Falling Away

[Ahab]

You do realize that your "vetting process" is no better than his (or her), right?

HE (I think) seems to be relying on HIS understanding/interpretation of words written in some book(s) which HE believes/considers to be scripture. I on the other hand am relying on what 3 people personally tell me is scripture while they also personally tell me how I should understand/interpret those words.

Big difference, and I know that by personally trying it out both ways.

.e., you are still exposed to extreme bias.

Yes but I am okay with the biases of the 3 people I rely on.

But take comfort in the idea that everyone else is in the same predicament.

If only that were true.

[SmileyMcGee]

But think about it.

 

If we are all "exposed to extreme bias" then even saying so becomes irrelevant.  It is like adding zeroes to both sides of an equation- it is useless informaiton which cancels itself out.

 

It is perhaps instructive to understand the principle but actually irrelevant in argument. 

 

I agree, at least in the context of an argument wherein bias is assumed. However, if one party seems to assert a claim that implies that they are not subject to bias. For example, if a person asserts objective knowledge that the LDS Church is true because they felt the Spirit tell them, the assumption is likely unique feeling = the Spirit. I would then ask, "how do you know that was the Spirit and not some sort of bias?" I don't see the element of bias being irrelevant since it is taken for granted by one party.. Now if all parties to the debate do not take their own bias for granted, then I would agree that arguing bias would be irrelevant. 

 

Perhaps I was wrong to assert that all are subject to extreme bias, for that seems like a paradoxical statement that would contradict the contradicts its assertion. Perhaps it is better, rather, to propose a question.

 

That is why "confirmation bias" becomes irrelevant in religious discussion- we all have it whether we are atheists or fundamentalists.  In a subjective discussion about how an individual feels about a matter, there is no standard to judge anything.

 

As noted in my note above, if logic of one's argument takes their own bias for granted (ie, they ignore the potentially subjective nature or their own argument or assert but cannot support the reason properly why their belief is not subjective), then I see no reason suggest bias as a means of arguing against the assertion of objectivity, not the belief itself. 

 

"I like x" is not anything to be debated.  No one can be right or wrong for liking x.  No one can be right or wrong for feeling this church is true or that church is true., their feelings may or not be consistent with their objectives or the benefits they get from that belief, but there is no basis for argumentation about it.

 

I agree. I just don't think that when many members of this board states "I know x" they think they are really saying "I feel that the church is true." I get the feeling that they are asserting knowledge of fact, not that they feel, but know objectively that the church is true; If they are asserting that they are only stating that they "feel the church" is true then I agree with you, since I don't know how anyone can assert more than a feeling.  

 

I have no problem saying that I know this church is true because of my feelings and testimony, and I know others will disagree.

 

I don't see any reason for disagreement if you're asserting feeling that the church is true. 

 

What they do not understand is that there is no basis there for comparison which we both share, so the claim itself is hollow.  Yes what is "true" for me may not be "true" for you but that is because the word "true" has no shared meaning or understanding between us.  The problem is what the word "true" could possibly mean in this context, without a shared basis for comparison.  It's not like we can go out and compare it with the truth-o-meter to see who is right- there is no shared "reality" in this context with which we can compare our claims

 

Agreed

 

So yes, all we have are the feelings of our heart and soul to use to make these decisions.  That's all anyone has, and we had better get used to it.  That means we have to give up Creedal dualism which differentiates between a world of Platonic (pagan) Idealism  and the world of observation which is all "illusion".

 

Agreed, and very well said. 

 

Truth is what we experience, and yes we experience these matters differently.  There is really not anything more we can say about it literally- since language itself implies shared experience.

 

This would be appear to be the case, assuming that the objects that we perceive as humans are indeed experiencing something

 

We are not sharing experience whenever we use the word "II".  When we say "I know the church is true" it is not saying anything which can be communicated to another any more than "I like vanilla" communicates anything but our preferences to anyone else.

 

But that does not mean that "I like vanilla" is false.  It just means that we have no way to share your experience of vanilla and mine. There is no shared observation which we can use to compare my appreciation of vanilla or my understanding of the church.

 

 

God represents our ideal of moral values.

 

Yes he exists, yes he is an exalted Human.  That is the key to the church and to any humanistic view of God.

 

Just to clarify, you are saying, "Yes, I feel he exists, yes I feel he is an exalted being," right?

 

Morality has survival value in a peaceful society of humans.  The best expression of these values are found in the Golden Rule.  We all want to be treated fairly, as others want to be treated.  It is simply a fact of life, perfectly demonstrable scientifically if we want to, that people prefer to be left alone and leave others alone to live their lives in peace and freedom in a family relationship.

 

Do we all want to be treated fairly or do we all want to be treated the way we want to be treated? (i.e., define fairness)

 

Why do we agree about that? Because it is a requirement for civilization.  Human babies are born helpless and need care for what- 12 to 15 years at least?  The age of puberty itself tells us that.

 

We cannot reproduce before the "fall from innocence".  We are all Adam and Eve in the garden until them.  After that we wander looking for truth and find it in our own families.  We want to raise them in peace and so band together into cultures all of which demand "morality".

 

For the LDS, God is one of us, raised to being the Ideal Human with Ideal Human values.  You can believe that literally- as I do- and see Him as a real Being, or you can see that as an ideal created by humans.  I have reasons for believing it literally, because I know I have felt Him "speaking" to my spirit and telling me these things are true, but I cannot express that to you in language.

 

I can't see how you could know that god is speaking to you, unless you are saying "I feel that God is speaking to me." I don't know what benchmark you could possibly be using to distinguish God from other potential sources of feeling.  

 

So yes, God is moral becaue He is our Ideal of moral behavior.

 

Who would possibly believe in an immoral god??  The fact that God is moral is self-evident in our definition of God as the Ideal Human.

 

And if you believe in the King Folette Discourse you may believe that God is one of an infinite string of Gods, of Fathers of Sons going back into infinite eternities- far beyond our comprehension.

 

That's why I am LDS intellectually.   It just makes sense.

 

 

If we seek to emulate the Ideal Human suddenly we actually have a moral principle which is universal and would even be acceptable to atheists. What principles those are can be found only in our hearts, in the golden rule. All accept those principles. One can believe that an ideal man created and revealed those principles, or that man created the Ideal.

 

When you say "the ideal" are you suggesting an ideal that is universally accepted? 

Can you see that both views are the same?

That is the universal appeal of LDS theology and what could come of it

[mfbukowski]

Regarding bias:  It is inescapable and there is no such thing as "objectivity".  No facts, just interpretations. 

 

Yes he exists, yes he is an exalted Human.  That is the key to the church and to any humanistic view of God.

 

Just to clarify, you are saying, "Yes, I feel he exists, yes I feel he is an exalted being," right?

 

Thge feeling is the truth, there is no difference.  All we have in this respect are feelings.  There is no point in repeating it any more than we note that our heart is beating as we speak.  Being alive is interpreting feelings- ever word spoken is interpreting feelings.  Scientific observations are included in that.

 

I can't see how you could know that god is speaking to you, unless you are saying "I feel that God is speaking to me." I don't know what benchmark you could possibly be using to distinguish God from other potential sources of feeling.

See above.  I don't.  All that matters to me is the effects of the belief in God in my life and that is the only thing any of us can know anyway.  You have to lose this illusion of objectivity- it is all the same issue.

 

When you say "the ideal" are you suggesting an ideal that is universally accepted?

No but do you know anyone who believes it is good to be selfish or kill people for fun?

I suppose people may believe that but such values cannot be made universal or life would be totally miserable or disappear from earth. Such values do not have survival value, and would self-exterminate eventually.

[SmileyMcGee]

Regarding bias: It is inescapable and there is no such thing as "objectivity". No facts, just interpretations.

Thge feeling is the truth, there is no difference. All we have in this respect are feelings. There is no point in repeating it any more than we note that our heart is beating as we speak. Being alive is interpreting feelings- ever word spoken is interpreting feelings. Scientific observations are included in that.

I can't see how you could know that god is speaking to you, unless you are saying "I feel that God is speaking to me." I don't know what benchmark you could possibly be using to distinguish God from other potential sources of feeling.

See above. I don't. All that matters to me is the effects of the belief in God in my life and that is the only thing any of us can know anyway. You have to lose this illusion of objectivity- it is all the same issue.

When you say "the ideal" are you suggesting an ideal that is universally accepted?

No but do you know anyone who believes it is good to be selfish or kill people for fun?

I suppose people may believe that but such values cannot be made universal or life would be totally miserable or disappear from earth. Such values do not have survival value, and would self-exterminate eventually.

So, by way of clarification, I don't believe that objectivity is obtainable by humans. I only brought it up because 1) I wanted to more clearly understand what you were saying (since some of your statements sound more like assertion of fact than belief, just wanted to clarify your assumption) and 2) I mentioned it as a something others. assume. I also believe bias is inescapable, however some on this board appear to assert otherwise and I therefore think a discussion of bias or at least a probing into how they can claim objectivity is relevant to discussion. Not everyone here defines truth as feeling, and I think that is worth addressing. Edited November 15, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[FormerLDS]

It was Jesus Christ who said "ask and Ye shall receive". Why would asking about whether the Book of Mormon is true or not be the exception to that promise?

 

So where do you read anything even close to Moroni's promise in this passage?

 

God has already revealed to us in His word that the "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

 

God's test of truth has nothing to do with something he has already declared as "deceitful above all things".  Nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

[FormerLDS]

Your conformational feeling is to accept the "plain reading of the Bible" whatever that means, including talking donkeys. It's all your desired interpretation dictated by your "gut". No difference

 

Being an apostate member (by choice), I not longer choose to accept "conformational" feelings as God's test for truth.

 

There is a huge difference.  Name calling seems to always be the last resort and is indicative of theological dilemma.  

[Zakuska]

The point is, I accept the plain reading of Bible as truth - with no confimational feeling - just as unsuspecting investigators accept that "God's" test for truth is a feeling in the heart.

How does that not make sense?

Being an apostate member (by choice), I not longer choose to accept "conformational" feelings as God's test for truth.

There is a huge difference. Name calling seems to always be the last resort and is indicative of theological dilemma.

Sure seems like it to me that reading scriptures does ideed give one "confirmational feelings" that they are true.

Luke 24:32

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

To bad you've chosen to turn your back on the still small voice of the Lord.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Zakuska

[Russell C McGregor]

Sure seems like it to me that reading scriptures does give one "confirmational feelings" that they are true.

Luke 24:32

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

 

Those disciples must not have been real Christians[TM]©

[Avatar4321]

So where do you read anything even close to Moroni's promise in this passage?

 

God has already revealed to us in His word that the "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

 

God's test of truth has nothing to do with something he has already declared as "deceitful above all things".  Nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

So Jesus lied when He said if we asked we would receive?

[FormerLDS]

Sure seems like it to me that reading scriptures does ideed give one "confirmational feelings" that they are true.

Luke 24:32

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

To bad you've chosen to turn your back on the still small voice of the Lord.

 

If this passage supports the LDS assertion, why did this not open their eyes to the truth?

 

Specifically what did, and perhaps ironically, why does that not open your eyes to the truth?

[FormerLDS]

So Jesus lied when He said if we asked we would receive?

 

Of course Jesus didn't lie, but he didn't say the evidence one would receive as a "confirmation" of truth was a burning within the bosom.

 

God will show you the truth according to what is plainly written using scripture to explain and prove itself.

[Storm Rider]

Of course Jesus didn't lie, but he didn't say the evidence one would receive as a "confirmation" of truth was a burning within the bosom.

 

God will show you the truth according to what is plainly written using scripture to explain and prove itself.

 

Hello Former,

 

In the past I have heard several Evangelicals, at different times, denigrate this mysterious "burning in the bosom" that Mormons talk about.  I am not surprised to see it here.

 

Jesus promised the Second Comforter to guide us.  Try a google search for the role of the Second Comforter just for a quick overview of what some Christians think of the Holy Spirit's role.  Regardless, Jesus promised he would be our guide.  

 

I always enjoyed the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. In Luke 24 it reads:

 

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

 

What is evident is that as the resurrected Jesus was talking with these two disciples about scripture their hearts burned within them.  I believe that same burning happens today when reading scripture, when scripture is opened to us.  In fact, when all truth is opened to us our hearts burn within us.  

 

You have left the Church of Jesus Christ and have found a new home.  Scripture, without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is just a good story and is little different from other good stories.  However, with the presence of the Holy Spirit the truth of all things is opened to those who follow the Savior.  

 

I believe that Holy Spirit has a role to play in our lives.  Jesus said he would and I believe him.  

 

Based upon your statement above, that "God will show you the truth according to what is plainly written using scripture to explain and prove itself.", I get the impression that you think that scripture, in and of itself, will teach all who read it.  Is this an accurate understanding of your position?  Do you think there is a role for the Holy Spirit in the lives of Jesus' disciples?  If so, what would that be?

[carbon dioxide]

So where do you read anything even close to Moroni's promise in this passage?

 

God has already revealed to us in His word that the "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

 

God's test of truth has nothing to do with something he has already declared as "deceitful above all things".  Nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

Well if the heart is deceitful, those people who were pricked in the heart in Acts 2 where deceived.  They should have bolted away as soon as they were pricked.

 

Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

 

Peter should have said "Run away" instead of repent and be baptized.

 

In regards to  Jeremiah 17:9 :"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" the word heart also means "inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding". https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3820&t=KJV So the mind is also deceitful.

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Faithful]

Doesn't the Bible teach those who are born-again have received initial salvation which can never be lost since John 10.28 says those who are born-again "they shall never perish"?

 

So are you saying Mormons can lose salvation?

[Scott Lloyd]

Doesn't the Bible teach those who are born-again have received initial salvation which can never be lost since John 10.28 says those who are born-again "they shall never perish"?

 

So are you saying Mormons can lose salvation?

John 10:27-28 says

 

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

 

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any many pluck them out of my hand.

 

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world and we believe in following him. Furthermore, we believe that so long as we hearken to His voice and follow Him, we will not perish, just as He said.

[Faithful]

John 10:27-28 says

 

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world and we believe in following him. Furthermore, we believe that so long as we hearken to His voice and follow Him, we will not perish, just as He said.

 

In Christianity Jesus is the uncreated Creator in the Godhead with the 1st Person and the 3rd Person and who created all things. Nothing exists that exists John 1 says without Jesus having created it. You can't be more explicit than that.

 

In Mormonism, Jesus was not alone from everlasting in the Godhead with the 1st and 2nd Person, but was derived from pre-existing material or intelligences. That's a problem because it conflicts with John 1.

 

How would you need for the Bible to be worded so that you would agree with it saying the Father, Son and Spirit are One Being before time and space, creating time and space, and all things from whence before there was nothing but God alone from everlasting?

[Robert F. Smith]

In Christianity Jesus is the uncreated Creator in the Godhead with the 1st Person and the 3rd Person and who created all things. Nothing exists that exists John 1 says without Jesus having created it. You can't be more explicit than that.

Yes, apostate Christianity has adopted the non-biblical and Greek philosophical view of God as an uncaused Cause, which is logically self-contradictory and results in modern contempt for Judeo-Christian dogma among careful thinkers.

 

In Mormonism, Jesus was not alone from everlasting in the Godhead with the 1st and 2nd Person, but was derived from pre-existing material or intelligences. That's a problem because it conflicts with John 1.

All of us are coeternal with God, and Jesus was his firstborn son (in both spirit and flesh), but we are all his spirit-children, and Jesus our elder brother.  We are of the genus and species of God.  He was once like us, and rose to godhood, and his love and glory is to raise us to godhood as well -- if we will only let Him.  There was no beginning and there will be no end.  John 1 speaks of the beginning of Creation, in which Jesus carries out his Father's will.  In so doing, he used already existing materials to form the Earth and our solar system, and to prepare the Earth to receive human life (godlings in embryo) -- humans who were already spirit children of God, but who had coeternal existence even before that -- as indestructible intelligences.

 

How would you need for the Bible to be worded so that you would agree with it saying the Father, Son and Spirit are One Being before time and space, creating time and space, and all things from whence before there was nothing but God alone from everlasting?

Time and space exist with God, and He is master of them and of all natural law.  Only non-biblical apostate dogma maintains that God ever existed "alone from everlasting."  The LDS faith is the restoration of the biblical religion of Israel and of primitive Christianity.

[Faithful]

The Bible teaches the uncreated Creator, so why do you think it is apostate? In the Bible "who alone" (1 Tim. 6.16) was "from everlasting" (Neh. 9.5).​

 

It seems to me for someone to place themselves co-eternal from the past with God is to exalt one's flesh. God is greater than the created.

 

It also debases God to claim He was once like a man. God is spirit. Angels are spirits. Men are not spirits. We are living souls with a spirit and a body as the Bible says in Heb. 4.12...

 

The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents oft he heart."

 

1 Thess. 5.23 says "spirit, soul and body".​

 

Jesus created everything not out of pre-existing material, but out of Himself since He is the uncreated Creator. Jesus God created the universe.

 

God brings time and space into being. Thus, God supersedes your idea of a god. Can your god do that?

 

How is Mormonism any different than atheism for you teach the same? They believe in nature pre-existing and co-eternal.

[Faithful]

I think I have picked up on your claim you think Christianity is primitive, but there is nothing primitive about God entering His creation and dying on the cross for the sins of the world, for your sin separates you from God which verdict is Hell.

 

I find atheism primitive and Mormons are supernatural atheists.

[Mars]

I think I have picked up on your claim you think Christianity is primitive, but there is nothing primitive about God entering His creation and dying on the cross for the sins of the world, for your sin separates you from God which verdict is Hell.

 

I find atheism primitive and Mormons are supernatural atheists.

 

total comprehension fail

 

try again

[Faithful]

"4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.... 10b Him, which is the HEAD OF ALL principality and power: 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19a And not holding the Head. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (Col. 2.4,8,10b,16,18,19a,20-23 KJV)

"4 I am telling you this so no one will deceive you with well-crafted arguments. (Freedom from Rules and New Life in Christ) 8 Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.... 10b Christ, who is the head over EVERY ruler and authority.
16 So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. 18 Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud, 19a and they are not connected to Christ.
20 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, 21 'Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!'? 22 Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. 23 These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires." (Col. 2.4,8,10b,16,18,19a,20-23 NLT)​

 

Please share your thoughts when quoting scripture so your point can be discussed by others. - Ares

Edited November 17, 2015 by Ares

[mfbukowski]

Yes, apostate Christianity has adopted the non-biblical and Greek philosophical view of God as an uncaused Cause, which is logically self-contradictory and results in modern contempt for Judeo-Christian dogma among careful thinkers.

 

All of us are coeternal with God, and Jesus was his firstborn son (in both spirit and flesh), but we are all his spirit-children, and Jesus our elder brother.  We are of the genus and species of God.  He was once like us, and rose to godhood, and his love and glory is to raise us to godhood as well -- if we will only let Him.  There was no beginning and there will be no end.  John 1 speaks of the beginning of Creation, in which Jesus carries out his Father's will.  In so doing, he used already existing materials to form the Earth and our solar system, and to prepare the Earth to receive human life (godlings in embryo) -- humans who were already spirit children of God, but who had coeternal existence even before that -- as indestructible intelligences.

 

Time and space exist with God, and He is master of them and of all natural law.  Only non-biblical apostate dogma maintains that God ever existed "alone from everlasting."  The LDS faith is the restoration of the biblical religion of Israel and of primitive Christianity.

Exactly and then there is the definition of "eternity"

 

Per omnia saecula saeculorum.

 

This is from an EV site which recognizes the ambiguity of these terms.  Remember, the writer is on Faithful's side here but recognizes the problems in translation, which Faithful does not

Some Obvious Errors

For example, in the Old Testament the old covenant of the law is referred to as the "everlasting covenant" (Lev.24: implying that it was to endure for eternity. Yet the New Testament records that the first covenant was "done away" and "abolished" 2Cor.3:11,13. God "has made the first old" Heb.8:13. Either God is confused, or else translators have rendered the text inaccurately. Since the former cannot be true, it is incumbent upon us to search out the exact meanings of words and to find the answers to such discrepancies.

The Aaronic priesthood is spoken of as "an everlasting priesthood" Ex. 40:15. If "everlasting" means "eternal," then the direct descendants of Aaron and only they, would be allowed to function as priests, and this for all time. Yet Heb.7:14-18 declares an end to the Aaronic priesthood and a new priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Peter describes the church as "a spiritual house, an holy priesthood" (1Ptr.2:5), a statement which John confirms when he writes that by Jesus’ blood the church has been cleansed from sin and made "kings and priests unto God" Rev.1:6. Thus in the above Exodus reference, "ever-lasting" cannot possibly mean "everlasting."

The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" Ex.31:16. Yet Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for people of God" Heb.4:8,9. Though translators may have used the word "perpetual," the Holy Spirit disproves this choice of words, exposing it as incorrect.

The misuse of words expressing "unlimited duration" when specific time periods were intended is most obvious in the following cases. Jonah was not in the fish’s belly "forever" Jon.2:6. A bondslave could not possibly serve his master "forever" Ex.21:6. God did not dwell in Solomon’s temple "forever" 1Kg.8:13.

The Hebrew word from which the aforementioned "everlasting," "perpetual" and "forever" were translated, is "olam." Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies by William Wilson, gives the meaning of "olam" as "duration of time which is concealed or hidden." In other words, an unknown length of time. Though it may have been a very long or even indeterminable period of time, the sense that it would come to an end was always there. This concurs with our New Testament texts which confirm that indeed these established practices were abolished and replaced with something better. The King James translators would have been more accurate to record that the old covenant and its priesthood were for an "age of time."

 

We believe the bible insofar as it has been "translated correctly"

 

Joseph provided his own "translation"

[mfbukowski]

total comprehension fail

 

try again

Preaching.

 

5......4.....3....

[mfbukowski]

Yes, apostate Christianity has adopted the non-biblical and Greek philosophical view of God as an uncaused Cause, which is logically self-contradictory and results in modern contempt for Judeo-Christian dogma among careful thinkers.

 

All of us are coeternal with God, and Jesus was his firstborn son (in both spirit and flesh), but we are all his spirit-children, and Jesus our elder brother.  We are of the genus and species of God.  He was once like us, and rose to godhood, and his love and glory is to raise us to godhood as well -- if we will only let Him.  There was no beginning and there will be no end.  John 1 speaks of the beginning of Creation, in which Jesus carries out his Father's will.  In so doing, he used already existing materials to form the Earth and our solar system, and to prepare the Earth to receive human life (godlings in embryo) -- humans who were already spirit children of God, but who had coeternal existence even before that -- as indestructible intelligences.

 

Time and space exist with God, and He is master of them and of all natural law.  Only non-biblical apostate dogma maintains that God ever existed "alone from everlasting."  The LDS faith is the restoration of the biblical religion of Israel and of primitive Christianity.

This is off topic, but Bob did you see this?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66428-john-leon-sorenson/?p=1209562573

[Faithful]

God provides a Bible we can trust in so all 66 books comprise His word.