Joseph Antley Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 My point is that Droppy believes that Gods were coequal and I didn't see anybody refuting him the way you were refuting me. So if you believe as Droppy does then you have to take a second look at the creation account. If you don't then you have to believe that God is not all knowing and is forever learning, so that is why I asked the question.As already stated, Droopy was expressing his valid opinion about the state of exalted gods, which has absolutely no bearing on our conversation.And when I said that the creation account was done co-equally by the gods, and not in power in authority it has to be taken in the Context of Elohim being the "head God" as I related, don't take my posting out of context.I don't see what difference that context makes.So, according to LDS theology, how does one become a god without being exalted...cfrThere are many definitions of the word "god", which is for another thread.Jesus was the God of the OT, he helped created the world, was he any less of a God at the creation...cfrJesus was a God by divine investiture. He was not an exalted being as he did not have a physical body.If you need references, I will provide them later when I have time. Since this is well-known doctrine (it seems silly that you're even asking for references), perhaps someone else could provide them in the meantime.
Joseph Antley Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I can see now why the red herring is one of the most successful debate tactics.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 28, 2009 Author Posted July 28, 2009 Hi Mola,Droppy wrote the following on another thread:If this is true of LDS thought, which I agree it is, then my saying these gods are co-equal in the creation is just as valid as Droppy's statement that all Gods are co-equal in power with their respective God. You can talk to me or about me in the third person, all you like but it shows a real weakness in your position.Do you believe that once one becomes a God they are equal with all other Gods in power, wisdom and knowledge, or are they lesser gods in these attributes?MarkJohn 1:12NO, it is not, for obvious reasons. If you would like we can get him invovled to defened and expand on his position. I am sure is is quite capable of explaining things.Yes, talking about some one in a 3rd person definitely shows weakness.Hahahah that is classic, you just can't make this stuff up.
Markk Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Hi MolaNO, it is not, for obvious reasons.Then you would hold to Young's view that God is not all knowing and forever progressing so in that case the lesser gods will always be behind their personal god. Along that line, this view would also hold that Elohim had a god above him, and so on and so on, so could one or more of these gods been in on the creation, at least as a observer?Take careMark
Markk Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Hi Joesph,As already stated, Droopy was expressing his valid opinion about the state of exalted gods, which has absolutely no bearing on our conversation.It has a very "valid" part of this conversation, it is a view held by many LDS and it supports my position and contradicts your position.I don't see what difference that context makes.Then, right or wrong, you do not understand my position.There are many definitions of the word "god", which is for another thread.Are you saying that the Gods of Abraham 3,4,&5 are not really Gods, please explain...cfrJesus was a God by divine investiture. He was not an exalted being as he did not have a physical body.If you need references, I will provide them later when I have time. Since this is well-known doctrine (it seems silly that you're even asking for references), perhaps someone else could provide them in the meantime.According to LDS thought Jesus was the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the very God that of the OT, so are you saying a "spirit" God is less that one with a exalted body?Take careMarkJohn 1;12
Joseph Antley Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 According to LDS thought Jesus was the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the very God that of the OT, so are you saying a "spirit" God is less that one with a exalted body?This thread is becoming tedious. Your comments, particularly this one, suggest at least an unfamiliarity with LDS doctrine, and I don't have the patience to explain Latter-day Saint theology to you while at the same time you think you can tell me what LDS believe.
Garden Girl Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 I believe we do not (none of us) have a full, accurate knowledge of the details of the creation...D&C 101:32-34..."Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things --Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof --Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven."I for one look forward to that day when we will all know the full details rather than just our own interpretations of the scriptures. While we can glean a sense of the creative process, there's much more to be revealed to us all...Garden Girl
ERayR Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Peace,CeebooOh this is another of those times when Markk takes a small snippet of LDS thought, adds a whole bunch of Markk twisted fuzzy thinking and tries to pass it off as Mormon doctrine. As you can see when this happens Markk simply tells the LDS posters what the LDS church believes as LDS posters are too ignorant to know what the church doctrine "really" is. No amount of protestation or correction can persuade Markk because he has spoken LDS doctrine and the poor benighted souls he has come to enlighten don't have a clue.That about sums up Mark and his approach to all things LDS.
Markk Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 This thread is becoming tedious. Your comments, particularly this one, suggest at least an unfamiliarity with LDS doctrine, and I don't have the patience to explain Latter-day Saint theology to you while at the same time you think you can tell me what LDS believe.Are you saying that according to LDS theology Jesus (Jehovah) was not the God of he OT?That is 101 Joesph. I am not telling you what you believe, only basic LDS thought:God of the OT Furthermore, Jesus is to be understood as the God of the Old Testament, distinct from Heavenly Father. The First Presidency of the LDS church states that "He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament." [2] The Encyclopedia of Mormonism affirms that "He was the Almighty God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God-Lawgiver on Sinai, the Holy One of Israel." [3] Mormonism thus believes that the actions of God in the OT are to be seen as the actions of the premortal Jesus, the Son, prior to his incarnation. Therefore, if Jesus is to be understood as "Jehovah", Mormonism also teaches that Heavenly Father is to be understood as "Elohim". What was at odds with first-century Judaic thinking was that God had a Son, BYU professor Roger Keller notes that "the unique Christian surprise is not that Jehovah has a son who is Jesus but rather that Jesus who is Jehovah has a Father," (Jesus Christ: Son of God, Savior, p. 121). In sum, LDS teachings claim that Jews were shocked to recognize that Jesus had a Father rather than recognizing that God had a Son. MarkJohn 1:12
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 29, 2009 Author Posted July 29, 2009 Are you saying that according to LDS theology Jesus (Jehovah) was not the God of he OT?MarkJohn 1:12Nope.
Joseph Antley Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Are you saying that according to LDS theology Jesus (Jehovah) was not the God of he OT?I don't think I've ever been had a conversation this frustrating on this board before.NO, Markk, that is NOT what I was saying, and I can't imagine how you would think that that WAS what I was saying. It really blows my mind.That is 101 Joesph. I am not telling you what you believe, only basic LDS thought:Good thing I have you, Markk. Even though I've been in the Church all 20 years of my life, I must've missed that 101 course. Really, what would I do without you? Probably be the laughing stock of elder's quorum, that's for sure! Fortunately, you are here to educate me on who my God is. Absolutely brilliant.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 This thread has helped to remind me that no one is ever justified in questioning Markks qualifications to teach a class on Mormonism.We can rest assured that Mormonism is never misrepresented in any way shape or form in the classes that he teaches, and that those in his classes are justified in their trust that they are receiving nothing but accurate representations of LDS thought, teaching, history, and doctrine.Anyone who feels otherwise is obviously either blind, or intellectually dishonest.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 30, 2009 Author Posted July 30, 2009 This thread has helped to remind me that no one is ever justified in questioning Markkâ??s qualifications to teach a class on Mormonism.We can rest assured that Mormonism is never misrepresented in any way shape or form in the classes that he teaches, and that those in his classes are justified in their trust that they are receiving nothing but accurate representations of LDS thought, teaching, history, and doctrine.Anyone who feels otherwise is obviously either blind, or intellectually dishonest.I was beginning to think I had lost my mind. Thanks.
Markk Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hi Joesph,NO, Markk, that is NOT what I was saying, and I can't imagine how you would think that that WAS what I was saying. It really blows my mind.Then what did you mean, my question was a very simple question?Mark
Joseph Antley Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hi Joesph,Then what did you mean, my question was a very simple question?MarkI answered your question, even providing all caps in anticipation of you not getting it.When I said your posts reflected an unfamiliarity with LDS doctrine, I was obviously referring to the latter part of this post, not the former:According to LDS thought Jesus was the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the very God that of the OT, so are you saying a "spirit" God is less that one with a exalted body?You don't know the difference between the two, yet feel qualified to lecture me about Gods in LDS theology. It's absolutely stunning.
Markk Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hi Joesph,When I said your posts reflected an unfamiliarity with LDS doctrine, I was obviously referring to the latter part of this post, not the former:LoL, the former was a statement, the latter was a question. The question was in response to your statement..."Jesus was a God by divine investiture. He was not an exalted being as he did not have a physical body."And your mistaken in that you answered this question, it is still unanswered, if you want to explain your statement go head, if not you can continue your current M.O. Take careMark
Joseph Antley Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hi Joesph,LoL, the former was a statement, the latter was a question. The question was in response to your statement..."Jesus was a God by divine investiture. He was not an exalted being as he did not have a physical body."Sigh. I'm aware of that. Your question reflects your unfamiliarity with LDS doctrine. For the third time.And your mistaken in that you answered this question, it is still unanswered,I never said I answered this question so I'm unsure how I was "mistaken". if you want to explain your statement go head, if not you can continue your current M.O.See above. And my last post. And the post before that.
Markk Posted July 30, 2009 Posted July 30, 2009 Hi Joesph,I understand this teaching or at least the different takes on it, I also understand the contradictions of this teachings and the can of worms it opens, if you want to discuss it let me know? I would really like to know if you believe or not that Jesus was less of a God as a spirit than as a exalted man and what affect it has as Jesus being the God of the OT, and in context with his role as creator?Mark
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 31, 2009 Author Posted July 31, 2009 Hi Joesph,I understand this teaching or at least the different takes on it, I also understand the contradictions of this teachings and the can of worms it opens, if you want to discuss it let me know? I would really like to know if you believe or not that Jesus was less of a God as a spirit than as a exalted man and what affect it has as Jesus being the God of the OT, and in context with his role as creator?MarkOught....... Oh............., Markk thinks he can open a can of worms. I think I am quaking in my boots about the supposed "can of worms".
Joseph Antley Posted July 31, 2009 Posted July 31, 2009 Hi Joesph,I understand this teaching or at least the different takes on it, I also understand the contradictions of this teachings and the can of worms it opens, if you want to discuss it let me know? I would really like to know if you believe or not that Jesus was less of a God as a spirit than as a exalted man and what affect it has as Jesus being the God of the OT, and in context with his role as creator?MarkMarkk, I have no interest in discussing "this teaching" or, frankly, much else with you. As I said earlier, it becomes extremely tedious. If you think this doctrine opens a "can of worms", then I doubt that you understand it very well.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.