marysson Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 i know about the absence of blood. but still pushing at the core...why...i would like to accept the lds church but i find so many, well, "outer space" or western occult tradition ideas here and there in the history and literature or popular discussion. i would like to see that the basic canonized scripture ( without having to spend fourmonths reading every word ) of the bible, bom, d&c and pogp, were actually devoid of the ( shall i say "fringy" ideas about god being once a man like us and sleeping with mary, and living on kolob..you know the drift here ). i would like to see that the basic scripture was "normal" although i understand not nicene is viewpoint and such.get what i am getting at without me having to type away all night ?
Tarski Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 i know about the absence of blood. but still pushing at the core...why...i would like to accept the lds church but i find so many, well, "outer space" or western occult tradition ideas here and there in the history and literature or popular discussion. i would like to see that the basic canonized scripture ( without having to spend fourmonths reading every word ) of the bible, bom, d&c and pogp, were actually devoid of the ( shall i say "fringy" ideas about god being once a man like us and sleeping with mary, and living on kolob..you know the drift here ). i would like to see that the basic scripture was "normal" although i understand not nicene is viewpoint and such.get what i am getting at without me having to type away all night ?The fringy stuff is a reality about Mormonism--Kolob and all.
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Ether 3:Exodus 33: Acts 7: Where does the Bible show that God is some amorphous being without body, parts or passions?Me thinks you take much liberty in interpretting the Biblical text. Regards,Sentinus
Notquitewetyet Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 But he seems to have, in form at least, the same hair, bones, teeth, fingernails, tongue, saliva, legs, spine, and other organic forms we share with our mammal cousins and that we know to be the result of a convoluted, brutal, and animalistic evolutionary process. As soon as the genetic technology allows us to splice language genes into some other species, it won't be long until they will inform us that God looks like them and not us (we will be the ugly animals). LOLSo what does your god look like? Fashioned in the shape of your own intelligence? Plus, there's nothing wrong with animals saying there are gods over them that look like them, because there are. We believe all animals will be exalted, and how do you think animals, being exalted, get their spirits, but exalted parents over them and under the dominion of the Gods (who once were as we are now) who have dominion?
urroner Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 i know about the absence of blood. but still pushing at the core...why...i would like to accept the lds church but i find so many, well, "outer space" or western occult tradition ideas here and there in the history and literature or popular discussion. i would like to see that the basic canonized scripture ( without having to spend fourmonths reading every word ) of the bible, bom, d&c and pogp, were actually devoid of the ( shall i say "fringy" ideas about god being once a man like us and sleeping with mary, and living on kolob..you know the drift here ). i would like to see that the basic scripture was "normal" although i understand not nicene is viewpoint and such.get what i am getting at without me having to type away all night ?So you want the truth and you want it now and you want to put little effort into getting it, studying it, and pondering it. I wish I could do that.
Notquitewetyet Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 i know about the absence of blood. but still pushing at the core...why...i would like to accept the lds church but i find so many, well, "outer space" or western occult tradition ideas here and there in the history and literature or popular discussion. i would like to see that the basic canonized scripture ( without having to spend fourmonths reading every word ) of the bible, bom, d&c and pogp, were actually devoid of the ( shall i say "fringy" ideas about god being once a man like us and sleeping with mary, and living on kolob..you know the drift here ). i would like to see that the basic scripture was "normal" although i understand not nicene is viewpoint and such.get what i am getting at without me having to type away all night ?Because they are TRUE, and Mormonism accepts all TRUTH. Jesus Christ taught some hard sayings (John 6:60) that would have, and did, strike the Jews as pagan. John 10:24-39Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
marysson Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 i surmise ( but have no way of knowing actually ) that god is light and love and maybe some other qualities i know nothing about. i get the light and love from the bible.it is enough for me. i find it disturbing that god is a man. harold pinter, the playwright, once wrote a play about a ship at sea and one of the crewman announced he was god and after a few days got everyone to accept it but then he had to use the toilet and the whole thing broke down. a pinter metaphor about religious revelation and group belief and how it can be persuasive for a time but when grounded to closely to humanity ( god on kolob ) it destructs. why cannot lds be satisfied with god aslove and light if the four basic scriptures do not demand more and put aside the book of abraham and a sermon by a 3rd generation prophet or a church history chapter written one late night in nauvoo. these are not canon are they so why should the canon be so disturbed by these non-canonical musings or is EVERYTHING EVER SAID by js the holy spoken word of god forever and ever ?
Notquitewetyet Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 i surmise ( but have no way of knowing actually ) that god is light and love and maybe some other qualities i know nothing about. i get the light and love from the bible.it is enough for me. i find it disturbing that god is a man. harold pinter, the playwright, once wrote a play about a ship at sea and one of the crewman announced he was god and after a few days got everyone to accept it but then he had to use the toilet and the whole thing broke down. a pinter metaphor about religious revelation and group belief and how it can be persuasive for a time but when grounded to closely to humanity ( god on kolob ) it destructs. why cannot lds be satisfied with god aslove and light if the four basic scriptures do not demand more and put aside the book of abraham and a sermon by a 3rd generation prophet or a church history chapter written one late night in nauvoo. these are not canon are they so why should the canon be so disturbed by these non-canonical musings or is EVERYTHING EVER SAID by js the holy spoken word of god forever and ever ?If the endowments and especially D&C 132 are true, then God as a man is fundamental to true religion
urroner Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Suppose you were an atheist and you had never heard about God or the Bible. You see the world only through science and things you can experience through your senses. One day, a Christian happens upon you and tells you a story about dead men coming back to life, angels floating around the heavens, a creation period of six days, a global flood, Adam and Eve, a man calling fire from Heaven, and other interesting stuff. Would you consider these things to be fringe things?
marysson Posted January 20, 2009 Author Posted January 20, 2009 yup yup i get your point but ...but i think the old testament and parts of the new are just stories, metaphors, rumors and teaching devices... i don't accept the whole holy bible as literal fact....and i don't want to accept the lds canon that way either...
urroner Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 i get the light and love from the bible. it is enough for me.Dear God, I have enough of your gifts and truths. I know You have more for me, but enough is enough Lord. I know that You really might want to give me more, but Lord, I hope You understand, I don't want You to give me any more. I'm in my comfort zone and I'm happy here.
BCSpace Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 i surmise ( but have no way of knowing actually ) that god is light and love and maybe some other qualities i know nothing about. i get the light and love from the bible.it is enough for me. i find it disturbing that god is a man.Well yes. The early christian Fathers abandoned the Biblical notion of an anthropomorphic God not because of any scripture or revelation, but because they admired the philosophers.harold pinter, the playwright, once wrote a play about a ship at sea and one of the crewman announced he was god and after a few days got everyone to accept it but then he had to use the toilet and the whole thing broke down. a pinter metaphor about religious revelation and group belief and how it can be persuasive for a time but when grounded to closely to humanity ( god on kolob ) it destructs.And what is Harold Pinter? A man? why cannot lds be satisfied with god aslove and lightIt is not a matter of being satisifed. It is a matter of reality. If you don't understand the nature of God, then you cannot have eternal life (John 17:3).if the four basic scriptures do not demand moreBible does not teach in any way shape or form (pun intended) a triune God or the trinity heresy.and put aside the book of abraham and a sermon by a 3rd generation prophet or a church history chapter written one late night in nauvoo.Why put aside, as you say, scripture and a prophet of God?these are not canon are they so why should the canon be so disturbed by these non-canonical musings or is EVERYTHING EVER SAID by js the holy spoken word of god forever and ever ?How are they not canon? If you accept only the Bible, why don't you accept what it says about God?
torquate Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 hello: a serious question. where in the bom, d&c or pogp does it clearly state that god is a man ?JSH 1:17 (Pearl of Great Price)It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!Doctrine and Covenants 130:22The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.So, the Father is a personage and he has a body of flesh and bones.Next question?
urroner Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 yup yup i get your point but ...but i think the old testament and parts of the new are just stories, metaphors, rumors and teaching devices... i don't accept the whole holy bible as literal fact....and i don't want to accept the lds canon that way either...Do you accept that a dead man can come back to life? A man walking on water, calming storms, creating food to feed thousands of people from some fish and a few loaves of bread? Sounds pretty fringe to me if I were an atheist.
annewandering Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 We say God was like we are but is now perfect. Other Christian religions say God is three people in one, He is His own Father and Son plus some other guy, ghostly amorphous kind of person without passion or parts, etc. and we are the fringy kinda people?
Notquitewetyet Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 We say God was like we are but is now perfect. Other Christian religions say God is three people in one, He is His own Father and Son plus some other guy, ghostly amorphous kind of person without passion or parts, etc. and we are the fringy kinda people?Yeah, this always gets me, as an ex-Trinitarian. As I said in another post:One word: exposure. The basic story of Christianity and Jesus, plus the violence of Peter and his denials and ad hoc-ness of the empty tomb, plus all the Gospels contradicting themselves, would make someone unaware of Christianity, and its massive following, find it very hard to swallow. If Mormonism is like all religions naturalistic, give us 2000 years and the majority of people will read the King Follett discourse with the same reverence as the Sermon on the Mount.
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Yeah, this always gets me, as an ex-Trinitarian. As I said in another post:as an ex-Trinitarian.Apostate!!! Humorously intended.Sentinus
Notquitewetyet Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Apostate!!! Humorously intended.SentinusThat has to be the best smiley on this board.
erichard Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 uhmm ! i am asking where in the basic scripture ( again, the bom, d&c and pogp ) where it is stated that god IS a man and lives on his own little planet. ...Hi Marysson,In my understanding of the Mormon faith, God is NOT a man. Would one say that an embryo is the same as a 70 year old man? Or that an acorn is the same as a 50 year old oak tree?why do i keep asking for a reference to these basic scriptiures ?. i do this because when i read lds forums and anti-forums i keep seeing points made about things said or written at one time or another that are held up as some personal idea of a leader or prophet or a speculation when discussing something, etc. and that such disputed or "odd" or older ideas are not canon of the church. ...Here are links to Mormon scriptures on:exaltationMan, Potential to Become like Heavenly FatherStuff on Kolob if that is importantYour quip about God putting on trousers was definately cute.Richard
Deborah Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Me thinks you take much liberty in interpretting the Biblical text. There's nothing to interpret. It says what it says as plainly as can be. God has a face, God has a body and God has body parts. to deny this is take liberty in interpretation.
Avatar4321 Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 hello: a serious question. where in the bom, d&c or pogp does it clearly state that god is a man ?1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1,14)Is that enough? or do you want more?
Sentinus Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 There's nothing to interpret. It says what it says as plainly as can be. God has a face, God has a body and God has body parts. to deny this is take liberty in interpretation.I disagree, and since you are not here to debate or discuss (At least with me) I wont go into much further detail regarding context and literal vs metaphorical interpretation. First thing you may want to consider is that Exodus was written by Jews not LDS, their understanding of the OT really is all that matters regarding what the intent is. God is incorporeal.In Judaism, God has no body, God is non-physical. Any mention of God's body is considered to be metaphorical. Any physical representation of God, such as the Golden Calf, is considered to be idolatry. As God has no body, He has no gender. While God is referred to in masculine terms and the Shechinah (Divine presence that fills the universe) is referred to in feminine terms, God is actually neither male nor female (From Rambams 13 principles of Jewish faith)You have a great evening Deb. Kindest regards,Sentinus
urroner Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I disagree, and since you are not here to debate or discuss (At least with me) I wont go into much further detail regarding context and literal vs metaphorical interpretation. First thing you may want to consider is that Exodus was written by Jews not LDS, their understanding of the OT really is all that matters regarding what the intent is. God is incorporeal.In Judaism, God has no body, God is non-physical. Any mention of God's body is considered to be metaphorical. Any physical representation of God, such as the Golden Calf, is considered to be idolatry. As God has no body, He has no gender. While God is referred to in masculine terms and the Shechinah (Divine presence that fills the universe) is referred to in feminine terms, God is actually neither male nor female (From Rambams 13 principles of Jewish faith)You have a great evening Deb. Kindest regards,SentinusPre-Exilic Jews believe in a corporal God.
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 On the matter of God being of the species Homo sapiens, a modern LDS apostle, Boyd K Packer, published this statement in the official church magazine (Ensign 1984):There is a difference between a statement and asking a question. Here he is asking a question.
Notquitewetyet Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 I disagree, and since you are not here to debate or discuss (At least with me) I wont go into much further detail regarding context and literal vs metaphorical interpretation. First thing you may want to consider is that Exodus was written by Jews not LDS, their understanding of the OT really is all that matters regarding what the intent is. God is incorporeal.In Judaism, God has no body, God is non-physical. Any mention of God's body is considered to be metaphorical. Any physical representation of God, such as the Golden Calf, is considered to be idolatry. As God has no body, He has no gender. While God is referred to in masculine terms and the Shechinah (Divine presence that fills the universe) is referred to in feminine terms, God is actually neither male nor female (From Rambams 13 principles of Jewish faith)You have a great evening Deb. Kindest regards,SentinusWhen did Maimonides (Rambam) live, and among what pure monotheistic culture did he live his life?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.