Mormons Starting To Think And Talk Like Protestants

[Ahab]

"Fully God" and "fully man" is used to describe Christ by traditional Christians...but they mean Christ has two natures, one God and one man that do not overlap.  I am saying that for LDS, those two natures are the same and that is where we differ.

Gotcha now, and I agree.  So this is one instance where Protestants are protesting about what we mean when we say what we say.

[Calm]

 now we have people who don't even know what it is, and are espousing stuff that sounds more like mainline Christianity and for good reason because the Church correlation department is publishing sanitized stuff.  This should be of concern.

Seriously?  You are claiming this when it is published in the current manual we are studying?

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng

 

Honestly it looks like there is someone here who is oblivious to things, but I don't think it is whom you are suggesting....

[Ahab]

I agree am not a big fan of all the ******-footing around and winding up with members who advance in the Church and then at some point stumble into something that hits them like a brick wall.  Have talked about this with my wife who is very conservative about always trying to back whatever the Church does or publishes and hates saying anything that might be considered a criticism, and she thinks that people really ought to be familiar with stuff like this.  I mean the Snow Couplet has been around for years and it used to be everyone knew it, and it didn't bother anyone -- now we have people who don't even know what it is, and are espousing stuff that sounds more like mainline Christianity and for good reason because the Church correlation department is publishing sanitized stuff.  This should be of concern.

Different people will always be at different levels in what they know and will say is the truth, because while some go on to learn more of the truth there are still some who haven't learned that, yet.  Think of young kindergarden children and how much they haven't learned, yet.  They weren't around on this Earth to hear previous discussions so they haven't heard a lot of what others have heard, and it's not as if all who hear it when they hear it will believe it.  No need to be concerned about that kind of thing.  It's just the way it works with people being at different ages and having different experiences than others who have been around and learned more in the time they have had.  Years from now many of those young tots will have learned what we know now but still there will be some more young tots to take their place in kindergarten classes, and thus the circle of life will continue.

[Stone holm]

Gotcha now, and I agree.  So this is one instance where Protestants are protesting about what we mean when we say what we say.

 

Have never been a fan of the idea of saying well we are just like you except we have more reading material.  Yeah, no we are not like other Christians, we have very specific teachings about who Heavenly Father is, who Christ is, and what we are going to be doing in the hereafter.  People do stay in the Church because they believe what Joseph Smith taught and we shouldn't try to hide it for fear of offending people who frequently have never bothered to think about any of this stuff and have very, very hazy conceptions of what happens in the hereafter.

[Ahab]

Have never been a fan of the idea of saying well we are just like you except we have more reading material.  Yeah, no we are not like other Christians, we have very specific teachings about who Heavenly Father is, who Christ is, and what we are going to be doing in the hereafter.  People do stay in the Church because they believe what Joseph Smith taught and we shouldn't try to hide it for fear of offending people who frequently have never bothered to think about any of this stuff and have very, very hazy conceptions of what happens in the hereafter.

I was Protestant before I became Mormon, and for me it was just a matter of finding more truth than I had before.  The content is in the reading material, emphasized by the power of the Holy Spirit as he confirms the truth that is in those teachings, and it's not that we have more reading material than other people do because the reading material is available to everybody on Earth.  The key difference is that we accept more of what our Father has revealed than those who deny what is true.

[Freedom]

The statements by you and Cal, are making my brain hurt. I guess I really need to strengthen the muscle and study it. In my youth, God is my father and Jesus is my brother. Now Jesus is my God also. And this goes along with some Christian belief, that Jesus is God incarnate not our brother, but not in the LDS belief. He is our brother and He is a God from a realm that He progressed to that status. So both God and brother and son of God. Son of God makes him our brother, after He is our brother is that when he becomes a God, or before when he helped create the world with his Father? This is where my brain hurts.

'God' and 'Father' are titles, not names of individuals. I am a father to my children, but also a father (in a manner of speaking) to my employees or students at church. Jesus is the son by genetics, but the father by divine investiture. He is the father in at least two ways:

1) the creator of the earth, so the eternal father of creation

2) our redeemer, so the father of our salvation

A simple analogy is if a man owns a large company and he hires his son with plans for him to take over, the son becomes the father. When the son speaks concerning the company policy, it is as if the father is speaking. The father has given his son all authority concerning the administration of the company. This same company could employ other siblings, but only the one son represents the father.

This doctrine only becomes confusing if you are clouded by the trinity doctrine of the middle ages.

[Stone holm]

'God' and 'Father' are titles, not names of individuals. I am a father to my children, but also a father (in a manner of speaking) to my employees or students at church. Jesus is the son by genetics, but the father by divine investiture. He is the father in at least two ways:

1) the creator of the earth, so the eternal father of creation

2) our redeemer, so the father of our salvation

A simple analogy is if a man owns a large company and he hires his son with plans for him to take over, the son becomes the father. When the son speaks concerning the company policy, it is as if the father is speaking. The father has given his son all authority concerning the administration of the company. This same company could employ other siblings, but only the one son represents the father.

This doctrine only becomes confusing if you are clouded by the trinity doctrine of the middle ages.

 

Well we can thank Paul for the confusion.  Jesus is considered the Father in some instances because through the Atonement He is the author of our salvation and therefore our "Father" in that sense.  It is a sense that just causes needless confusion or as you call it "headaches" since it really doesn't add to our understanding of the cosmos.  Heavenly Father's name is Eloheim.  For the vast majority of Scriptures you just think of Him as Heavenly Father and its advisable to just try and forget all the other convoluted reasons for calling Christ our father.

[Ahab]

Well we can thank Paul for the confusion.  Jesus is considered the Father in some instances because through the Atonement He is the author of our salvation and therefore our "Father" in that sense.  It is a sense that just causes needless confusion or as you call it "headaches" since it really doesn't add to our understanding of the cosmos.  Heavenly Father's name is Eloheim.  For the vast majority of Scriptures you just think of Him as Heavenly Father and its advisable to just try and forget all the other convoluted reasons for calling Christ our father.

Or you could just try to understand how more than one person is our Father, as if we have many Fathers, which we actually do.

 

Christ is our Father, and his Father is our Father, and your brother that got together with your Mom to give birth to you is your Father, and that brother's Father is also your Father, and ALL of your grand Fathers and great grand Fathers are also your Fathers regarless of how great or grand they are.

 

Your confusion apparently stems from your idea that you think you only have one Father, but that is not true, so get over that idea.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Milk before meat?

 

Would this be an explanation of certain Hinckley interviews?

Which ones, and please remember many of us love him dearly.

[Stone holm]

Or you could just try to understand how more than one person is our Father, as if we have many Fathers, which we actually do.

 

Christ is our Father, and his Father is our Father, and your brother that got together with your Mom to give birth to you is your Father, and that brother's Father is also your Father, and ALL of your grand Fathers and great grand Fathers are also your Fathers regarless of how great or grand they are.

 

Your confusion apparently stems from your idea that you think you only have one Father, but that is not true, so get over that idea.

 

I have only one Earthly father, and I only have one Heavenly Father....nothing to get confused about, until someone gets grandiose, convoluted and verbose in their writings which get canonized and then people spend hours trying to explain something that isn't worth explaining in the first place.  The beloved Apostle Paul who spread the gospel beyond the Jews, was unfortunately that kind of writer.

[Stone holm]

Which ones, and please remember many of us love him dearly.

 

I think that was in reference to the Larry King interview where Pres. Hinckley deflected discussion of the Snow Couplet -- don't have the link but am sure you can do an internet search to find it, in fact there was an entire thread just on that interview and deflection on this Board.

[Ahab]

I have only one Earthly father, and I only have one Heavenly Father....nothing to get confused about, until someone gets grandiose, convoluted and verbose in their writings which get canonized and then people spend hours trying to explain something that isn't worth explaining in the first place.  The beloved Apostle Paul who spread the gospel beyond the Jews, was unfortunately that kind of writer.

What?  Don't you realize a grand Father is also a Father?  As well as a great grand Father?  And a great... great grand Father?

 

Or do you think a Father is only a Father if he is neither a grand nor a great Father?

 

Just think about it, some more.  I'm sure you'll realize the truth of this sooner or later.

[MrG]

Which ones, and please remember many of us love him dearly.

http://latterdaycommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/i-dont-know-that-we-teach-it.html

[why me]

When I saw that the KFS was going to be a vignette, I thought to  myself, "Oh it'll probably leave out the man will become God part".  It was surreal while sitting in the same place that it occurred.  The missionary/actor that played the part, was very good and convincing.  The portion of the discourse was solely on the theme I thought would be left out, it was the HIGHLIGHT of the vignette!  That's why I believe that it's in our doctrine, or is our doctrine.  It separates us from other Christian faiths I believe.  Now I don't know if JS was so disillusioned (faith crisis) with the Christian way while he was young and impressionable and he took it this far, or if it really happened.  The different vision accounts make me question.  Our religion evolved, and it's possible God made it come in increments.  That's why the church shouldn't go backwards.  But after witnessing this vignette it doesn't appear it is.  OTOH, it seems to be quite vague in the newsroom announcements about our belief.  This one in particular....

 

If the missionaries were given aspects of the sermon to the visitors this would mean that the church still believes that the sermons were good. It was in 1971 in the Ensign that the sermons appeared for the general membership to read. But at that time, the church in the 70's was very Nauvooish. Much was written in the 70's about core beliefs and core information that most of the members were aware of. The 70's were a great time in the church. I think that now we have a more kirtland church but the nauvoo years have not been forgotten.

 

Mormons should be proud of the king follett discourses.

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Edited August 19, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I think that was in reference to the Larry King interview where Pres. Hinckley deflected discussion of the Snow Couplet -- don't have the link but am sure you can do an internet search to find it, in fact there was an entire thread just on that interview and deflection on this Board.

I think that we need to give him a break. He was rather old and was probably surprised by the question. I don't think that he had any preparation for the interview. I don't think that he meant to deflect from it  because i don't think that he had time to think of a deflection. I am sure that he realized afterwards that he goofed it.

 

However, the critics keep bringing this interview up as proof that the church lies. I think that that claim is untrue.

[Freedom]

I think Hinckley`s response to the question was as good as anybody could give. It is true that we know very little of the past nature of God, and it is true that we do not talk much about it. I suspect that if he had a week to think about it and mull it over with scholars and other apostles, he would have come up with the very same response. When ever I am asked about this teaching, I quote Hinckley.

[Ahab]

I think Hinckley`s response to the question was as good as anybody could give. It is true that we know very little of the past nature of God, and it is true that we do not talk much about it. I suspect that if he had a week to think about it and mull it over with scholars and other apostles, he would have come up with the very same response. When ever I am asked about this teaching, I quote Hinckley.

I hope you quote some other people too because we know and teach a lot more than he mentioned in that interview.  What he said is still true, though.  We don't know a lot about it and we don't teach a lot about it, either.

[Calm]

I think Hinckley`s response to the question was as good as anybody could give. It is true that we know very little of the past nature of God, and it is true that we do not talk much about it. I suspect that if he had a week to think about it and mull it over with scholars and other apostles, he would have come up with the very same response. When ever I am asked about this teaching, I quote Hinckley.

The only different thing I would have done was started out with "we don't emphasize it" rather than "don't teach it"...I don't think he meant to say the first  and corrected himself.  The context makes it obvious that he was talking about the first part of the couplet and it is, imo, a very ungenerous critic who insists on applying his comment to the whole couplet.

Edited August 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[smac97]

I think that it was Bushman who claimed that Emma loved the kirkland joseph. Perhaps we can stretch it and claim that the church is becoming more kirlklandish these days and less nauvoo.

 

"Kirkland" Joseph?  Joseph Smith is affiliated with Costco?

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[why me]

"Kirkland" Joseph?  Joseph Smith is affiliated with Costco?

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Cal has already corrected me. Like I said years ago, I have leaned much from this board. For 30 years I have been saying Kirkland.

Edited August 19, 2013 by why me

[EllenMaksoud]

He was our brother before he helped create the world.

That is a huge disconnect between us and Christians ver 8.1  We are Christians ver 1.0 That is the only way I can come to peace on the matter. 

[Calm]

"Kirkland" Joseph?  Joseph Smith is affiliated with Costco?

 

That is exactly what I think of when I see that, lol.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think that was in reference to the Larry King interview where Pres. Hinckley deflected discussion of the Snow Couplet -- don't have the link but am sure you can do an internet search to find it, in fact there was an entire thread just on that interview and deflection on this Board.

Simple a desire not to believe we think we are getting planets of our own, thus becoming equal with Eloniem, which is speculation run amuck, unsupported by any canonized scripture and lesson material which we use, or maybe just his age and knowing he did not have time to explain. I used to have a friend who would constantly talk about when he gets his own planets. One day I looked over at him and said, "Mike, you need to stop this, it smacks of pride, and worry about today". We don't talk anymore, he has a gay son whom he calls something I won't post here and his opinion of other races...well I had just had enough. It ended with me telling him, "if your only desire to be a member of the Church is to become a god, you have missed the point already".

[EllenMaksoud]

"Kirkland" Joseph?  Joseph Smith is affiliated with Costco?

 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

KIRTLAND !    I've never seen him in Costco.

[Storm Rider]

He was our brother before he helped create the world.

And yet he was always a member of the Godhead. This makes me think of the chicken and the egg question.