Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[thesometimesaint]

There is a contradiction that is a biggie, or maybe not. The bible says Mary was a virgin when when she gave birth to Jesus. Our Mormon doctrine taught by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage and Bruce McConkie, to name a few, say it wasn't a virgin birth. That men will becomes Gods is stemmed from this doctrine isn't it? Everything begins with it dosesn't it? I don't see any fuzzy lines or, to-each- his- own interpretations on this contradiction. Our church has not thrown out this doctrine, our whole doctrine is based on this fact. I had a discussion with my husband last night about it and he even goes by it and most LDS do and that is this scripture, "Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." I guess this scripture means to be a God one day. Which I'm sure to many non LDS Christian it doesn't mean that. But I've been enlightened in the last while to learn that some early Bible Scholars or belief systems actually believed the same. So that is where the "maybe not" in my first sentence comes in. So difficult this war of words and ideas of what the bible means.

Actually it is not a contradiction. We have no doctrine as to how the conception of Jesus occurred. Plenty of opinions but no doctrine. Those gentlemen had no idea as to what artificial insemination is. I'm not saying that IS how it was done. But nothing in LDS doctrine or Scripture precludes it either.

John 17 is closer to what the LDS actually believe when it comes to perfection.

[BlueDreams]

There is a contradiction that is a biggie, or maybe not. The bible says Mary was a virgin when when she gave birth to Jesus. Our Mormon doctrine taught by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, James Talmage and Bruce McConkie, to name a few, say it wasn't a virgin birth.

What TSS said. I one day got really bored and looked up all the quotes I could find about this topic to make an argument against it for some random anti-mormon site/forum. It was kinda fun, to be honest....not every day you can leave a number at a lost for words. But there was nothing conclusive about any of the statements I found. In fact from the same men often quoted to indicated that the virgin birth wasn't all that virgin, were also using similar language in other quotes to defend the virgin mary title. What became very clear was that this "obvious doctrine" was not that obvious from it. I wish I could give you them....but I didn't save it, the software was on a different computer, the disscusion happened 4-5 years agao, and I'm far less bored than i once was. But from what I've read, your description of mormon doctrine simply is not so.

Also, it doesn't matter how many LDS do or do not go by a certain folk belief....it's still foes not make it official doctrine. And it simply isn't.

With luv,

BD

Edited June 17, 2013 by BlueDreams

[cdowis]

"The Pearl of Great Price" [Abr.3:9,16] states that God the Father is now on a planet near the star Kolob, with His wives having spiritual children. But the Bible says, "Our Father which art in Heaven" [Matthew 6:9].

You are quoting from the antimormon version of the BOA. Here is the LDS version, so please use that version in this forum.

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one ^aplanet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same ^border as that upon which thou standest.

16 If ^atwo things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore ^bKolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me.

[Vance]

I posited that if Paul stated we should have but one wife, and then later there's a revelation that many wives are preferred, then obviously there is a conflict.

IF (and there is some doubt that it is the message) Paul said it then there would be a conflict. SO? The Bible is has lots of conflicts.

Your argument seems to be that Paul was misunderstood.

That is what the Apostle Peter said.

Why is latter revelation preferred?

Because it is for the here and now. Not for generations long dead.

[danielwoods]

And we would argue that following continuing revelation stemming from Jesus IS following Jesus in full.

Right, and that would be based on the D&C which is also from your prophets.

My point is that what non-LDS point to as being contradictory to the Bible, originally stems from a different view on how one is to interpret scripture.

[Kenngo1969]

I like this. I think I'm going to incorporate it into my own responses.

I don't care about that! Just give me rep points! (Seriously, thanks! )

[Kenngo1969]

One, the BoA says nothing of wives. Two, unless Kolob is on the surface of our earth, I don't see how it contradicts God being in heaven.

This is where reading the actual Scriptures might come in handy!

[Robert F. Smith]

That's your interpretation then isn't it?

I posited that if Paul stated we should have but one wife, and then later there's a revelation that many wives are preferred, then obviously there is a conflict.

Your argument seems to be that Paul was misunderstood. And certainly at one time the LDS taught we should have many wives, and now they don't. So even if Paul was misunderstood, there is a conflict.

The greater point is about the principles of interpretation. Why is latter revelation preferred?

You here pointedly ignore my point that within the Bible itself we have a plethora of conflicting commands from God, including plural marriage is O.K. in one part of the Bible but not in a later part (according to your own interpretation). The same applies in Mormon doctrine -- plural marriage is O.K. if and only if God says it is, and it is not, when He says it is not. A sense of perspective is very important in doing exegesis, Daniel.

[Robert F. Smith]

I answered this already, because I follow Jesus.

If you followed Jesus, you would obey his commandments, and you would honor him by speaking to the whole Bible rather than only to one small part of it. In other words, if you respected the Bible you would never misuse it by proof texting -- which is known as "text abuse" -- but would treat it holistically.

[Robert F. Smith]

Right, so the LDS doctrine (as revealed by LDS Leaders/Prophets) is that they are trustworthy sources, and they teach that the canon is open, and if it contradicts a previous teaching or revelation, then the latter is to be preferred.

True prophets of God are always trustworthy sources of His Word. In whatever age. If you do not believe that, then you contradict the Bible.

This is a huge difference between the teaching of the Bible and the teachings from the LDS Doctrine. I noticed that your link only quoted the D&C, not any biblical text. If I had time, I would point out that the Biblical prophets of the OT (of which John the Baptist was the last) didn't contradict each other, though it may appear that way.

There is no such difference between LDS doctrine and the Bible, and the examples you have given thus far indicate your own lack of familiarity with the Bible. Were you at all familiar with the Bible, you would know that God has given very different commandments in different periods (I've given you examples which you have ignored, no doubt due to cognitive dissonance). One powerful difference, which the Jews do not ignore, is the difference between the rules followed by Abraham and those demanded under the Mosaic Code.

If John the Baptizer was the last OT prophet, how come he is unmentioned in the OT. Instead, we meet him first in the NT.

In other words, at one time God didn't say marry many wives, and then say marry only one, and then again later, marry many again, as an example.

Why did God regulate plural marriage with rules in Exodus and Deuteronomy, but did not prohibit it until thousands of years after Abraham? (in the citation of Paul for Elders & Bishops which you noted) The rabbis never noticed any prohibition on multiple wives in the Bible, and only adopted monogamy in relatively recent times (though the Pope would allow Jews to marry another woman in cases of childlessness -- yes, the Pope assumed authority over the Jews).

My view is that the large difference in viewpoints between the LDS and non-LDS stem from this difference in approach to interpretation, which is based on this LDS doctrine of preferring the latter revelation.

When Jona spoke a revelation to those in Nineveh only to find it not carried out, he became angry and even impertinent toward the Lord. He was unwilling (like you) to accept the latest will of the Lord.

Hey, Sunday School's out, Daniel. You need to accept and respect the Bible.

[volgadon]

Right, and that would be based on the D&C which is also from your prophets.

My point is that what non-LDS point to as being contradictory to the Bible, originally stems from a different view on how one is to interpret scripture.

No, not based on the D&C. Even from a non-believer's perspective, LDS claims to revelation from our prophets predate the D&C. The idea is not that you have to accept that our revelatons are true, but rather understand that if we believe that a prophet gets revelations from GOD (the Bible's position), then of course we will heed them. Why wouldn't we?

[3DOP]

Over the years I have come to a different approach on issues like these. For the virgin birth, I understand that for some religions (Catholics, for example), the virgin birth is a Big Deal, and is intertwined with their concept of immaculate conception, original sin, etc It's interesting that, starting centuries after the New Testament books were written, very carefully worded creeds were formed to state an exact stance on issues like this, to differentiate themselves from other faiths, and to avoid "heresy". For example, whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, or from both the Father and Christ, is a Big Deal, and was a major disagreement between the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic faiths. As I understand, the latest creed recited in the Catholic Mass now includes the term "consubstantial". Google that- it's another Big Deal. I suspect most people have no idea what the word "consubstantial" actually means (I don't), so is it important to claim it as a belief?

You notice that we don't recite creeds in the lds church. The closest thing we have are the Articles of Faith, which are pretty innocuous with respect to many of the historical major points of contention between the larger Christian faiths. For example, it doesn't even say much about the exact definition of the Trinity, which is a major issue between LDS and other Christian groups. My understanding is that there are many things that have not been revealed to us, or at least not very clearly, and it seems to me that creating rigid stances on these issues and contending over them is not something that Heavenly Father wants us to do, else He would have been clearer. Maybe God should work on His communication skills, if it means we'll burn in hell for all eternity for not reciting the correct creed. I focus on trying to understand how I should live my life, and try to become more like Jesus, which in turn hopefully means I would become more like Heavenly Father. What the next trillion trillion years will be like, I don't know exactly. But I don't think He really cares whether I chant the word "consubstantial" while I am alive.

Hi Craig in Austin,

Welcome. I would wish to make a few facts clear for the record.

I think it could be argued that the schism between East and West has occurred and continues more for political reasons than theological, and blame lies on both sides. Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome have been permitted to recite the Creed without the filioque for a long time. There seems to some observers and I include myself, that there is a sense in which both sides make good points. Both sides are intent on defending important but different truths with regards to the procession of the Holy Ghost.

Secondly, with the vulgarization of the liturgy which occurred after Vatican II, there has been a need for more precise translations of the Mass. There is no latest Creed. I have heard there is now a new translation from the Latin. Consubstantialem Patri is apparently now translated, "Consubstantial with the Father". Good. Some LDS argue that the term means nothing because it is a description of something that is non-existent, substance/being/nature/essence. As a Catholic I cannot agree. It has a purposeful meaning to Catholics in making us see that if we would be Catholic, we should know that the Church teaches that God's Son cannot have an existence or nature that would be inferior to His Father. As I understand the Creed, if someone thinks that the Son is in some way ontologically inferior to the Father, the clause you have noted from the Creed informs them that they probably should not be Catholic.

Regards,

3DOP

Edited June 18, 2013 by 3DOP

[cdowis]

I think it could be argued that the schism between East and West has occurred and continues more for political reasons than theological, and blame lies on both sides. Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome have been permitted to recite the Creed without the filioque for a long time. 3DOP

How about the difference in crossing oneself -- left to right vs right to left.

(Nevermind, I'm just being annoying)

Edited June 18, 2013 by cdowis

[Flyonthewall]

"The Pearl of Great Price" [Abr.3:9,16] states that God the Father is now on a planet near the star Kolob, with His wives having spiritual children. But the Bible says, "Our Father which art in Heaven" [Matthew 6:9].

I would like to see the sources for these statements.

Sure, I could look them up myself, but I think you would benefit more from it than I would.

[Tacenda]

I would like to see the sources for these statements.

Sure, I could look them up myself, but I think you would benefit more from it than I would.

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. God the Father had a Father, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. If you remain a faithful Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.

ETA: Some sources in Context:

Joseph Smith's Sermon on Plurality of Gods

(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

SERMON BY THE PROPHET—THE CHRISTIAN GODHEAD—PLURALITY OF GODS. Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844.

Prayer by Bishop Newel K. Whitney.

Choir sang, "Mortals Awake."

President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verse—"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry—"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."

It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. I have contemplated the saying of Jesus (Luke 17th chapter, 26th verse)—"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man." And if it does rain, I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached.

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!

Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation. Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God—that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! crucify him!"

Mankind verily say that the scriptures are with them. Search the scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer. you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.

Some say I do not interpret the scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods. in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination, The Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as others have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools—

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring,

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us up again.

All this confusion among professed translators is for want of drinking another draught.

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits"—"The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself—"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist—two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning.

I have reason to think that the Church is being purged. I saw Satan fall from heaven, and the way they ran was a caution. All these are wonders and marvels in our eyes in these last days. So long as men are under the law of God, they have no fears—they do not scare themselves.

I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.

They found fault with Jesus Christ because He said He was the Son of God, and made Himself equal with God. They say of me, like they did of the apostles of old, that I must be put down. What did Jesus say? "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" It was through Him that they drank of the spiritual rock. Of course He would take the honor to Himself. Jesus, if they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came, why should it be thought blasphemy that I should say I am the son of God?

Oh, poor, blind apostates! did you never think of this before? These are the quotations that the apostates take from the scriptures. They swear that they believe the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and then you will get from them filth, slander, and bogus-makers plenty. One of the apostate Church official members prophesied that Joseph would never preach any more, and yet I am now preaching.

Go and read the vision in the Book of Covenants. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory—one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions. By the apostates admitting the testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants, they damn themselves. Paul, what do you say? They impeached Paul and all went and left him. Paul had seven churches, and they drove him off from among them; and yet they cannot do it by me. I rejoice in that. My testimony is good.

Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So is also the resurrection of the dead." They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power.

The scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another scripture. "Now," says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel." God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, "Abba, Father!" Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.

John said he was a king. "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever Amen." Oh, Thou God who art King of kings and Lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare, "We cannot believe Thee."

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it! The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without: authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation? I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant. I will drop this subject. I wish I could speak for three or four hours; but it is not expedient on account of the rain: I would still go on, and show you proof upon proofs; all the Bible is equal in support of this doctrine, one part as another.

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v5n15.htm

Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God, for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I had the trump of an arch angel, I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever; what did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon;) Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? why what the Father did, that answer is obvious; in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it again.-If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible; the scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it. Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting power; and I want you to know that God in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me; it is the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourner, when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child or dear relative, to know, that although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved, that they shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint hears with Jesus Christ. What is it? to inherit the same glory, the same power and the same exaltation, until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? why I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; it is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of any thing that is not contained in the Bible, and I think there are so many wise men here, who would put me to death for treason; so I shall turn commentator to-day; I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of in the Bible, Berosheit. I want to analyze the word; baith, in, by, through, in, and every thing else. Rosh, the head. Sheit, gramatical [grammatical] termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. A man, a Jew without any authority, thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head. It read first, 'The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods,' that is the true meaning of the words. Baurau, signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. No man can learn you more than what I have told you. Thus the head of God brought forth the Gods in the grand council. I will simplify it in the English language. Oh ye lawyers! ye doctors! who have persecuted me; I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods, and set [sat] in grand council. The grand counsellors [counselors] sat in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds that were created at that time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the doctors and lawyers of scripture. I have done so hitherto, to let the lawyers flutter, and every body laugh at them. Some learned doctor might take a notion to say, the scriptures say thus and so, and are not to be altered, and I am going to show you an error. I have an old book of the New Testament in the Hebrew, Latin, German and Greek. I have been reading the German and find it to be the most correct, and it corresponds nearest to the revelations I have given for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jachoboy the son of Zebedee; it means Jacob; in the English New Testament it is James.-Now if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity, and never get the keys. In the 21st verse of the 4th chapter of Matthew, it gives the word Jacob instead of James. How can we escape the damnation of

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html

Section Six 1843-44, p.345

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,--I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form--like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

Section Six 1843-44, p.345

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for 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, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

Section Six 1843-44, p.345

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Power of the Father and the Son

Section Six 1843-44, p.346

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do we believe it? I you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible.2 The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

Section Six 1843-44, p.346

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,3 namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings

Section Six 1843-44, p.347

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much hath been said.

Section Six 1843-44, p.354

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man--on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man--the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Section Six 1843-44, p.354

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit9 from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

The Power to Advance in Knowledge

Section Six 1843-44, p.354

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.10

Section Six 1843-44, p.355

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to my by the revelations of Jesus

Edited June 18, 2013 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333. God the Father had a Father, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105. There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163. If you remain a faithful Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.

Cherry-picked (and out-of-context, to boot?!) quotes from various sources, none of which we accept as doctrine! Gotta love it!!!

[Garden Girl]

"The Pearl of Great Price" [Abr.3:9,16] states that God the Father is now on a planet near the star Kolob, with His wives having spiritual children. But the Bible says, "Our Father which art in Heaven" [Matthew 6:9].

Tacenda...

You have a habit of making statements as if fact such as the above, which have nothing to do with reality, nor Mormon doctrine. I challenge you to read Abr. 3:9, 16 and tell me that it says what you state above. The scripture cited above says nothing of the sort... I notice this in numerous of your posts and think to myself... no wonder Tacenda has problerms... I think that you have a misunderstanding of much of our doctrine.

That being said, I take this opportunity to wish you a good day, and hope this finds you well. And I hope you will continue to study and participate here as we have many knowledgeable people that I believe help all of us in our understanding...

from the beach... GG

[Tacenda]

Post #121

volgadon, on 17 June 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

One, the BoA says nothing of wives. Two, unless Kolob is on the surface of our earth, I don't see how it contradicts God being in heaven.

Tacenda replied: True, thanks.

****************************************

I was owning up to the scripture I provided not using the exact word "wives". But when FlyOnTheWall posted what he did, I couldn't not have a source of what the round about meaning of the scripture meant, to me anyway. Don't you think part of Abraham 3 is referring to these sources? We do believe that we'll be Gods one day don't we? And starting worlds without end? Why else do we have billions of stars or planets? That was or is the big reason people love this church, they like the idea of progression. I'm on the fence of this doctrine being true or not, the jury's still out.

[cdowis]

Tacenda,

Given your history, quoting a bunch of book titles and page numbers just does not do it. You will need to give us the exact quote, rather than your interpretation of what they say.

Sorry, but your credibility needs some work.

[Calm]

Right, so the core difference in our principles of interpretation is that the LDS view new revelation (that is from an authoritative source) equal to Jesus being on earth again, as he was in the NT. And non-LDS don't believe that Jesus would ever contradict himself in that way.

If he can contradict the practices he commanded prior to his mortality, when he was mortal, why can't he contradict himself now that he is immortal again? Is he somehow less of an authority or less inspirational or has less knowledge and desire to help mankind then when he was on earth? Why would a change in his current status make a difference if it didn't make a difference in the past.

[thesometimesaint]

Post #121

volgadon, on 17 June 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

One, the BoA says nothing of wives. Two, unless Kolob is on the surface of our earth, I don't see how it contradicts God being in heaven.

Tacenda replied: True, thanks.

****************************************

I was owning up to the scripture I provided not using the exact word "wives". But when FlyOnTheWall posted what he did, I couldn't not have a source of what the round about meaning of the scripture meant, to me anyway. Don't you think part of Abraham 3 is referring to these sources? We do believe that we'll be Gods one day don't we? And starting worlds without end? Why else do we have billions of stars or planets? That was or is the big reason people love this church, they like the idea of progression. I'm on the fence of this doctrine being true or not, the jury's still out.

We have the promise that someday we will be like God. I have no idea as to if I'll be starting worlds of my own. But IF I do I would hope that it is part of Gods' plan.

[Calm]

I posited that if Paul stated we should have but one wife, and then later there's a revelation that many wives are preferred, then obviously there is a conflict.

But Christ was no longer on the earth when Paul gave this statement so why are his words counted as revelation and later prophets are not?

[Calm]

And certainly at one time the LDS taught we should have many wives, and now they don't.

Is it a conflict if you teach your children early in their lives to abstain from sex, but later on teach them it is okay in the context of marriage?

[Garden Girl]

Cherry-picked (and out-of-context, to boot?!) quotes from various sources, none of which we accept as doctrine! Gotta love it!!!

I gave you a rep point for this post... but I meant the "cherry picked/out of context" part... in fairness to Tacenda, the quotes do represent statements made in the past and have elements of doctrine... for instance the statement by Joseph Smith that if we remain faithful Mormons (i.e., living the gospel fully) we have the potential to become a god...

In our Gospel Principles manual, the chapter on Exaltation, page 277, lists the blessings of exaltation, including living eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Christ (D&C 76:59), becoming gods (D&C 132:20-23, being united with righteous family members, receiving a fulness of joy, and having everything our Heavenly Father and Jesus have.

GG

[Calm]

I answered this already, because I follow Jesus.

But do you follow the Jesus who is the Messiah of the OT, the Jesus of the first part of the NT, the Christ of the second part of the NT after his death, or the Son of God that reigns in this day and age....or do you follow him at all times and if so, why do you privilege some of his commandments over others?