try to be a true friend to everyone.

[selek]

Are you saying that I should no longer consider you to be my friend?

No- I have many friends with whom I vehemently disagree, and several whom I consider to be off the reservation, round the corner and half-way to the next glade.

I am saying that I find your stances to be increasing eccentric and arbitrary, and find it increasingly difficult to support your arguments on many issues.

[Paul Ray]

No- I have many friends with whom I vehemently disagree, and several whom I consider to be off the reservation, round the corner and half-way to the next glade.

You sound like me, then, in that sense. I don't require someone to agree with me before I consider him/her to be my true friend.

I am saying that I find your stances to be increasing eccentric and arbitrary, and find it increasingly difficult to support your arguments on many issues.

Don't worry about agreeing with me on everything. I've rarely seen that happen.

... and, in fact, now that I think about it some more, I've never seen that happen.

I'm just doing my best to agree with God, and the rest of you guys can do whatever you want.

[johnny]

MormonMason,

The Acts 17:28-29 verses use Greek words that are clear about the offspring meaning descendents. A literal reading requires it and is more conducive to LDS thought on the matter.

Men are descendents, Adam was the Son of God. God was Adam's Father, God created Adam. I would disagree it is more conductive to Mormon thought because there is no mention of a heavenly mother.

There are others used in this manner, such as Ecclesiastes 12:7. Notice the word "return" in reference to the spirit of man at death. Something can only return to a previous state if it had been there before.

Ecc 12:7 does not state "spirit of man", it simply states "spirit". God gives man the "spirit of God", the "spirit of man" is formed within the body (Zech 12:1). The "spirit of God" gives life to the soul that God has made (Isa 57:16) and the "spirit of God" returns.

Also, consider Wisdom in the presence of God in the beginning, and Wisdom's delighting in the sons of men. Wisdom could only delight in the sons of men if they were present at that time. (Proverbs 8:22-31). Notice very carefully the timeline in this passage just mentioned and where it occurs. I warn you now: Some English translations weaken the meaning of some of the verses there.

The Son is the wisdom of God (1Cor 1:24), the Son was in the beginning with God (John 1:1).

There is the episode of the man born blind, which shows the beliefs of Jesus' disciples. Note carefully that Jesus only corrects their understanding of why the man was born blind. He does not tell them that no man pre-existed his body, which he surely could have done at that time, but didn't. See John 9:1-3. The implication of the disciples' question is that there was a possibility that a man could be born blind as a result of some kind of sin in a previous existence. This is consonant with the Jewish belief cited above.

Jesus gave them the understanding that the blind man did not sin before he was born. Jesus' answer does not support the Mormon teaching that man lived as spirit children with heavenly parents.

There are others and Jeremiah 1:5-6, which you sited above, is a very good one particularly because of the Hebrew words used there in the way they are used

.

Jeremiah 1:5-6 does not support the Mormon teaching of pre-existence. Prophets did not prepare themselves to become leaders on earth while they were still spirits in heaven like the Mormon church teaches. Before John the Baptist was formed in his motherâ??s belly, God knew John the Baptist would be great before he came out of the womb, John the Baptist was sanctified and ordained to be a prophet, he was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).

This is no mere foreknowledge. Hebrew יָדַע (yādă') indicates a range of knowledge and perceptions acquired by the senses (touch, sight, smell, taste, hearing). Thus, Jeremiah must have been present for the Lord to know him before he was born, if we want to take the meaning of the passage literally as LDS and as Jews also take, as well as some early Christians such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who held the view that John the Baptist and others existed before they were born here on earth the same way that Jesus was.

Jeremiah was not present before he was born, God "knew" Jeremiah before he formed him in the belly (Jer 1:5). God has foreknowledge (1Pet 1:2). Early Christians like Origen wrote "That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed". If Origen wrote that "nothing existed", how could John the Baptist pre-exist?

- Jer.1 ([5] Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

We also have latter-day revelation to further substantiate the doctrine, which most of us LDS take quite seriously.

The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scripture in addition to apostolic tradition and divine revelation to substantiate its doctrines.

[Zakuska]

Check the verbs Johhny... Origen is not using "null" and "void" the same way you are.