Do Mormon's teach that God was once a man?

[semlogo]

No since Germany wanted to extend itself into the Slavic empire, their racial group was the minority, the elite those meant to rule over others. And they singled almost everyone else out.

You are left with dithering word games and constantly retreating. Small minds dwell on small things.

Even taking into account the entire world population, it's still a minority. They weren't intent on slaughtering all Slavic groups.

Words mean things, Jeff. Let's strive for accuracy in our expression. The group singled out in 1000 BC was the Levites. The group singled out in 1850 was people of African ancestry.

[Jeff K.]

Even taking into account the entire world population, it's still a minority. They weren't intent on slaughtering all Slavic groups.

Words mean things, Jeff. Let's strive for accuracy in our expression. The group singled out in 1000 BC was the Levites. The group singled out in 1850 was people of African ancestry.

Small minds semlogo, very small minds.

I have yet to show your position as anything more than quibbling littleness on your part. My advice, get over yourself and move on. Words do have meaning and you have not yet shown what I have said to be inaccurate. Whether you are engrossed in your own little word game or following your own penchant for whining, it doesn't matter. My use of the phrase was accurate. Aryans versus Jews, the German Aryans singled out the minority Jews. As a minority. Simultaneously the German Aryans singled out all slavs and other races as either slave material or fodder for death in their "lebensraum" program, as a German minority. You see it works both ways, even if you are too petty to admit it.

Move on kid, or show me the rule where my use is incorrect, I am sure with your vast knowledge of journalism it shouldn't be too hard.

[Calm]

The man accused of fatally shooting two people and critically wounding three others singled out whites, according to witnesses.

From a very quick reading of the article it would appear that whites were the majority of those he encountered, but it was not written that he singled out nonwhites to not be his targets.

It would seem to me the use of "singled out" is not about numbers but about what is being identified as a limit and who this limit is applied to. If one is speaking about not having the priesthood, then one could use "singled out" for all the nonLevites while if one were talking about having the priesthood one would say the Levites were singled out.

[semlogo]

Small minds semlogo, very small minds.

I have yet to show your position as anything more than quibbling littleness on your part. My advice, get over yourself and move on. Words do have meaning and you have not yet shown what I have said to be inaccurate. Whether you are engrossed in your own little word game or following your own penchant for whining, it doesn't matter. My use of the phrase was accurate. Aryans versus Jews, the German Aryans singled out the minority Jews. As a minority. Simultaneously the German Aryans singled out all slavs and other races as either slave material or fodder for death in their "lebensraum" program, as a German minority. You see it works both ways, even if you are too petty to admit it.

Move on kid, or show me the rule where my use is incorrect, I am sure with your vast knowledge of journalism it shouldn't be too hard.

I can't prove a negative. Every instance of singled out I've ever seen is referring to a minority. I asked you to prove your assertion that the phrase could be used to refer to the vast, vast majority of humanity. Since you were unable to do so I assumed that meant that you gave up on the idea. If you still think you have a valid point, I invite you to demonstrate it as previously requested.

I'm not sure accusing me of having a small mind is in harmony with the board rules, by the way. Just thought I'd point that out.

[semlogo]

From a very quick reading of the article it would appear that whites were the majority of those he encountered, but it was not written that he singled out nonwhites to not be his targets.

It would seem to me the use of "singled out" is not about numbers but about what is being identified as a limit and who this limit is applied to. If one is speaking about not having the priesthood, then one could use "singled out" for all the nonLevites while if one were talking about having the priesthood one would say the Levites were singled out.

When weighed with the sum total of humanity, whites are indeed a minority.

Bear in mind that Jeff K is using "singled out" to refer collectively to:

Jews

Slavic peoples

Northern Europeans

Australians

Aboriginal Australians

Native Americans

Celts

Hispanics

Arabs

Persians

Pacific Islanders

Chinese

Japanese

Koreans

Western Europeans

Latinos

Indians

etc.

[Jeff K.]

When weighed with the sum total of humanity, whites are indeed a minority.

Bear in mind that Jeff K is using "singled out" to refer collectively to:

Jews

Slavic peoples

Northern Europeans

Australians

Aboriginal Australians

Native Americans

Celts

Hispanics

Arabs

Persians

Pacific Islanders

Chinese

Japanese

Koreans

Western Europeans

Latinos

Indians

etc.

Semlogo tries hard to get out of the corner he boxes himself into. Apparently he chooses to be blind to the ability that any group whether majority or minority can be singled out. It would appear that semlogo has failed to grasp a basic tenet. When finding oneself in a hole, stop digging.

[semlogo]

Semlogo tries hard to get out of the corner he boxes himself into. Apparently he chooses to be blind to the ability that any group whether majority or minority can be singled out. It would appear that semlogo has failed to grasp a basic tenet. When finding oneself in a hole, stop digging.

Still haven't found an example to back up your aberrant usage of the phrase?

[Calm]

Definition of the idiom:

single someone or something out (for something)to choose or pick someone or something for something; to select an eligible person or thing for something.

So it would seem it does not depend on the numbers involved, but the selection criteria according to the definition.

PS: this is really off topic, perhaps the thread should be closed as having run its course?

[todd520]

Still haven't found an example to back up your aberrant usage of the phrase?

semlogo, if you are having problems with the phrase "singled out" then just replace it with "targeted" in your mind

The meaning will be the same and it may get you over this hump about the size of the target being important

He appeared to single out whites in his shooting rampage

He appeared to target whites in his shooting rampage

(see, no difference in meaning)

[Nemesis]

Small minds semlogo, very small minds.

I have yet to show your position as anything more than quibbling littleness on your part. My advice, get over yourself and move on. Words do have meaning and you have not yet shown what I have said to be inaccurate. Whether you are engrossed in your own little word game or following your own penchant for whining, it doesn't matter. My use of the phrase was accurate. Aryans versus Jews, the German Aryans singled out the minority Jews. As a minority. Simultaneously the German Aryans singled out all slavs and other races as either slave material or fodder for death in their "lebensraum" program, as a German minority. You see it works both ways, even if you are too petty to admit it.

Move on kid, or show me the rule where my use is incorrect, I am sure with your vast knowledge of journalism it shouldn't be too hard.

Read the board rules Jeff. We will not tolerate anymore of this.

Nemesis

[Calm]

Some more (just because my brain is needs something to fill the void until I can convince it to go to sleep):

that singled out whites for punishment in cases of voluntary interracial sex and marriage and ignored their nonwhite partners.

http://books.google....ites%22&f=false

I wouldn't support a business that singled out whites and celebrated them based on thier race

Whites are not a minority in the US, not sure why you are involving the "sum total of humanity" in these examples that are definitely not being applied to the entire world but a definite set of people.

(do a google on "singled out whites" and one comes up with several independent---and educated in most of the ones I'm thinking of that are in books or journals---usage of the phrase where the whites are the majority of the particular society being examined)

[Hestia]

Small minds semlogo, very small minds.

Refrain from personal insults.

[Jeff K.]

I believe the proof is there, my use of the phrase is correct, but I do not believe semlogo will acknowledge as much.

[Balzer]

If you realy believe that a true prophet would not be at loss for words, I am sure you can wax eloquent on the correct exegesis of Exodus 4:10 and how Aaron the Levite really did not play a role in the initial phases of the departure of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt because Moses actually provided a grand oration for the children of Israel, Exodus 4:30 to the contrary.

Allow me to clarify: I don't think the prophet of the Mormon Church is lacking knowledge on this or any other subject having to do with your church. And I can't wax eloquent on anything.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[evangelist]

It will likely chase close-minded people away, sure.

Please don't say that to a muslim, you will have alot of problems, specially that God was a man before Jesus.

one love

[Vex]

Please don't say that to a muslim, you will have alot of problems, specially that God was a man before Jesus.

one love

And this has what bearing on this discussion? Having taught and expanded our doctrine to multiple practicing Muslims they took no offense to what we offered.

[evangelist]

And this has what bearing on this discussion? Having taught and expanded our doctrine to multiple practicing Muslims they took no offense to what we offered.

I am glad to hear that you know your belief on a man before God is blasphemy in the Islamic religion and also the christian religions.

one love

[Vex]

I am glad to hear that you know your belief on a man before God is blasphemy in the Islamic religion and also the christian religions.

one love

And again, this comes out of no where. Do you look for places to insult? It is possible to share ones beliefs without becoming insulting to others, furthermore this is no more blasphemous to say that we are the Children of God. If we are Children, does it then not reason that our Father was once like us? If you believe this is incorrect fine, but support yourself with current scholarship without insult. It's pretty easy to do. I engage with others without becoming insulting, but if you continue this way I will have no qualms about returning it *** for tat... or I'll just report your posts, either way.

[Jeff K.]

And this has what bearing on this discussion? Having taught and expanded our doctrine to multiple practicing Muslims they took no offense to what we offered.

A reflection perhaps as to how Muslims can be more Christlike than some Evangelicals.

[evangelist]

And again, this comes out of no where. Do you look for places to insult? It is possible to share ones beliefs without becoming insulting to others, furthermore this is no more blasphemous to say that we are the Children of God. If we are Children, does it then not reason that our Father was once like us? If you believe this is incorrect fine, but support yourself with current scholarship without insult. It's pretty easy to do. I engage with others without becoming insulting, but if you continue this way I will have no qualms about returning it *** for tat... or I'll just report your posts, either way.

It was no way an insult but a fact and how others take your doctrine and philosophy.

But if the truth hurt you sorry, I just don't like lieing.

I told other about your theology on the man God and they were completely shocked.

They really didn't even believe me that such a religion woulld believe such a thinks untill I copy this thread on my printer to show many in black in white straight from the mormon mouth.

You say you make this well known world wide I just have not seen and heard this done.

one love

[Vex]

It was no way an insult but a fact and how others take your doctrine and philosophy.

Only to the uneducated about the roots of their faith (do a search for early church fathers and deification) or to those who must sensationalize some one else's beliefs in order to spread their dogma.

But if the truth hurt you sorry, I just don't like lieing.

Uh huh.

I told other about your theology on the man God and they were completely shocked.

Could it be because you do it for sensationalism by chance?

They really didn't even believe me that such a religion woulld believe such a thinks untill I copy this thread on my printer to show many in black in white straight from the mormon mouth.

You say you make this well known world wide I just have not seen and heard this done.

one love

Then let me help educate you in simple logic:

Look up Romans 8:16.

Can a child take the form of anything but what the parent is?

By your own scriptures; the logic states the pattern. The only way one can deny it is to redefine and wrest the scriptures to fit their dogma.

For even further logic let's look at Christs words on the subject:

Look up John 5:19

What has Christ done? He was born unto this earth, took up mortality, taught and preached, performed miracles, and then suffered for all our sins, providing the Atonement for us. He even laid down his own life and took it up again. This then becomes a simple statement of belief and you have only one of three ways to go; believe Christ and his words, determine him a liar, or wrest the scripture from its plain meaning.

If the Father never did those things (take upon himself mortality and take back his life, etc) then Christ is determined a liar. If the Father did those things and Christ is not a liar then you are not teaching what Christ has taught. Which leaves you with only one choice of action; wrest the scripture.

[Questing Beast]

I have cruised through the first part of this lengthy thread (its author is now "banned" it appears, and I agree that s/he was being deliberately provocative and made assertions without basis in fact).

The subject itself is probably the most fundamental to my problems with Joseph Smith's theology.

In brief: Joseph Smith's theology was one of the most evolving doctrines in his personal religion. From c. 1820, when his theology would have been essentially Triune Godhead in concept - as appears compatibly in the BofM - through his earliest "first vision" account (1832), we see no distinct changes to the Godhead. But by 1835, in the Lectures on Faith ("canonized" scripture in the Church till 1921), God the Father is now unarguably stated to be a spirit being, while Jesus Christ has a tangible, physical body: the "Godhead" is TWO persons, with the Holy Spirit being their combined influence. Yet by 1843 we have a distinct departure from this clearly taught doctrine on Godhead: in the King Follett address, and shortly after in the D&C, God the Father NOW has a "body as tangible as man's, the Son also": but the Holy Spirit remains a being of spirit only, "otherwise he could not dwell in us". The Godhead is "now" THREE separate, distinct Beings. This is the Godhead doctrine "frozen" in place for the LDS faith ever since.

It has been stated in posts early in this thread that God the Father once being a mortal like ourselves is a "comforting" concept; because it shows that God the Father understands us, having gone through what we are experiencing now for ourselves. I've always had a problem with this concept for two reasons that never went away, no matter how hard I tried to ignore the question: Why, if God the Father (Joseph Smith's FINAL rendition of that Being) was once a man, would anyone feel the need to worship him? He's just one of "us", a Daddy figure, no matter how glorious. He's not the "God of Existence in the First Place". No corporeal, empirical, finite being could possibly be the First Cause. That's the second part of my problem with Mormon theology: I KNOW in the core of my own Existence, that no amount of manmade concepts, even combined altogether from throughout the multiverse, from eternity to all eternity, can possibly even BEGIN to define "Existence in the First Place", i.e. the Original Cause of Existence in the First Place.

To me the mind boggleth at the capacity to limit itself to such a finite theology. It was, IRONICALLY, in the temple many years ago that I began to disbelieve the Pillsbury Doughboy white beings on the screen: and to believe, instead, the (now defunct) preacher dude's theology! Its very incomprehensibility was a hint at something profound and beautiful. (No wonder they got rid of him; he was making converts like me out of the temple congregants!) In brief (because it's all we know; it's all anyone as a mortal can know): "God" is infinite; we are finite; ergo, we cannot possibly comprehend "God in Total". So the concept of God the Father once being a mortal man as I am now is fallacious, IF I think that I am worshipping the Original Cause of Existence in the First Place. At best, he's a manifestation of that Cause, masquerading as a glorified man. And I cry "foul"! I won't be praying to "him", when I can cut to the chase and contemplate the First Cause on my own, without interposing a glorified man - God the Father - between myself and the Cause of MY Existence. I have no need for lesser gods. That's called polytheism; and I might as well consider myself as one of them - cut to the chase in this as well, since I am obviously an immortal being.

So currently my theology states this much: every sapient soul is "God" manifesting as finite beings, unaware of "God in Total" (well, other than the concept of such a state, that is), and possessing free will. In that sense, Jesus Christ was a mortal manifestation of "God" just as I am, and as you (collective) are. We do this mortality thing in order to come to a fullness (awareness) of just exactly what Joy is (and conversely, is not). It is impossible to imagine anything impossible!?! As much a conundrum as that statement is, it has to be a fact. Our finite yet 'satiable sapience cannot possibly comprehend infinity; so we will always, forever, moment by moment in space-time, be seeking for more knowledge about "God" and never even making more than a beginning. (Thus the moniker, "Questing Beast" illustrates what my eternal destiny is.)

But just because I can imagine a thing, and instantly its opposite, doesn't mean that that thing is necessarily part of this world in which I peck at this keyboard. As Einstein reportedly said, "Time is necessary to keep everything from happening at once": so too is the universe we perceive apparently limited in what the laws of physics allow. As far as we can tell (and hope!) the universe is stable and comparatively simple and reliable. No "demon haunted world" for us, thank you! Only in our imaginative fears and nightmares.

This world is filled with stable homo sapiens, almost entirely good and with only a smattering of "evil" peaking through from time to time; just enough to keep the Newsies employed (and even then, only by making a bunch of details up! curse them all!!). So we all want happiness and pursue it with tenacity: it is our natural state of being, to want Joy above everything else. And our "God" is a being who evidently (for our species anyway) prefers Joy above alternatives. Thank God!...

[evangelist]

Only to the uneducated about the roots of their faith (do a search for early church fathers and deification) or to those who must sensationalize some one else's beliefs in order to spread their dogma.

Uh huh.

Could it be because you do it for sensationalism by chance?

Then let me help educate you in simple logic:

Look up Romans 8:16.

Can a child take the form of anything but what the parent is?

By your own scriptures; the logic states the pattern. The only way one can deny it is to redefine and wrest the scriptures to fit their dogma.

For even further logic let's look at Christs words on the subject:

Look up John 5:19

What has Christ done? He was born unto this earth, took up mortality, taught and preached, performed miracles, and then suffered for all our sins, providing the Atonement for us. He even laid down his own life and took it up again. This then becomes a simple statement of belief and you have only one of three ways to go; believe Christ and his words, determine him a liar, or wrest the scripture from its plain meaning.

If the Father never did those things (take upon himself mortality and take back his life, etc) then Christ is determined a liar. If the Father did those things and Christ is not a liar then you are not teaching what Christ has taught. Which leaves you with only one choice of action; wrest the scripture.

Does a Spirit need a natural body??

Does a spirit itself must have flesh and bones?

Philippians 2:5

[Deborah]

I told other about your theology on the man God and they were completely shocked.

Given your likely presentation and lack of context and understanding why am I not surprised.

[TAO]

God the Father is now unarguably stated to be a spirit being, while Jesus Christ has a tangible, physical body: the "Godhead" is TWO persons, with the Holy Spirit being their combined influence.

Spiritual body also refers to a celestial body in certain instances. See the Corinthians sun-moon-stars verse:

40^aThere are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the ^bcelestial is one, and the glory of the ^cterrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the ^asun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the ^bstars: for one star ^cdiffereth from another star in ^dglory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in ^acorruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in ^aglory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a ^anatural body; it is raised a ^bspiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

bolding, underline by me

Why, if God the Father (Joseph Smith's FINAL rendition of that Being) was once a man, would anyone feel the need to worship him?

Because we love him.

He's just one of "us", a Daddy figure, no matter how glorious. He's not the "God of Existence in the First Place". No corporeal, empirical, finite being could possibly be the First Cause.

That's what makes him so great and worshippable - he's working to help us be like him.

"Existence in the First Place", i.e. the Original Cause of Existence in the First Place.

I don't think there is a first place in multi-verse-relative-time. No beginning, no end.

"God" is infinite; we are finite; ergo, we cannot possibly comprehend "God in Total".

Of course we can't - yet. When we get there, we will be able to. It's like trying to picture an object of a higher dimension. You can't picture it, but you can picture it's shadow.

So the concept of God the Father once being a mortal man as I am now is fallacious, IF I think that I am worshipping the Original Cause of Existence in the First Place.

Of course so, but as said, there cannot be a first place clause because if that was the way, there would be no energy to move a stagnant universe, because the universe would be frozen in time. 'First Cause' does not exist.

I have no need for lesser gods.

Children you mean? Don't you love your children? I don't think you care about you being higher than they are.

So currently my theology states this much: every sapient soul is "God" manifesting as finite beings, unaware of "God in Total" (well, other than the concept of such a state, that is), and possessing free will. In that sense, Jesus Christ was a mortal manifestation of "God" just as I am, and as you (collective) are. We do this mortality thing in order to come to a fullness (awareness) of just exactly what Joy is (and conversely, is not). It is impossible to imagine anything impossible!?! As much a conundrum as that statement is, it has to be a fact. Our finite yet 'satiable sapience cannot possibly comprehend infinity; so we will always, forever, moment by moment in space-time, be seeking for more knowledge about "God" and never even making more than a beginning. (Thus the moniker, "Questing Beast" illustrates what my eternal destiny is.)

Of course we can't comprehend infinity right now, but it does not mean that we will not be able to comprehend it in the future. Why are you so bent on 'First Cause', when it is impossible for one to exist?

But just because I can imagine a thing, and instantly its opposite, doesn't mean that that thing is necessarily part of this world in which I peck at this keyboard. As Einstein reportedly said, "Time is necessary to keep everything from happening at once": so too is the universe we perceive apparently limited in what the laws of physics allow. As far as we can tell (and hope!) the universe is stable and comparatively simple and reliable. No "demon haunted world" for us, thank you! Only in our imaginative fears and nightmares.

This is precisely why there cannot be a first cause - otherwise, there could be no time, and everything would happen in an instant - or nothing would happen.

This world is filled with stable homo sapiens, almost entirely good and with only a smattering of "evil" peaking through from time to time; just enough to keep the Newsies employed (and even then, only by making a bunch of details up! curse them all!!). So we all want happiness and pursue it with tenacity: it is our natural state of being, to want Joy above everything else. And our "God" is a being who evidently (for our species anyway) prefers Joy above alternatives. Thank God!...

It is one of the reasons why God places such strict limits on exaltation - to have a God who wants something other than joy, would be a disaster. So he places high standards instead.