Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh"

[ChristKnight]

FYI, that page contains what LDS would refer to as abominable creeds and false philophies of men, which the Lord was referring to when he told Joseph Smith not to join any of the world's churches during what we (LDS) refer to as the 'First Vision'.

So, No, we LDS don't buy into all of that stuff, but if you do, or if you would like to, I recommend that you seek out the Catholic Church and learn from them, as they are one of the primary groups who came up with all of that stuff.

Yes, that's what I thought. I think that when Bart Burk is referring to the use of "Only Begotten Son" in reference to Christ's pre-mortal existence, he is referring to the ideas found on that page I linked to, i.e. "eternal generation". I guess I'll just wait for him to clarify what it actually means for Jesus to be "eternally begotten" in this context, since when I asked this on a Catholic forum, the answer was very hard to understand, and highly philosophized.

[Skylla]

This thread has been derailed. Stop speculating about how Christ was conceived and get back on topic.

Skylla

[Mike Reed]

Reported to moderators.

Moderators, please contact me privately to let me know if any action will be taken against Obiwan for this.

Until I hear back from you I will discontinue my participation on this forum. I am tired of Obiwan's repeated unprovoked personal attacks.

You can contact me at mike_g_reed at yahoo dot com

Thanks.

[Ceeboo]

Mike Reed is an anti-mormon (or cultural mormon as he likes to say) who only sees things through such eyes, thus not realizing that the actual truth is otherwise on certain "controversial" subjects. Almost NO MORMON believes this idea, including most of the ones such people try to claim such was believed, i.e. Brigham Young.

In other words, don't believe what he says. Yes, he's good on a lot of things, but skewed on most. Of course, not that there isn't mormons who might believe this (you can find nearly all on the web of those who do), but maybe only like .0001% of the Church might believe such, including the educated. I certainly don't, and I've seen it all.

Hey again Obiwan,

Although I appreciate your warning (Odd as it strikes me), I have enjoyed the perspectives and contributions Mike has shared on this board.

I would also suggest that the manner and method he chooses to display while sharing, IMHO, makes the MADB a better place for all.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[bluebell]

Hey again Obiwan,

Although I appreciate your warning (Odd as it strikes me), I have enjoyed the perspectives and contributions Mike has shared on this board.

I would also suggest that the manner and method he chooses to display while sharing, IMHO, makes the MADB a better place for all.

Peace,

Ceeboo

I agree Ceeboo and feel that Obiwan's remarks were in very poor taste.

[Skylla]

Mike Reed is an anti-mormon (or cultural mormon as he likes to say) who only sees things through such eyes, thus not realizing that the actual truth is otherwise on certain "controversial" subjects. Almost NO MORMON believes this idea, including most of the ones such people try to claim such was believed, i.e. Brigham Young.

In other words, don't believe what he says. Yes, he's good on a lot of things, but skewed on most. Of course, not that there isn't mormons who might believe this (you can find nearly all on the web of those who do), but maybe only like .0001% of the Church might believe such, including the educated. I certainly don't, and I've seen it all.

Obiwan:

Disagreement needs to be expressed without labeling.

Skylla

[Pahoran]

Hey again Obiwan,

Although I appreciate your warning (Odd as it strikes me), I have enjoyed the perspectives and contributions Mike has shared on this board.

I would also suggest that the manner and method he chooses to display while sharing, IMHO, makes the MADB a better place for all.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Labels aside, Obiwan's point, given the context, does not seem to be that he disagrees with Mr. Reed; nor is it that Mr. Reed is a bad person. It seems only to be that Mr. Reed's perspective is hardly that of a believing Latter-day Saint, so when he tells you how he interprets things, you ought not to suppose that that has anything to do with how the Church or its members understand those things.

So when you read Mr. Reed, don't suppose too many Mormons read things the way Mr. Reed reads them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Mike Reed is an anti-mormon (or cultural mormon as he likes to say) who only sees things through such eyes, thus not realizing that the actual truth is otherwise on certain "controversial" subjects.

In other words, don't believe what he says.

I'm a big boy who can read and decide for myself. Dismissing a person's perspective out of hand because of differences in beliefs is, well, dumb. What is even dumber is dismissing someone's ideas because some stranger tells you to.

[Pahoran]

I'm a big boy who can read and decide for myself. Dismissing a person's perspective out of hand because of differences in beliefs is, well, dumb. What is even dumber is dismissing someone's ideas because some stranger tells you to.

Assuming that someone is telling you to dismiss a person's persective out of hand because of differences in beliefs, when in fact they were merely pointing out that that person's perspective comes from a very material difference in beliefs, and is therefore not one of our perspectives is, well, dumb. In fact, it may be the dumbest of the lot.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Assuming that someone is telling you to dismiss a person's persective out of hand because of differences in beliefs, when in fact they were merely pointing out that that person's perspective comes from a very material difference in beliefs, and is therefore not one of our perspectives is, well, dumb. In fact, it may be the dumbest of the lot.

Regards,

Pahoran

Seeing as I have studied and discussed various issues with LDS folks since my "awakening" 10 years ago, I know the perspective that many LDS would have you believe is based more on putting forth the most positive image possible of church history and teachings possible then actual bare bones fact. So, the smartest thing to do is look at many perspectives not just the official LDS one.

Side Note: After leaving the LDS Church I felt no anger, hostility, etc... towards it's members or the church, and I still don't. But this board has me scratching my head and wondering in amazement at the animosity of LDS members towards those with disagreements or questions. I never saw LDS folks in this light before and frankly it is quite disturbing.

[TAO]

Seeing as I have studied and discussed various issues with LDS folks since my "awakening" 10 years ago, I know the perspective that many LDS would have you believe is based more on putting forth the most positive image possible of church history and teachings possible then actual bare bones fact. So, the smartest thing to do is look at many perspectives not just the official LDS one.

Side Note: After leaving the LDS Church I felt no anger, hostility, etc... towards it's members or the church, and I still don't. But this board has me scratching my head and wondering in amazement at the animosity of LDS members towards those with disagreements or questions. I never saw LDS folks in this light before and frankly it is quite disturbing.

It's because of the itchiness ;0

Na, it be because some of them get tired, and don't show patience, that it is. It is something that we must overcome.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It's because of the itchiness ;0

How did you know of my scalp condition?

[TAO]

How did you know of my scalp condition?

Because it's mine too.

[urroner]

Side Note: After leaving the LDS Church I felt no anger, hostility, etc... towards it's members or the church, and I still don't. But this board has me scratching my head and wondering in amazement at the animosity of LDS members towards those with disagreements or questions. I never saw LDS folks in this light before and frankly it is quite disturbing.

So all LDS members have animosity towards those with disagreements or questions. Thanks BoML, I never knew I felt that way. I'm glad I have been set straight on that.

[bluebell]

So all LDS members have animosity towards those with disagreements or questions. Thanks BoML, I never knew I felt that way. I'm glad I have been set straight on that.

BoML is fond of relating how saddened he is by the weaknesses of those that don't agree with him. It could be why he gets more animosity than he would like from some LDS.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So all LDS members have animosity towards those with disagreements or questions. Thanks BoML, I never knew I felt that way. I'm glad I have been set straight on that.

No, not all. I have made clear several times that I don't lump ALL LDS together and I try my hardest to put "many" or some similar phrase when making statements- sometimes I forget to throw that in for people such as yourself, I do apologize if you were offended.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BoML is fond of relating how saddened he is by the weaknesses of those that don't agree with him. It could be why he gets more animosity than he would like from some LDS.

I could care less if you agree with me or not, I am saddened by the manner in which many LDS here choose to disagree with those outside of their own opinion. I grew up around friendly LDS people and I am not accustomed to seeing such comportment. It's just a learning process for me, I guess.

[bluebell]

I could care less if you agree with me or not, I am saddened by the manner in which many LDS here choose to disagree with those outside of their own opinion. I grew up around friendly LDS people and I am not accustomed to seeing such comportment. It's just a learning process for me, I guess.

Sometimes it is sad, i agree.

[Skylla]

Last chance for this thread: No more off topic comments.

Skylla

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Am I understanding you correctly; that the LDS should not believe what the Church itself formally adopts as doctrine, and truth statements, but should instead instead believe some one off odd statement by some leader or even general member makes?

[bluebell]

Bart, did we actualy answer your questions and explain ourselves? I'm not sure if, with all the other tangents, you were ever able to understand our doctrine.

[Vance]

Most Christians believe that Jesus was Begotten from all Eternity as the Son.

Is this based on scripture or the post Biblical philosophies of men?

In other words, is there a scripture that describes Jesus as Begotten from all Eternity?

[Bart Burk]

Is this based on scripture or the post Biblical philosophies of men?

In other words, is there a scripture that describes Jesus as Begotten from all Eternity?

I think Hebrews 13:8 is applicable which says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. So he was always God. Since there is only One God he had to be eternal just like his Father. And in traditional Christianity eternal is backward as well as forward.

John 1:1-14 which talks about creation coming through Jesus would be the other relevant text. It essentially says everything was made through Jesus -- nothing except God existed prior to God creating them through Jesus except God himself. And God always exists as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Joseph Smith had to invent the idea that matter always existed, but that's not the Biblical teaching as shown explicitly by John 1:3.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And in traditional Christianity eternal is backward as well as forward.

Is it? Lets test this. When you are resurrected will there ever be a time when you will loose your physical body? The answer accourding to scripture is no.

From that time it could be said that you will have a glorified physical body for all of eternity or forever or everlasting.

How is Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever? It certainly is not in regards to him having a physical body.

Eternal does not necissarily mean "eternity past" as I have often heard other mainstream Christians use it. Notice the bible never uses the phrase "eternity past".

[Bart Burk]

Is it? Lets test this. When you are resurrected will there ever be a time when you will loose your physical body? The answer accourding to scripture is no.

From that time it could be said that you will have a glorified physical body for all of eternity or forever or everlasting.

How is Jesus the same yesterday, today, and forever? It certainly is not in regards to him having a physical body.

Eternal does not necissarily mean "eternity past" as I have often heard other mainstream Christians use it. Notice the bible never uses the phrase "eternity past".

It's in terms of his being God. That's the whole point. God doesn't change.