Was God ever a sinner?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is a currious statement, can you expound on it?

The question is if God is a dependent being. Does God rely on anything that can change or be taken away from Him? Could God be pressed, harmed, or motivated to change-- and our promises of salvation be lost? Forever is a long long time-- and even the smallest risks will eventually result in failure. If God is Strictly Eternal then our salvation is secure. If God is not Strictly Eternal then our promise of salvation will eventually fail.

Sounds good. I don't know that any one hasn't argued that God isn't eternal. Do you think that it is not a possibility that God could be motivated to change? IT seems taht He can change His mind on some things. Not taht I think He will change His mind on the Gospel or the plan of salvation. He changes His mind on things when we change our mind. IOW we are saved only after we do something or act or have faith or waht ever you want to call it.

[Lightbearer]

I am not certain of this idea that we have always existed. We depend upon time to exist. I think that God created time, ages and the worlds. A scholar is often a prophet and visa versa. Those who wrote the creeds may also have been inspired.

If we depended on time to exist, does that mean we will cease to exist when it is declared "that there should be time no longer"? Time is a funny thing it is relative to the world whereon one resides. While we are mortals here we will be governed by time, but to an eternal being one who has been raised to immortality time will have no meaning.

A scholar could be a prophet, and vise versa, however usually it is not the learned who are called as His servants as it states here:

(1 Corinthians 1:26-29) "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

To be learned is good if one hearkens to the counsel of God, but it was not to the scribes and Chief Priests Jesus came to be baptized but to a Prophet who was crying in the wilderness and it was from humble fishers that He choose His Apostles. He did not depend on the philosophies of men for His doctrine, it was revelation from His Father where He obtained His truths and teachings. Those who wrote the creeds were inspired, but the question is by whom?

[Hick Preacher]

THis is interesting, Can you expound upon the idea of "we depend upon time to exsist". That is a concept I am not familiar with.

What scriptural support do you find for "God created time". I cannot find very strong support for that concept. I am sure you have something. I just want to see it.

The Scripture says of creation that God created the Ages (Aeons) which usually in the KVJ got translated into World or Worlds. From a careful examination of this doctrine- it appears that God creates and manipulates time itself. In order for Him to do this He must be Eternal-timeless.

There is an entire doctrine about the Ages created by God in the Bible.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3320962/The-Doctrine-of-the-Ages-in-the-Bible

http://www.allaboutgod.com/faq/designer.htm

[Lightbearer]

The question is if God is a dependent being. Does God rely on anything that can change or be taken away from Him? Could God be pressed, harmed, or motivated to change-- and our promises of salvation be lost? Forever is a long long time-- and even the smallest risks will eventually result in failure. If God is Strictly Eternal then our salvation is secure. If God is not Strictly Eternal then our promise of salvation will eventually fail.

Well I guess it goes to the question can we, after being saved unto eternal life, be changed or have it taken away? After our salvation and resurrection could we be pressed, harmed, or motivated to change? So are the promises of God to us eternal? Or can our salvation eventually fail? To all of these questions I say no, God is not a "dependent being" in the sense you are using here. Just as our exaltation is not subject to change once we have achieved it. The difference in HIm and us is we are currently in our mortal probation, the "proving" stage of our existence. God has passed His probation, He is not still "progressing" in knowledge, power, or perfections, He has received a fullness. He has already achieved His exaltation, now He only increases in glory as we His children come to Him and become as He is, this adds to His glory, but nothing can take away from Him His glory and fullness. Not all will become as God is, and the final judgment is the final judgment. The nature of being a God is about being infinite and eternal, without beginning of days or end of years. If we become as He is, then we will also become infinite and eternal in the fullest sense of the word, as He is. We do not become a "lesser god" but we become like Him. Jesus Christ is in the express image of His Father, yet He came to this earth and obtained a body and received grace for grace.

(Hebrews 5:8-9) "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

The Son of God is our prototype of salvation, He was "made perfect" so did that mean He was not an independent being? He said He did nothing of Himself but did all things He saw His Father do. Does that mean His Father was "made perfect" also? So the argument does not hold water in the light of scripture.

[Hick Preacher]

Well I guess it goes to the question can we, after being saved unto eternal life, be changed or have it taken away? After our salvation and resurrection could we be pressed, harmed, or motivated to change? So are the promises of God to us eternal? Or can our salvation eventually fail? To all of these questions I say no, God is not a "dependent being" in the sense you are using here. Just as our exaltation is not subject to change once we have achieved it. The difference in HIm and us is we are currently in our mortal probation, the "proving" stage of our existence. God has passed His probation, He is not still "progressing" in knowledge, power, or perfections, He has received a fullness. He has already achieved His exaltation, now He only increases in glory as we His children come to Him and become as He is, this adds to His glory, but nothing can take away from Him His glory and fullness. Not all will become as God is, and the final judgment is the final judgment. The nature of being a God is about being infinite and eternal, without beginning of days or end of years. If we become as He is, then we will also become infinite and eternal in the fullest sense of the word, as He is. We do not become a "lesser god" but we become like Him. Jesus Christ is in the express image of His Father, yet He came to this earth and obtained a body and received grace for grace. The Son of God is our prototype of salvation, He was "made perfect" so did that mean He was not an independent being? He said He did nothing of Himself but did all things He saw His Father do. Does that mean His Father was "made perfect" also? So the argument does not hold water in the light of scripture.

This is all very interesting. I find the notion that a being can become eternal who is now not eternal a strange notion. I wish I had time to make some more comments, but for now I have to make ready for a week long business trip. Later- your ol'e Hick

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Scripture says of creation that God created the Ages (Aeons) which usually in the KVJ got translated into World or Worlds. From a careful examination of this doctrine- it appears that God creates and manipulates time itself. In order for Him to do this He must be Eternal-timeless.

There is an entire doctrine about the Ages created by God in the Bible.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3320962/The-Doctrine-of-the-Ages-in-the-Bible

http://www.allaboutgod.com/faq/designer.htm

This is interesting. So the question comes back to you, are we eternal?

Will we cease to exsist at some future point? I thought God's sacrafice of His Son was infinate and eternal. I thought that when we are resurrected we will become immortal. How does all of that fit in to the idea that "We depend upon time to exist".

Interesting indeed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is all very interesting. I find the notion that a being can become eternal who is now not eternal a strange notion. I wish I had time to make some more comments, but for now I have to make ready for a week long business trip. Later- your ol'e Hick

Take care. We will talk agian.

"I find the notion that a being can become eternal who is now not eternal a strange notion."

So does the LDS.

[Pahoran]

I was scratching my head over this one. Anywell?

In response to Robuchan's claim that the "small g" is "orthodox Christianity" while the "big G" is valid grounds for an auto-da-f

[William James]

I do not profess to know whether God was ever a sinner. But I really think it does not matter. So what if he was? Does that remove all basis to worship him and follow him and have faith in him? I think not. I think the reall debate should not be about whether God was once a sinner, or whether LDS doctrine teaches or ever taught that he was. What we really ought to be discussing is why it should matter philosophically/theologically. It seems to me that most evangelicals who get all upset about LDS beliefs in this regard are going from the premise that God can never change, that if God ever sinned he can never be viewed as perfect, and that if God is either changeable or imperfect he either ceases to be God or else is no being worth worshipping. While it is true that some of these notions have Biblical support, the Bible is neither a flawless nor a complete document. If it were, there would hardly be any debate about it.

The decision of whether to hold that God could only be God if he never changed is an arbitrary one. Certainly an arbitrary and capricious God would not be a being worth worshipping. But that does not mean that God can never change.

I would speculate that the doctrine of an unevolving, never-changing God likely developed as part of a human desire for order. Our natural tendancy is to adopt those beliefs which are the least complicated; we are uncomfortable with revisions, as they take mental work and adjustment.

Just as human beings can forsake sins they once committed, it seems to me they would be capable of improving indefinitely, to the point where, millions of years later, they were sufficiently enlightened and able to no longer sin.

[William the Conqueror]

From Bernard Gui: Well...are you gonna pull those pistols, or whistle Dixie?

Josey Wales

Fletcher: "I'm heading down to Mexico an' find him. I'll let him make the first move and then I'll tell him the war's over. What do you say Mr. Wilson?"

Wales: " I guess that damn war took somethin' out of all of us." (blood dripping onto boot)

[robuchan]

In response to Robuchan's claim that the "small g" is "orthodox Christianity" while the "big G" is valid grounds for an auto-da-f

[Pahoran]

Maybe I misunderstood you. Let me be clear.

Is this what passes for an apology in Robuland?

I see.

little g = inherit Kingdom of God, have a lot of power, gain salvation...i.e. not much different than what a Christian would say heaven looks like. D&C, NT, new Gospel Principles, what you hear in GC, what you hear at a Baptist sermon--all very similar and not a source for contention. See DCP's link in this thread. No worries, Christians. We're all the same, it's little g not big G, don't take it too far.

big G = create spirit children, create worlds, send your spirit children down to worlds, develop a Savior that will operate with you in a Godhead, become the God for your spirit children, they worship you, they don't know any other God than you, you become the Heavenly Father for them.

Can we agree on these definitions?

No.

You can come up with whatever "definitions" suit your agenda; but do not expect me -- or any Latter-day Saint who is aware of your posting history -- to accept them. It is not up to apostates to define our doctrine for us.

Apart from anything else, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 -- which is definitive LDS doctrine, and therefore not apostate doctrine, and which affirms the "little g" -- is rather explicit about spirit children:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto themâ??Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depthsâ??then shall it be written in the Lambâ??s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

No-one on this thread has lied about the doctrine, Robuchan. Although you do seem to be trying to rob us of it.

Some of you seem to want to throw the little g definition out there for the Christians to be satisfied with, say the big G is just speculative, but act and think like big G is important and vital Mormon doctrine that is definitely true.

Who, for example?

Call for references, Robuchan. Support your accusation or withdraw it.

Once again, we are treated to the spectacle of an apostate who is so arrogant that he not only presumes that his agenda-driven definitions are binding upon the Saints, but he even assumes that we have already accepted them, and are discussing the doctrine in the terms he has chosen to define for us!

Amazing.

Some of you want to pretend the difference between g and G is insignificant. WRONG.

And your standing to make that determination is...?

That's where I said you were lying about the doctrine. But maybe I misunderstood you.

How noble of you to admit that possibility.

Whether you misunderstood me or not, you had no basis to make that accusation.

I believe in little g doctrine (it's canon). I don't believe in G doctrine, and I think GBH's public statements, changes in publicized manuals, and lack of G doctrine being taught in any shape or form in GC for the last 30 years is evidence I'm right.

No. It is not.

I await your forthcoming apology. You have nothing to say in this thread that could possibly interest me until you tender it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[robuchan]

Is this what passes for an apology in Robuland?

I see.

No.

You can come up with whatever "definitions" suit your agenda; but do not expect me -- or any Latter-day Saint who is aware of your posting history -- to accept them. It is not up to apostates to define our doctrine for us.

Apart from anything else, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 -- which is definitive LDS doctrine, and therefore not apostate doctrine, and which affirms the "little g" -- is rather explicit about spirit children:

No-one on this thread has lied about the doctrine, Robuchan. Although you do seem to be trying to rob us of it.

Who, for example?

Call for references, Robuchan. Support your accusation or withdraw it.

Once again, we are treated to the spectacle of an apostate who is so arrogant that he not only presumes that his agenda-driven definitions are binding upon the Saints, but he even assumes that we have already accepted them, and are discussing the doctrine in the terms he has chosen to define for us!

Amazing.

And your standing to make that determination is...?

How noble of you to admit that possibility.

Whether you misunderstood me or not, you had no basis to make that accusation.

No. It is not.

I await your forthcoming apology. You have nothing to say in this thread that could possibly interest me until you tender it.

Regards,

Pahoran

That wasn't an apology. I was seeking clarification on your view before I determined if I needed to apologize. Now that we're clear, I maintain my prior position.

Every time little g is referred to in the church, it's my definition, including the DCP article here. It's a lie to put out that definition but then hold onto the G definition and then when pushed into a corner to say there is actually no difference. Throw away the g definition and be straight up with the G definition, if that's what you believe.

You guys are hilarious with the "nothing could be more clear" stuff. I now have two aspects of the g definition that I'm told could not be a clearer reference to G. First was "joint heir" as if there is no other logical interpretation than that it = G. That's almost comical. Now you say that "a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." is also a clear reference to G. Almost more comical. How about two possible interpretations...one is that your children will live forever. two is that the generations of your seed will have no end as in your children will have children who will have children etc. Neither imply anything close to G.

g does not equal G. Stop acting like it does. g could be a subset of G. But they are not equal.

P.S. this is not apostate doctrine. You have good active LDS on this board who agree with me on this topic. I'm just being a little aggressive about it. Maybe I was just a more faithful follower of GBH and you were stuck in the 70's and never moved on like the church did.

[MormonApologist]

Lets take this to it's next logical connection.. You would do the same things to bring about the immorality and eternal life of man all the gods before you had done.. You would send your first born to atone for the sins of your children. He would be the Jesus of your "creation" and would be perfect.. Never the less His heavenly Father You would be a sinner."

Your logic doesn't follow since you make wild assumptions which are not based in fact. First, there is no doctrine of the Church that says that we will send our firstborn children to atone for the sine of our other children or that he would be the Jesus of our "creation" and the Pearl of Great Price already makes it clear that Jesus atoned for the sins of all of Heavenly Father's creations including those who do not live on this world. For your assumption to be valid there would have to be a doctrine that says that every world has its own Jesus or that every creation has its own Satan but that assumes that each of our creations will follow the exact same pattern that others have followed before.

That simply isn't supported by anything the Church teaches. We don't know if we will have a son that will rebel, whether there will be a Satan among them, or whether our firstborn will have to be sent to atone for the sins of our children. What we do know is that the atonement is an eternal and everlasting principle, that most of us were present at a Grand Council and that we discussed the plan of salvation where would be allowed to make a choice and where Jesus Christ would be sent to atone for our sins. Nothing is to say that this Jesus Christ will not be the atoning sacrifice for all of our posterity since he is definitely the one who has atoned for the ones we have had in this life and which we have been sealed to for eternity.

Logically The Father, or His father, or His grandfather or. . . would have been a sinner and become a god like you had.. All the gods out there couldn't be the Jesus' of their fathers creation or there is no hope that you will ever inherit exaltation.. So be honest.. Your idea of god or your idea that a God can exist that was once a sinner is high.. There in go guarantee that the god you worship as the Father wasn't one of them.. IHS jim

But there is also no guarantee that he was nor is there any statement that he was therefore your assumption is invalid and irrelevant. Whether God the Father was the Firstborn Son of the Firstborn Son of the Firstborn Son into all of eternity all the way back to when the intelligences chose to become spirits and to create spirit bodies for other intelligences is really a moot point. As you can see from your line of reasoning there is no proof that God the Father and all of his progenitors weren't the same as Christ nor is there any proof that the creation of Elohim followed the same pattern as the creations of other Gods in other universes. So your speculation is simply that. Speculation!

[MormonApologist]

But know what you are right.. I am not welcome here you don't want any resistance in your mormon party I'm done you can enjoy this as a victroy... I have sinned against you in comeing here you can't stand someone disagreeing with the doctrine of mormonism that can be questioned from a Biblical standpoint. I have given you a few thing to think about but I am not up for being accused of being in a place I don't belong. You must be a returned missionary, I have noticed that mormon missionaries can't handle a discussion either. This is the thrid time i have tried to come here and talk civilly with you or anyone else that isn't so hateful that they can do it. I see that such a thing at least with you in not possible... Bye IHS jim

I don't care if someone disagrees with me and I suspect that many people here would agree with me when I say that your nasty, snide, rude and clearly arrogant comments are self-serving, self-indulgent and the result of an overly inflated ego but if it makes you feel good you can dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as hateful or unable to handle a discussion but you are the one who is throwing a tantrum, carrying on like a fool and generally making a donkey of yourself. You want to come here, ask loaded questions and insult anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you and then when they call you on it you choose to throw a tantrum about how unfair and uncivil other people are being. As for your returned missionary comment. I am not a returned missionary so that must mean I can handle a discussion.

My advice to you and those who behave like you is to grow the heck up and start acting your age. I can understand why some missionaries wouldn't want to talk to you. It's because you go around with a chip on your shoulder, insult people and when they have had enough you go off about how you wanted to be civil and how hateful they are. People get tired of the games where everything you say is completely fine but everything they say is considered to be hateful. People having the strength of character to disagree with you and to challenge you is not hateful. Saying that you insult other people and are rude is not hateful nor is saying that you are arrogant. Disagree with the Church and Mormons all you want and even call us names if you wish but don't expect us to play by some rules you have drawn up that allow you to say whatever you want while we are bound to treat as if you can walk on water.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

g does not equal G. Stop acting like it does. g could be a subset of G. But they are not equal.

No one has claimed this. I certainly haven't I even went into great lengths and detail into the differnce.

I really get confused sometimes at certain posts. I am sure you might share the same confusion sometimes.

[robuchan]

No one has claimed this. I certainly haven't I even went into great lengths and detail into the differnce.

Sure they have. You have too. Some want to imply the only difference between g and G is that Heavenly Father is still your God though he has nothing to do with your spirit children just like supposedly HF has a God that has nothing to do with us. If that's the only difference why play around with these lightweight definitions of joint heir, etc., that sound so innocuous and mainstream?

[Lightbearer]

P.S. this is not apostate doctrine. You have good active LDS on this board who agree with me on this topic. I'm just being a little aggressive about it. Maybe I was just a more faithful follower of GBH and you were stuck in the 70's and never moved on like the church did.

Since I lived during the 70's in this Church (served a mission from 79-81) I can say that you do not know what you are talking about. The same doctrine that was taught then is being taught today, Exaltation, Godhood, eternal marriage, spirit children born to exalted persons (that's big G to you) is the orthodox doctrine of the Church and has been at least since 1844 when it was fully explained. In fact here is a quote that should be of interest to you:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Section Six 1843-44, p.342-361) "Here, then, is eternal life--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. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me."

I realize you may argue that the KFD is not "official doctrine" or "canon" but that is no matter, it has been quoted extensively in the manuals published by the Church. Perhaps there are those that are in the Church that do not have the stomach for such "deep doctrine" as they may like to call it, but I for one can say that Exaltation and Godhood has been taught to me since Primary and it has not been amended or diluted by apostates or weak minded men pleasers to this day. The evidence I give is the current "Gospel Principles" manual that is still online here: Exaltation Now you will presume to say that it has been taken from this so-called "new" manual. Not having seen it I cannot say. But there is one real problem that you do not address and that is the Church has not "purged" the Church of all such "offending" teachings. There has not been any "book burnings" (as has been done in some other churches) or no doctrinal statements or announcements or corrections by the First Presidency that this was a doctrinal error and is thus forbidden to be taught in the Church. Something as important as that surely would have been addressed in General Conference, yet it has not. In fact there is no record of a "correction" being made anywhere in the Church. You allude to President Hinckley's alleged statement to the media which is notorious for getting things wrong. This was not a doctrinal announcement to the Church, and did not change any existing doctrine of the Church. That would take a vote in General Conference. So really the only problem seems to be in your mind regarding this doctrine. Even back in the 70's there were some individual members who seemed to be afraid of our "deeper" doctrines. If we water down our doctrine just to avoid "offending" the world, then we are very close to apostasy, we cannot afford to be cowards when it comes to proclaiming the truth. Our critics would have a field day if we were to "back track" on this doctrine, we cannot retreat and I will not.

[robuchan]

Since I lived during the 70's in this Church (served a mission from 79-81) I can say that you do not know what you are talking about. The same doctrine that was taught then is being taught today, Exaltation, Godhood, eternal marriage, spirit children born to exalted persons (that's big G to you) is the orthodox doctrine of the Church and has been at least since 1844 when it was fully explained. In fact here is a quote that should be of interest to you: I realize you may argue that the KFD is not "official doctrine" or "canon" but that is no matter, it has been quoted extensively in the manuals published by the Church. Perhaps there are those that are in the Church that do not have the stomach for such "deep doctrine" as they may like to call it, but I for one can say that Exaltation and Godhood has been taught to me since Primary and it has not been amended or diluted by apostates or weak minded men pleasers to this day. The evidence I give is the current "Gospel Principles" manual that is still online here: Exaltation Now you will presume to say that it has been taken from this so-called "new" manual. Not having seen it I cannot say. But there is one real problem that you do not address and that is the Church has not "purged" the Church of all such "offending" teachings. There has not been any "book burnings" (as has been done in some other churches) or no doctrinal statements or announcements or corrections by the First Presidency that this was a doctrinal error and is thus forbidden to be taught in the Church. Something as important as that surely would have been addressed in General Conference, yet it has not. In fact there is no record of a "correction" being made anywhere in the Church. You allude to President Hinckley's alleged statement to the media which is notorious for getting things wrong. This was not a doctrinal announcement to the Church, and did not change any existing doctrine of the Church. That would take a vote in General Conference. So really the only problem seems to be in your mind regarding this doctrine. Even back in the 70's there were some individual members who seemed to be afraid of our "deeper" doctrines. If we water down our doctrine just to avoid "offending" the world, then we are very close to apostasy, we cannot afford to be cowards when it comes to proclaiming the truth. Our critics would have a field day if we were to "back track" on this doctrine, we cannot retreat and I will not.

Show me a reference to G in general conference over the last 20 years, or in current official church publications. Don't you think it's odd they didn't include that JS quote in the new JS manual? 600 pages and they didn't find room for that quote? hmmm.... You don't think it's odd they COMPLETELY removed all references to G in the new Gospel Principles book? And you do have access to the new manual. It's in the thread here on this site where you lost the $200 bet to me. It's not taught anymore. It was in the 70's, you're right. But it's not taught anymore. When's the last time you heard Lorenzo Snow's couplet referred to? It was by GBH and he said we don't teach it anymore. It's more of a couplet than anything else. Can you find Lorenzo Snow's couplet in any official church publications or teaching manuals? (serious question, my guess is you might be able to but I'm not sure). If you can, I double or nothing the $200 you owe me that in the next revision it will be gone. It's g not G.

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

Non sequitur.

The last I heard the Saints are not supposed to gamble.

I must have missed where we removed D&C132 from our Scriptures.

That is not what GBH said. He said we don't know much about it, referring to how God was, and we don't. We refer to what we can be like constantly. The whole Gospel is one of Theosis.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sure they have. You have too. Some want to imply the only difference between g and G is that Heavenly Father is still your God though he has nothing to do with your spirit children just like supposedly HF has a God that has nothing to do with us. If that's the only difference why play around with these lightweight definitions of joint heir, etc., that sound so innocuous and mainstream?

I have never once said that god is the same as God. You claimed earlier in this thread that teh LDS don't know the differnce. I went on to show you the differnce. I even posted several posts that gods is doctine but Gods is speculation.

I asked earlier what does "erternal lives and worlds with out end" mean? You didn't even respond to that. That is out of the D&C. That is doctrine and cannon.

I am not so sure that you have accuratley described anybodies position here. I think it is much more complicated than the simplistic approach you have laid out. I fear there is no reason to continue on this.

THe reason being is that you are not responding to all that is posted. I also asked you what do you make of the verses in Abraham about the "Gods". That denotes more than one God. Tell me how does that fit in your simplistic approach to "there is just one" when I asked you what it meant to be a God?

[robuchan]

robuchan:

Non sequitur.

The last I heard the Saints are not supposed to gamble.

Blame Lightbearer. I threw it out as a joke and he took my bet and raised it $200, thinking it was easy money until it backfired on him just a few days later.

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

It is hard to "get" joking over the internets. Guess I'm kinda slow today.

[Lightbearer]

Show me a reference to G in general conference over the last 20 years, or in current official church publications. Don't you think it's odd they didn't include that JS quote in the new JS manual? 600 pages and they didn't find room for that quote? hmmm.... You don't think it's odd they COMPLETELY removed all references to G in the new Gospel Principles book? And you do have access to the new manual. It's in the thread here on this site where you lost the $200 bet to me. It's not taught anymore. It was in the 70's, you're right. But it's not taught anymore. When's the last time you heard Lorenzo Snow's couplet referred to? It was by GBH and he said we don't teach it anymore. It's more of a couplet than anything else. Can you find Lorenzo Snow's couplet in any official church publications or teaching manuals? (serious question, my guess is you might be able to but I'm not sure). If you can, I double or nothing the $200 you owe me that in the next revision it will be gone. It's g not G.

You think this speaks of G or g...?

(â??Chapter 47: Exaltation,â? Gospel Principles, 301)"Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, â??All things are theirsâ? (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

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.

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ haveâ??all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: â??The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon themâ? (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36)."

Big G or little g, the above is what the doctrine of the Church is and will not change. Let me see the quote from the "new" manual on exaltation... I have yet to see it. There would need to be a lot of deleting going on in order for your theory to prove true.

[Lightbearer]

Blame Lightbearer. I threw it out as a joke and he took my bet and raised it $200, thinking it was easy money until it backfired on him just a few days later.

Who said I wasn't joking? Not about my point which I have not conceded on, but about the gambling.