Exaltaion requirements

[Vance]

Then I am asking without other agenda, please explain how a man can be an abomination in the BofM for having many wives and in the D&C for the same actions be justified before God.. I really don't understand how that can be... IHS jim

HELLO!!! Earth to James!! Just read the last section of post #423.

It is obvious that you aren't even reading the responses to your drivel. No wonder you keep repeating the same (already refuted) excrement.

And you wonder why people are ignoring YOU? Get a clue pal!

[Vance]

Doesn't 1 Sam 25:36-37 tell us that Nabal heart is within him?

That was its location AT THE TIME.

It will teaches that it was WITHIN him.

??

In Job 14:22 clearly teaches that our flesh is upon us and out soul is within us..

That was its location AT THE TIME.

Proverbs 26:24 agrees with Zech 12:1 that our deceit is within us.. INSIDE us..

That was its location AT THE TIME.

Even Isaiah 63:11 teaches that Moses was indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

That was its location AT THE TIME.

Within means INSIDE us.. God created our spirit INSIDE us..

AT THE TIME

Or physical bodies had to exist for God to create our spirit in side them..

No they didn't. Our spirit could have (and were) created long before our bodies and then at some time between conception and birth the spirit is placed in the body to give it live.

It is a simple thing, it is the word of God, and it contradicts what Smith taught about a preexistence..

But it doesn't, your misinterpretation not withstanding.

A belief in a pre-mortal existence was common in "Christianity" be for Joseph Smith came along. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that the current rejection of the pre-mortal existence amongst "evangelicals" is the result of Anti-Mormonism. You guys just can't accept something that Mormons believe.

Take Baptism for example. It was commonly believed that Baptism was necessary for salvation. Until Mormons came along and taught it.

Back to Pre-Mortal existence.

Job 38

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

How could "ALL the sons of God" shout for joy if the didn't exist together?

Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

How could the spirit RETURN to someplace it has never been?

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.

How could God know someone before there physical formation if the didn't exist in some manner prior?

John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Now why would the Apostles think that is was possible for someone to sin before they were born if they were never in a position to be able to sin? And why would such a misconception (if it was a misconception) go uncorrected? Jesus had the perfect opportunity here to establish YOUR doctrine in clear and unmistakable terms, YET He didn't. WHY? Because it is a false doctrine.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

How could God "forknow" us if we didn't fore-exist?

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

How could He choose us "before the foundation of the world" if we didn't exist "before the foundation of the world"? Why would Paul even say such a thing?

Sorry but your argument is without foundation. Are you a subscriber to "sola scriptura"? If so you have no foundation for the idea that the spirits of men are created AFTER the creation of the physical body.

[James Banta]

The birth of Christ was as natural as natural can be. No doctors were around. No C-section was performed. Yes, we believe God the Father is the literal father of Jesus Christ. His DNA, His chromosomes had to come from somewhere, and we believe they came from the Father.

The Father had no need of doctors to facilitate conception, afterall He knows a few things the doctors don't. If you didn't know, there are ways for conception to happen that do not involve sex. Since we believe that Jesus was born of a VIRGIN, and none of our leaders have said otherwise, I don't believe sex was involved, but I do believe the genetic material required to create a baby was supplied by the Father. You are the one that is saying that Mary's virginity was taken from her, LDS do not teach this. There is a disconnect between what you say we believe and what we actuall beleive.

So how do you figure that our leaders proclaim that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that she gave birth naturally, that this means that conception had to have taken place through sex?

And LDS believe Jesus and the Father are two separate Persons, and we say that They, along with the Holy Ghost are ONE God. To answer your question about why He shouldn't call His Father "His" God, it sets Him apart numerically from God the Father, that there are two Gods identified. No where in the Bible does the Father say Jesus is His God, or His Redeemer, the only times the Father spoke was to identify Jesus as His Beloved Son.

Except that I showed you, from the bible, that the Levites have the priesthood as their inheritance. Numbers 8 spells it out very well, the Levites belong to the Lord. Their priesthood duties were to service the tabernacle, but when they turned fifty, their duty would change to that of ministering.

The priesthood wasn't only for sacrifice, they were to teach the Lord's judgments and law(Duet. 33:10), and to be a messenger of the Lord(Mal. 2:7), they offered counsel from the Lord(Num 27:21), and offer blessings upon the people(Num. 6:22-27). John was a messenger of the Lord, which falls into the duties of the priesthood. Just as Zacharias performed priestly duties and can safely be assumed he was ordained to the priesthood, so too did John TB perform priestly duties and can safely be assumed that he was ordained to the priesthood. All Prophets are messengers of the Lord, and they too, hold the priesthood.

I disagree that the transfiguration was Jesus "coming in His kingdom". "Coming in His kingdom" refers to the second coming. And just for the record, I believe that John would tarry until the second coming.

Jonah prophecied that Nineveh would be overthrown in 40 days. Fourty days came and went, and it did not happen. Jonah must have forgotten to write down the repentance clause as it is not in the scriptures. Why are you adding to God's infallible word? I am not the one saying that all prophecies must come to pass for a prophet to be a true prophet of God. Jonah was a true prophet, but his prophecy did not come to pass. I am not calling Jesus a liar, but simply showing you that you hold a double standard for those you don't agree with.

Oh pu-lease! You cite Jacob 2:24, but totally leave out verse 30. The BoM and D&C are totally in harmony with each other. David and Solomon's abomination was to go after women that were not given to them.

Then you totally ignore the OT. God gave the commandments and one was "Thou shall not kill". Then God tells the Saul to go in and totally wipe out the Amalekites, every man, woman, child and beast. Saul spares some animals to make sacrifices to the Lord, but guess what? The Lord is angry with Saul because he didn't obey the Lord and kill them all. That was Saul's downfall. The Lord then says that to obey is better than sacrifice. So much for your theory on that...it makes you sound so unfamiliar with the scriptures.

David was in obedience up until he went after a woman that was not approved and given him of the Lord, as the Lord indeed did give David all his wives and concubines.

I don't believe that the Spirit that is the Father has DNA.. That is His creation to make men part of their father and part of their mother.. He has used it to connect all men together as a race.. I am not concern with the birth of Jesus in this passage I am asking you about His body's conception.. Many LDS authorities say that it was as natural as nay man conceiving his children.. That means sex! You don't have to believe the men that taught that Jesus was conceived naturally, I know I don't.. I believe God created the physical body of Jesus WITHIN the womb of Mary therefore she remained a virgin.. But I have found that mormons don't like or respect the power and authority of God's creative power.. Everything must have a source outside God.. A true Christian see that God is the source of all things.. It is a huge difference in what and who we see God as being..

At first you tell me that you are a trinitarian that you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three divine Persons yet are one God then in the same thought you tell me they are two separate Gods Which is it.. Are you trinitarian or are you believer in the three separate Gods Smith taught? Your statement say you believe both.. That is a contradiction.. I showed you in Isaiah 44:6 where the Father identifies Jesus. as His redeemer.. That is what you asked to see your statement treats my quote as being non-existent..

Show me the quote that says the Levities are the priests.. I can show you that they are servants of the Temple, I can, and have shown you that ONLY Aaron and his sons are priests.. All you have done is tell me what you think you have included NO biblical authority for your statements..

Good point It does say that the priest will teach Israel the word of God and the other passage that they will bring God's word before them.. Is it clear that they are the only teaches allowed in Israel? Did David not teach Israel God's word? Isaiah was not of Levi, nether was Nathan.. Did they not teach God's word? Did not God speak through them.. Yet ONLY the Priests offered the sacrifice.. Their unique duty was to offer the sacrifice.. John NEVER officiated in the duties that are uniquely those of a priest. It is reasonable to assume from that that he was never ordained to the office of priest. Few of the prophets God has called to serve Him have been of the house of Aaron. Moses Himself was NOT a priesthood holder.. While there is a lot of biblical references to the ordination of Aaron nothing was ever said that Moses was given any priesthood.. Melchizedek was taught to be a priest but Abraham was never identified as such.. Abraham was more of a central character of the Bible than Melchizedek ever was.. But Abraham was given covenants that only can to him and his descendants.. No one is all the Bible was either called a priest of the most High unless they were Melchizedek or of the house of Aaron.. You are just wrong about the prophets being priests..

"And just for the record, I believe that John would tarry until the second coming." this also is NOT a biblical statement.. AND if John was allowed to do so why did God need Smith.. John held all the "keys" to the Kingdom all that had to be done it to have John call the men God selected and keep the Church going.. You can't have a total apostasy if John was still on earth.. And how did he appear as a glorified being to Smith with Peter, and James if he was still here tarrying until Jesus returns? Just some question about John for you to think about..

I add the meaning of Jonah's message not adding it to God' word this is called an interpretation not change in the Bible.. It is based on everything God has said to others that have repented or refused to do so.. Because God didn't punish Nineveh it is reasonable to believe that this was God's perfect will all along and was part of the message that Jonah gave.. I don't accept the teaching that mormons seem to be able to fit into their doctrine.. That God gave false messages to his prophets.. Jesus gave none you have admitted that He did come in His kingdom and it was witnessed.. Nothing He said would happen hasn't or won't happen. There is no double standard in that statement..

The D&C says that David's only in sin was over Uriah not is ANY of the other women.. the BofM says that Daivd's abomination was having many wives.. I have read it and read it it always says the same thing.. All David's other women were given to Him.. Yet the BofM says that having many wives is an abomination.. I am constrained by what these passages say.. Unless you can show that it is God's perfect will for men to have many wives as a pratice. If not these passages are in contradition..

God gave no commandment not to Kill... He gave commandment not to murder.. God never said that killing was a sin just taking the life of an innocent.. So much for your knowledge of what the scripture says.. You are the ones that harp on the translation I just pointed out where the KJ translation is weak but you now want to the KJV to have the unalterable wording.. Sorry this may have worked in 1611 but now that translation has become incorrect for a true translation for today's meaning.. I sound like I don't know the scripture and you say that the commandment says not to kill.. OK you win I am stupid.. Good grief, never mind that the text actually says "you shall not murder"... Tell me was the sacrifice a law? Is the sacrifice not part of His Law to be obeyed? So to obey is better than sacrifice, but to obey sacrifice must be done.. Is it better to obey than to tithe? YES, but to tithe is part of our obedience..

IHS jim

[Vance]

In Genesis God blew into Adam and he became a living soul.. Just so you know the Hebrew word for wind and spirit in the same word.. God created Adam's spirit WITHIN his natural body..

No He didn't and this verse shows it. The spirit HAD to exist OUTSIDE of Adams body for the Lord to "breath" it into Adam.

You just destroyed your own theory.

You call my word a copy of error taught on CARM..

CARM is a joke!!

Sorry but I have shown you clearly where the words I have used have come from..

AND I have shown you how you are in error.

You gave an explanation of the passage that changes it structure to the point that it no longer has the meaning of the original passage..

NOPE! Your are simply reading something into it that isn't necessarily there. The verse is doesn't clearly and plainly say what you are interpreting it to say. Clearly my interpretation is ALSO a valid understanding. SO . . . . For you to be convincing you need to find more support for your believe because this verse isn't going to do it for you.

You said "the spirit within man was formed by the Lord." Would that have been a very useful thing to tell men that believed God made all things..

Yup! Teaching is a repetitious thing.

The real passage gives real information "the Lord,... formeth the spirit of man within him. "

He does form the spirit and it is within man. But it is not a slam dunk that this verse is teaching that the formation occurred "within" the man. The only requirements are that 1) the Lord formed the spirit, and 2) the spirit was within man AT THE TIME this was said NOT AT ITS CREATION.

If this is all that you can hang your hat on, then you should just give it up because your argument is UNCONVINCING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[James Banta]

No He didn't and this verse shows it. The spirit HAD to exist OUTSIDE of Adams body for the Lord to "breath" it into Adam.

You just destroyed your own theory.

CARM is a joke!!

AND I have shown you how you are in error.

NOPE! Your are simply reading something into it that isn't necessarily there. The verse is doesn't clearly and plainly say what you are interpreting it to say. Clearly my interpretation is ALSO a valid understanding. SO . . . . For you to be convincing you need to find more support for your believe because this verse isn't going to do it for you.

Yup! Teaching is a repetitious thing.

He does form the spirit and it is within man. But it is not a slam dunk that this verse is teaching that the formation occurred "within" the man. The only requirements are that 1) the Lord formed the spirit, and 2) the spirit was within man AT THE TIME this was said NOT AT ITS CREATION.

If this is all that you can hang your hat on, then you should just give it up because your argument is UNCONVINCING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where does it say that the spirit of man had to exist outside of Adam's body? Could God create it as He breathed into Adam? How doe such an doctrine destroy the FACT that God's word teaches that the natural came before the spiritual?

Gen 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I have giving reason for my faith at every turn siting the authority of the scripture as I spoke.. All I have seen from you in the response is hate for people you disagree with, intolerance of someone else's position, and one sentence denials without any scriptural authority backing up your denial.. Oh well if that is what you base you faith on, denial, then may God bless you.. Oh BTW I am not here to convince you of anything.. That isn't my job.. I have told others I came here to get some informant ion about the necessity to live polygamy, if only in your heart, for exaltation. My question has been answered.. I thank all who helped me. I have stayed because some posters wanted to ask me questions about Biblical Christianity.. I have stayed out of curtsy because you the LDS members of this board have been so willing to help me.. IHS jim

BTW is someone on CARM or Water Martin would have said that this board was a joke, their comment would have been removed and violation point given for disrespect.. I guess curtsy is no longer part of the LDS tradition at least there are some that make it seem so..

[Vance]

Gen 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So if the Lord "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit)" then the spirit existed outside of Adams body BEFORE being "breathed into" it.

Thanks again for totally destroying your own argument.

I see that you have totally ignored post #427. I can understand why.

Because it totally blows away your argument.

[Flyonthewall]

I don't believe that the Spirit that is the Father has DNA.. That is His creation to make men part of their father and part of their mother.. He has used it to connect all men together as a race.. I am not concern with the birth of Jesus in this passage I am asking you about His body's conception.. Many LDS authorities say that it was as natural as nay man conceiving his children.. That means sex! You don't have to believe the men that taught that Jesus was conceived naturally, I know I don't.. I believe God created the physical body of Jesus WITHIN the womb of Mary therefore she remained a virgin.. But I have found that mormons don't like or respect the power and authority of God's creative power.. Everything must have a source outside God.. A true Christian see that God is the source of all things.. It is a huge difference in what and who we see God as being..

It means sex to you. LDS believe that God works within natural laws, however, God's knowledge of those laws far exceed our understanding. LDS authorities have made statements about Jesus' birth yet you want to turn it into how He was conceived. The only thing they say of a sureity is that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus. By what means that took place is pure speculation.

At first you tell me that you are a trinitarian that you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three divine Persons yet are one God then in the same thought you tell me they are two separate Gods Which is it.. Are you trinitarian or are you believer in the three separate Gods Smith taught? Your statement say you believe both.. That is a contradiction.. I showed you in Isaiah 44:6 where the Father identifies Jesus. as His redeemer.. That is what you asked to see your statement treats my quote as being non-existent..

I never said I was a "trinitarian". Does it surprise you that LDS believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost make up the one true God? Yet we maintain their Godhood individually, each being God. God the Father is one God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and also a God. The Holy Ghost is a God also, yet all 3 make up the one true and living God.

Show me the quote that says the Levities are the priests.. I can show you that they are servants of the Temple, I can, and have shown you that ONLY Aaron and his sons are priests.. All you have done is tell me what you think you have included NO biblical authority for your statements..

I am not trying to say that the Levites are priests, but that they were given the priesthood. I am not limited to only one duty within the priesthood so I don't need to have the Levites be priests. But here are a couple of scriptures to think about:

1 Chr. 15:2

2 Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever.

Joshua 6:12

12

[Flyonthewall]

BTW is someone on CARM or Water Martin would have said that this board was a joke, their comment would have been removed and violation point given for disrespect.. I guess curtsy is no longer part of the LDS tradition at least there are some that make it seem so..

Though I have not posted on CARM, I have browsed some of their threads, and from what I witnessed, it takes more that just saying "this board is a joke" to get a comment removed. It is full of disrespect for the beliefs of others, and there are some that take great delight in how degrading they can be of other's beliefs. When someone complains about it, they are basically told to "quit your whining".

Though this board may have its faults, it is far more open to debate than CARM is.

With any apologetics board it can get a bit rough under the basket, but I have seen fouls called on both side here...CARM, not so much.

[James Banta]

That was its location AT THE TIME.

??

That was its location AT THE TIME.

That was its location AT THE TIME.

That was its location AT THE TIME.

AT THE TIME

No they didn't. Our spirit could have (and were) created long before our bodies and then at some time between conception and birth the spirit is placed in the body to give it live.

But it doesn't, your misinterpretation not withstanding.

A belief in a pre-mortal existence was common in "Christianity" be for Joseph Smith came along. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that the current rejection of the pre-mortal existence amongst "evangelicals" is the result of Anti-Mormonism. You guys just can't accept something that Mormons believe.

Take Baptism for example. It was commonly believed that Baptism was necessary for salvation. Until Mormons came along and taught it.

Back to Pre-Mortal existence.

Job 38

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

How could "ALL the sons of God" shout for joy if the didn't exist together?

Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

How could the spirit RETURN to someplace it has never been?

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.

How could God know someone before there physical formation if the didn't exist in some manner prior?

John 9:1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Now why would the Apostles think that is was possible for someone to sin before they were born if they were never in a position to be able to sin? And why would such a misconception (if it was a misconception) go uncorrected? Jesus had the perfect opportunity here to establish YOUR doctrine in clear and unmistakable terms, YET He didn't. WHY? Because it is a false doctrine.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

How could God "forknow" us if we didn't fore-exist?

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

How could He choose us "before the foundation of the world" if we didn't exist "before the foundation of the world"? Why would Paul even say such a thing?

Sorry but your argument is without foundation. Are you a subscriber to "sola scriptura"? If so you have no foundation for the idea that the spirits of men are created AFTER the creation of the physical body.

There were/are many churches that believe baptism is required for salvation the Catholic Church is not the least of these. The Church of Christ and even a Baptist church or two around that hold that opinion.. It has never been a doctrine of the Christian body.. Never..

Job 38:7 speaks to the sons that shout for joy.. These were the angelic host. Unlike the LDS Christian peoples believe that angels are not the preexistent spirits of human people..

Eccl 12:7 Why is it strange to you that God created out spirits.. When we are dead physically our spirits return to He who made them.. If I design and make a wooden table and the person that buys it from me doesn't like it they can return it to me.. RETURN it to the person who made it.. I don't see you can show your point in that passage..

Jer 9:1 How you want to speak to the timelessness of God.. Since He knows all things from the beginning to the end, He knew each and ever one of us long before the world was formed in time..

John 9:1 Jesus told the disciples that they were mistaken about their thought of why the man was born blind.. The passage is about Jesus and His power to take our infirmities onto Himself not when the man spirit was created.. Jesus was teaching an important characteristic about Himself not this man or his creation..

Rom 8:29 Again speak to the FACT that God is not restrained by time as we are.. He know us completely before a thought of our being was known by the earth.. Don't you know that Jesus said that before Abraham existed He IS? How can Jesus be before Abraham.. Because He is God..

Eph 1:4 Same explanation here.. You seem to want to limit God to one place and one time.. Solomon said that God couldn't be restrained for the House he had built that He fills all space.. He also fills all time.. I know that the mormon god is less than this but there is nothing in the Bible that limits God's presence.. All the rest of your one phrase denials have been ignored.. If you want to go back and add some meat to those bone we could discuss it by I will not engage in a "is to,is not" sort of argument..

As with most LDS apologists you pick out your proof text while you ignore the passages that tell you that Our spiritual creation is secondary to our natural creation. Our that God created our spirits with us.. The way the Holy Spirit has taught me the passages you presented make them true without abandoning the passages that teach that my spirit was created with in me, and that I was a natural creation before being reborn and a spiritual creation.. I don't see your interpretation covering these passages.. How you seem to be dealing with them is with blinders.. IHS jim

IHS jim

[Vance]

There were/are many churches that believe baptism is required for salvation the Catholic Church is not the least of these. The Church of Christ and even a Baptist church or two around that hold that opinion.. It has never been a doctrine of the Christian body.. Never..

Really?

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Job 38:7 speaks to the sons that shout for joy.. These were the angelic host. Unlike the LDS Christian peoples believe that angels are not the preexistent spirits of human people..

Oh really? Angels? So when the Bible says "sons of God" it doesn't really mean "sons of God" but angels?

CFR That is a call for REFERENCE!!!

So are these "sons of God" angels too?

Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

[James Banta]

It means sex to you. LDS believe that God works within natural laws, however, God's knowledge of those laws far exceed our understanding. LDS authorities have made statements about Jesus' birth yet you want to turn it into how He was conceived. The only thing they say of a sureity is that God the Father is the literal father of Jesus. By what means that took place is pure speculation.

I never said I was a "trinitarian". Does it surprise you that LDS believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost make up the one true God? Yet we maintain their Godhood individually, each being God. God the Father is one God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and also a God. The Holy Ghost is a God also, yet all 3 make up the one true and living God.

I am not trying to say that the Levites are priests, but that they were given the priesthood. I am not limited to only one duty within the priesthood so I don't need to have the Levites be priests. But here are a couple of scriptures to think about:

1 Chr. 15:2

2 Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever.

Joshua 6:12

12

[T-Shirt]

When leaders of your church teach that the conception of Jesus was done in the same natural way that human fathers conceive their children why would I look for some other greater natural law than what they speck of.. When Human father conceive their by natural means that means only one thing, SEX.. Since that is what your leaders have said "the same natural means" then they mean it was done by sex.. Look again what Elder McConkie said:

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 742)

I am not making this stuff up to make you look bad.. I am us just going by what your "prophets" have said on the subject.

Wow, I just thought I would check in to see where this thread has gone after several weeks and I would have to say it has seriously deteriorated.

James, first of all, Bruce R. McConkie was never the prophet of the Church. Second, nothing in his statement requires the meaning you are reading into it. I tell you what, I will post a quote from a man you who was the prophet of the Church which explicitly deals with this topic. Will you then use his quote, from now on, in explaining what LDS prophets say on the subject? What do you say?

Here is the quote:

We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more.

(Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 14.)

Best,

T-Shirt

[Vance]

Oh really? Angels? So when the Bible says "sons of God" it doesn't really mean "sons of God" but angels?

CFR That is a call for REFERENCE!!!

My CFR still stands!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When leaders of your church teach that the conception of Jesus was done in the same natural way that human fathers conceive their children why would I look for some other greater natural law than what they speck of.. When Human father conceive their by natural means that means only one thing, SEX.. Since that is what your leaders have said "the same natural means" then they mean it was done by sex.. Look again what Elder McConkie said:

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 742)

I am not making this stuff up to make you look bad.. I am us just going by what your "prophets" have said on the subject.

IT does? So every baby to day is born through sex?

I just am not seeing this. I see it as saying that God the Father was Jesus' Father in every normal sense of the word father.

SO yeah you are "making this stuff up".

[James Banta]

Really?

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Oh really? Angels? So when the Bible says "sons of God" it doesn't really mean "sons of God" but angels?

CFR That is a call for REFERENCE!!!

So are these "sons of God" angels too?

Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

[WalkerW]

Isn't the writer to the Hebrews telling us we need to look past these basic teaching of the Church and look to perfection? I don't see any thing like that happening in the LDS church.. Have you set all these things aside and moved on to perfection?

Based on your interpretation, I should put aside not only baptism, but faith in God, repentance, resurrection, & eternal judgment. I want to see you admit that your interpretation above means we should put aside faith in God.

As for me, these doctrines are the milk of which Paul speaks at the end of ch. 5. The milk is necessary before the meat. The NET Commentary states, "Grk

[WalkerW]

Heb. 6:1 calls those the "principles of the doctrine of Christ."

John said, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God." (2 John 1:9)

Good luck with rejecting them.

[Vance]

Isn't the writer to the Hebrews telling us we need to look past these basic teaching of the Church and look to perfection?

No. He is telling us to leave them in place and build upon them. I can understand why you would like to interpret this otherwise, any excuse to walk away from the teachings of Jesus is always sought for by the cheap gracers.

I don't see any thing like that happening in the LDS church..

It is true that we don't walk away from the teachings of Jesus.

Have you set all these things aside and moved on to perfection?

No, because they are necessary for moving on to perfection. They are the foundation upon which perfection is built.

Again you look at one verse and create your whole religion on it..

As opposed to the cheap gracers who take a few verse from Eph, a few from Rom and a few from Gal AND TOTALLY DISREGARD the clear and plain teachings of Jesus.

If the whole of the Bible is true (as I have almost begged you to see) then this passage has to be seen in the light of the other verses..

Physician, heal thyself.

That God created the natural first then the spiritual.

Stripping a verse out of context is a very poor way to support your doctrine. AGAIN that verse in 1 Cor 15 is referring to the RESURRECTION, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with the creation of the spirit of man.

That God created the spirit of man with in him..

God did create the spirit of man, and that spirit is with in man. That statement is totally consistent with that verse. NOTHING in that verse requires the creation to occur inside man.

If that is true then these sons of God can't be the preexistent spirits of men..

The verse is true, your interpretation of it is false. Nothing more. THEREFORE the "sons of God" shouted for joy at the physical creation of the earth because they were there and witnessed it.

They had to be of a separate creation not associated with mankind..

non sequitur. Your logic is flawed.

You have the references for both these verses in 1 Cor 15, and Zech 12..

As I have shown here and before, these verses don't support your claim. Ignoring my arguments don't make them go away. Either address them in detail or give it up.

Were these other references you used about the Church or about what you would call preexistence spirits? Look at the context and see the answer..

Been there, done that, explained it to you and yet you can't address it.

Can you explain how "foreknow" CAN'T mean what I say it means?

Can you explain how "foreordain" CAN'T mean what I say it means?

Answer to both questions = NO!!!

Anything can be returned to it's maker.. A Mustang can be returned to Ford, a toaster to General Electric, a spirit to God.. He made it why can't he take it back.. A potter can throw a pot anyplace but it belongs to the potter. If he throws the pot in his garage he has the right to take it back to his shop or any other that he wishes it to be.. Doesn't God have that same right?

TRUE!!!! And in all cases these things existed prior. THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING MY ARGUMENT!!!

He created it within us but He has the right to bring it home to Himself as He wishes..

Let me explain it to you again, I will type slow.

He created the spirit and then placed it within man. In Adams case He "breathed" it into man.

Now, you don't have to believe it, but if you are honest with me you will admit that my interpretation is plausible.

I see that you deny the timelessness of God..

Haven't been there, didn't do that. Misrepresenting what I said is a form of dishonesty.

The mormon god doesn't know the beginning from the end. He has no idea what is going to happen 2 years, 2 months, 2 week or even 2 days from now..

CFR

You are losing this argument and so are resorting to ridiculous accusations.

[Vance]

Why didn't Jesus take the time to teach a principal that is already in the word?

Because, according to you theory, the apostles didn't get the message and they needed correction.

Maybe because He was busy preforming a miracle giving sight to the blind and showing the works of God through him..

You mean that your god didn't have time to correct false doctrine, what a pathetically weak god you have.

(I can hardly wait for the whining about that comment to show up. Let the whining begin.)

Telling them that He had to hurry because His time was short.. This is all in the context...

CFR

Why is it you have to ask me and not God Himself?

Been there, done that, got my answer. You are wrong.

I perfectly understand . . .

blah blah blah

. . . GET IT?

RED HERRING ALERT!!!

If I haven't shown you even one verse what does Zech 12:1 mean? How can God create the spirit of a man inside him if the "him" hasn't yet been created?

EASY!!!!

First He creates the spirit and then later places the spirit "within man".

See, easy as pie for God.

Hey ever here about the the man who built a ship in a bottle but never had the bottle to build it in?

Happens all the time. First you build the ship and then you put it in the bottle. You too can do it.

http://www.hobbyplace.com/ships/shipinbotl.php

There was no man to create his spirit in.. God did that in complete disregard for the message that He pronounced, the word that said He created our spirits within us..

The spirit doesn't need a physical body to exist. Upon death the spirit continues to exist, it just leaves the body. That is what causes the body to die, the spirit leaves it.

James 2;26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Or that God created the natural part of this world before He created the spiritual..

STILL wresting the scriptures I see. Clue here. Verses about the resurrection are about the resurrection and not about the creation.

But I haven't given you any doctrinal evidence that I am not just inventing the doctrines of creation of the spirit.

TRUE. Or in other words, you have given me doctrinal evidence that you are just inventing the doctrines of creation of the spirit.

What I can say is I haven't seen anything form an LDS POV that deals with these passages at all..

I have dealt with them TWICE on this thread alone.

[Vance]

I have seen them ignored or skirted not not embraced as scripture..

Where was that, over at CARM? That hasn't happened here.

All the while I have shown you how I do embrace the passages you have brought up.

By saying that they don't mean what they say? Is that how you embrace them?

How they tell of that God is Great and knows all things from the foundation to the world to His enthronement at the end of the age..

That doesn't mean that the spirit didn't exist long before now does it.

That nothing is hidden from Him.. And that God does have angelic creation that serve Him before his throne.

That doesn't mean that the spirit didn't exist long before now does it.

That Satan was one of these who God called Lucifer. A perfect and beautiful being. So lovely and full of God's glory that he pride moved him to sin..

Whatever dude. IRRELAVANT!!

That proves to be that there are angelic hosts and these too are the sons of God..

Here is a clue for you. The angels that surrounded the throne of God before the physical creation of the Earth ARE the "sons of God", they are the spirits of men which existed then. Those angels are simply the spirits of men, the "sons of God".

You deny this and therefore dent Zech 12. and 1 Cor 15..

NOT at all. Just your interpretations of them.

No your interpretations that God couldn't have known us before we existed still makes no sense to me because it denies the power of God..

Didn't say that, don't believe that. Don't misrepresent, it is dishonest.

[Vance]

Heb. 6:1 calls those the "principles of the doctrine of Christ."

John said, "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God." (2 John 1:9)

Good luck with rejecting them.

MOST excellent point!!

[James Banta]

Wow, I just thought I would check in to see where this thread has gone after several weeks and I would have to say it has seriously deteriorated.

James, first of all, Bruce R. McConkie was never the prophet of the Church. Second, nothing in his statement requires the meaning you are reading into it. I tell you what, I will post a quote from a man you who was the prophet of the Church which explicitly deals with this topic. Will you then use his quote, from now on, in explaining what LDS prophets say on the subject? What do you say?

Here is the quote:

Best,

T-Shirt

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained

[James Banta]

MOST excellent point!!

Where did you see me saying they aren't? Such a simple true didn't demand a response.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Based on your interpretation, I should put aside not only baptism, but faith in God, repentance, resurrection, & eternal judgment. I want to see you admit that your interpretation above means we should put aside faith in God.

As for me, these doctrines are the milk of which Paul speaks at the end of ch. 5. The milk is necessary before the meat. The NET Commentary states, "Grk

[James Banta]

Let me explain it to you again, I will type slow.

He created the spirit and then placed it within man. In Adams case He "breathed" it into man.

Now, you don't have to believe it, but if you are honest with me you will admit that my interpretation is plausible.

Haven't been there, didn't do that. Misrepresenting what I said is a form of dishonesty.

CFR

You are losing this argument and so are resorting to ridiculous accusations.

Thank you for seeing just how stupid I am.. I can see how you would believe that God created man's spirit some place else before he created his flesh.. I don't believe it fits with Zech 12:1.. If there is no body to create the spirit in how does God create our spirit within us? I will admit to losing the argument if it makes you happy about yourself.. I am not here to win arguments.. I thought I made it clear why I was here.. I needed information and the LDS here were gracious to give it to me..

I don't know how I can make my position any more clear on this subject.. I don't hold any of the Bible is a vacuum.. It all MUST work together.. Either it is all true of it is all a lie.. Yes I hold it to be that black and white.. The Holy Spirit has told me just what I have said here.. He has assured me that the promise of Jesus that heaven and earth will pass away but His word would never pass away means the whole Bible.. I have put my trust in Jesus (God) therefore when He speaks I believe it.. He does this for me through His word as the Holy Spirit teaches it to me..

I am commanded by Him though the Apostle Paul to make a defense for the faith in all humility and meekness of heart.. I have been told that if you believe me to be stupid, if you believe me to be wrong on these points I will yield to your superior intellect and knowledge.. I won't believe it for myself by I will not get into an "Is so, Is not" argument.. And with your unsupported denials that is where my conversation with you is going.. IHS jim