God

[CV75]

"...you can't claim that each individual needs to have a personal visit from such an authorized messenger from heaven...."

According to the doctrine of Christ as taught in the Book of Mormon, each individual does require a personal visit from an authorized messenger from heaven. This is how proper baptism is performed, and that is only one function of God's authorized servants who personally minister to His children.

[shalamabobbi]

Talked to any heavenly messengers lately?

Was that a trick question from Rob? I assumed that he was referring to angels rather than mortals with priesthood authority..

[Vance]

Ain't nobody hear forgettin' that part, dude.

Apparently you are forgettin' something.

The criticism is not that Mormons believe that God was a sinner, but that (as calmoriah recognized) LDS Church doctrine at least allows for the possibility that God the Father was a sinner. That is, it does not appear that the LDS Church has ever officially taught that God was never a sinner, and its doctrine allows for this as a possibility.

The JS quote above, although not official doctrine, would indicate otherwise, don't you think.

Oh, wait, that wouldn't fit your anti-Mormon mime now would it.

And in fact it's you that are fergettin' part of what Joseph said: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...." I put it in red so's you wouldn't miss it this time.

This has been explained to you already, It obviously didn't take. I put it in red so's you wouldn't miss it this time.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Vance

[Avatar4321]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

Another LDS belief I LOVE is the eternal marriage. I love my wife more than I ever thought I could love anyone. It seems odd that God would give me a wife like her and let it only last a little while. If I ever become LDS, I will pray she does as well so we may be married in the temple.

It's a critical doctrine to anyone who believes in the Atonement of Jesus Christ:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," (John 1:1,14)

[Avatar4321]

So, if LDS believe that in the somewhat irrelevant eternities of the past, God the Father underwent the same process as Christ (he was God, became man, then was God), then you would consider God as changed, and there goes your problem with the LDS belief, Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And if we were to disbelieve it, then it raises questions on what Jesus meant when He said He does what He has seen the Father do, in reference to the Resurrection.

[Log]

And if we were to disbelieve it, then it raises questions on what Jesus meant when He said He does what He has seen the Father do, in reference to the Resurrection.

I deplore this particular interpretation of that verse. It cannot be consistently adopted, with reference to John 14:12.

[Avatar4321]

I deplore this particular interpretation of that verse. It cannot be consistently adopted, with reference to John 14:12.

So we should ignore the context of the verse when it refers to the resurrection from the dead because you dont like how it applies to another unrelated verse?

[jo1952]

I deplore this particular interpretation of that verse. It cannot be consistently adopted, with reference to John 14:12.

How so??

Regards,

jo

[Log]

How so??

Regards,

jo

I suppose it would help to read the verse referenced.

http://bible.cc/john/14-12.htm

So we should ignore the context of the verse when it refers to the resurrection from the dead because you dont like how it applies to another unrelated verse?

The verse does not, in fact, reference the resurrection of Christ. http://bible.cc/john/5-19.htm

You have taken it out of context, which is why I object to your interpretation.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Log

[diglot]

I suppose it would help to read the verse referenced.

http://bible.cc/john/14-12.htm

The verse does not, in fact, reference the resurrection of Christ. http://bible.cc/john/5-19.htm

Thankyou! I was going to point this out too. I have seen more than a few LDS eisegetically reading far too much into John 5.19. This saying of Jesus (if it is genuine, which I doubt seeing as it is found in John's Gospel) does not, in any way, imply that God the Father was a human who died and was resurrected.

[erichard]

Though I agree with most of the LDS teachings, one that gives me trouble is the idea that God was once a man. Is that a critical doctrine in the LDS Church?

....

Hi steve,

If you accept John 17:11 --

Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that

they may be one, as we

are

.

And you accept that the Holy Father and Jesus are two separate personages, and not an immaterial, inconceivable "trinity", then you are there!

What does it mean for the disciples of Jesus to be "one" as Jesus and his Father are "one"? Does it mean they become part of the immaterial trinity? Or does it mean that they become united as one -- in mind and heart and in all things?

The term God as I understand it does not mean one finite personage. It means all finite personages who are one with Christ and His Father as John 17 teaches-- worlds without number.

If an infinite Union of personages has always existed, and it ALWAYS has had more personages become part of it from each new world, then is it not fair to say that Union is UNCHANGING?

So GOD is truly infinite and unchanging. If a man or woman becomes a joint heir with Christ on this earth, and thus is one with Christ and His Father, then they become a finite part of the infinite GOD.

Anyway, that is how I understand it. I am Mormon, but not LDS, by the way.

Richard

Edited October 25, 2011 by erichard

[jo1952]

name='Log' timestamp='1319509343' post='1209059092']

I suppose it would help to read the verse referenced.

http://bible.cc/john/14-12.htm

I DID read the verse before I asked you. So...."how so"? I need to understand your interpretation of this verse in order to understand why you made your comment because I do not see a problem.

Regards,

jo

[Log]

I DID read the verse before I asked you. So...."how so"? I need to understand your interpretation of this verse in order to understand why you made your comment because I do not see a problem.

Regards,

jo

I'm sorry; are you saying that in your view John 14:12 can, indeed, be read to mean that each disciple of Christ will become a fully efficacious Savior, performing an universal atonement and so forth as Christ did, and works greater than that, even?

Ok. You're the first I've met. Or you didn't understand my objection.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Log

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

I wrote:

"I was simply pointing out that even you can't claim that each individual needs to have a personal visit from such an authorized messenger from heaven. And you ended up conceding that point."

You replied:

That would be because I never made that point. That was your strawman..

No, I never claimed that you made such a point. To the contrary: I asserted that you could not possible take such a position:

"You can't possibly mean that each one of us must be personally contacted by an authorized servant sent from heaven. Talked to any heavenly messengers lately?"

See? I didn't say that you thought everyone needed personal contact from a heavenly messenger. I said the opposite: that you couldn't possibly think such a thing. And you agreed. So I didn't set up a straw man of your position.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

According to the doctrine of Christ as taught in the Book of Mormon, each individual does require a personal visit from an authorized messenger from heaven. This is how proper baptism is performed, and that is only one function of God's authorized servants who personally minister to His children.

There must be some equivocation going on here. Just who was the messenger from heaven who baptized you?

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You're just injecting confusion in your remark here. I am not advocating for some idiosyncratic interpretation all my own. I represent a very conventional evangelicalism that is shared by hundreds of millions of people.

It does not matter how many share that interpretation you have declared that unless one adheres to it they are not christian. You have thus set yourself as arbiter of someone elses salvation. I can't accept that. That position is held by Jesus Christ not you or one of the otheres who adhere to that philosophy. Lest you try to come back and tell me you come to that position by reading an inerrant Bible let me remind you that is only your own interpretation of what that Bible says.

The confusion is only in your own mind as you apparently can't fathom anyone disagreeing with you.

Edited October 25, 2011 by ERayR

[Vance]

Bowman,

It is nice to know that you deny being heaven sent.

[shalamabobbi]

Salvation is in Christ. Either He contacts us with the offer(through authorized servants sent from heaven) or we are left in the dark.

Sorry, had to return to the scene of the crime..

The authorized servants, such as Peter, James, John, Paul, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Thomas S. Monson, are here in mortality but they are directed from heaven.

You can't possibly mean that each one of us must be personally contacted by an authorized servant sent from heaven.

So with that clarification the answer is yes, that is exactly what I mean.

[Log]

Nevermind.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Log

[CV75]

There must be some equivocation going on here. Just who was the messenger from heaven who baptized you?

I would that you would clearly state what you mean by “equivocation.”

In the context of the LDS Church: authorized (having the holy priesthood) messenger (one sent from God to preach and minister) from heaven (implicit in the words “holy” and “God”). I refer you to 3 Nephi 11 and D&C 84. As one familiarizes himself with these scriptures, the meaning becomes very, very plain. The Lord in Heaven sends His servants forth in the earth to preach His gospel and administer its ordinances, to bind on earth and in heaven. The man who so baptized me was a member of the LDS branch I attended at the time; I don’t think you were asking me to publish his name here.

Seeing the phrase in your post just caught my attention in light of my understanding of the priesthood and prompted comment. Yes, we can and do claim “that each individual needs to have a personal visit from such an authorized messenger from heaven."

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi, Vance, and CV75,

Equivocation is a fallacy in reasoning. Look it up.

Shalamabobbi's original statement was as follows:

Salvation is in Christ. Either He contacts us with the offer(through authorized servants sent from heaven) or we are left in the dark.

In context here, shalamabobbi was referring to persons who actually were in heaven and came down from heaven to make authorized appearances on God's behalf. He was not referring to persons living on earth who have heavenly authorization to present the gospel to people. In that sense, I myself claim to have such heavenly authorization; as I've explained elsewhere, all disciples are authorized to preach the gospel in order to make more disciples (Matt. 28:18-20), and I am a disciple; therefore, I am authorized to preach the gospel. That authorization comes from someone who literally did come down from heaven, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ. That is a far better authorization than the claims that John the Baptist or three apostles or Moses or Nephi or whomever appeared to Joseph Smith. In any case, if Jesus Christ authorized the preaching of the gospel by all disciples, then I am authorized to preach the gospel; I don't need to have seen a messenger who came down from heaven to have that authorization, as even shalamabobbi has admitted. Equivocating by saying that Monson is an authorized servant whose authority came from heaven or who are "directed from heaven" doesn't negate my point.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Mark Beesley]

One of the more foaming-at-the-mouth of the breed (literally) used to take this idea to extremes by insisting that we believed God was once a transsexual cross-dresser, or some such nonsense.

it is inaccurate to say that Aaron inssists that we believe this. I was on the Concerned Christian's Board when Aaron first raised the question, and what he insists on is that we believe that it is possible that God was once such a sinner.

Note: I see where selek1 has already been taken to task by others for this misrepresentation. An apology and retraction might be in order.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[jo1952]

I'm sorry; are you saying that in your view John 14:12 can, indeed, be read to mean that each disciple of Christ will become a fully efficacious Savior, performing an universal atonement and so forth as Christ did, and works greater than that, even?

Ok. You're the first I've met. Or you didn't understand my objection.

Jesus certainly does teach that this can happen. First, let's look at John 5:19:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Now, here is John 14:12:

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Now, here is more of what Jesus said:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Luke 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

As far as anyone would be able to do what they have "seen" either Father or Jesus "do", we have also been taught how individuals are transported through visions to the past, present and future. This is well documented, for instance, in the Book of Revelation. Nothing is impossible with God. If this is possible while someone is still in the flesh, I have no doubts of how easily this will be done in our glorified immortal bodies once we return to the Spiritual realm, where "time" is not reckoned in the way we now know it.

Everything is not taught in only one verse. It would be impossble to do so. So I look to all of scripture in order to put all of the pieces together. It is only when the other pieces as a whole do not make sense with my beliefs that I will seek another interpretation of a single verse which does not seem to fit. Inasmuch as the above verses seem to hold my beliefs together with respect to the subject being discussed, I find no problems with any of the individual verses not fitting. Thus, to be specific, John 14:12 does not cause me to stop and ponder my interpretation of verse John 5:19.

Regards,

jo

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jesus certainly does teach that this can happen. First, let's look at John 5:19:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Now, here is John 14:12:

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Now, here is more of what Jesus said:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Luke 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

As far as anyone would be able to do what they have "seen" either Father or Jesus "do", we have also been taught how individuals are transported through visions to the past, present and future. This is well documented, for instance, in the Book of Revelation. Nothing is impossible with God. If this is possible while someone is still in the flesh, I have no doubts of how easily this will be done in our glorified immortal bodies once we return to the Spiritual realm, where "time" is not reckoned in the way we now know it.

Everything is not taught in only one verse. It would be impossble to do so. So I look to all of scripture in order to put all of the pieces together. It is only when the other pieces as a whole do not make sense with my beliefs that I will seek another interpretation of a single verse which does not seem to fit. Inasmuch as the above verses seem to hold my beliefs together with respect to the subject being discussed, I find no problems with any of the individual verses not fitting. Thus, to be specific, John 14:12 does not cause me to stop and ponder my interpretation of verse John 5:19.

Regards,

jo

WE should ask this question. What did Jesus do?

Keep in mind that Jesus did many things, including healing the sick raising people for the dead converting people, taking the sins of this world upon him, and dying and being resurrected. If we look a John 5 :19, form the list I provided (which is not a compressive list) which item did God the Father not do? And how does on justify that God the Father did not do it?

This verse (John 5:19) is clear that Jesus only does the things he has seen his Father do.

[jo1952]

WE should ask this question. What did Jesus do?

Keep in mind that Jesus did many things, including healing the sick raising people for the dead converting people, taking the sins of this world upon him, and dying and being resurrected. If we look a John 5 :19, form the list I provided (which is not a compressive list) which item did God the Father not do? And how does on justify that God the Father did not do it?

This verse (John 5:19) is clear that Jesus only does the things he has seen his Father do.

I think this is irrelevant in that Jesus was doing the will of Father; and, as He explained, Jesus was doing only what He had seen Father do. It was Father's power and authority which Jesus was using. We know that Jesus was resurrected; in one account in the Bible we are taught that Father did this. Another account says that Jesus did it. However, since they are one, whichever of them accomplished it, the Resurrection took place---irregardless of whatever additional revelation has been received in the LDS Church. Inasmuch as we can become one with BOTH Jesus AND the Father, your question becomes moot. Ultimately, those details which you are seeking, and which are not entirely yet known, will not make any difference since the results will be the same.

Regards,

jo