What does the Godhead really mean?

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, jayman said:

I was a member in good standing until I was 38 years old. I served a mission to Japan, married in temple, kids, and I was serving as an Elder's Quorum President when I left the church. Four years of seminary. Read the Book of Mormon several times through. At least 9 times. You can doubt my resume all you want. The LDS church failed to bring me to Christ. The LDS Church only has the power to bring someone to itself. In the temple, you do not covenant to give all to God. You covenant to give all to the Church.

You may tell me I do not understand Mormon doctrine, but some of you here are also telling me that even the General Authorities are not fully teaching correct doctrine, that you don't agree with Holland and that BY "flubbed it.". So, what gives?

Who, exactly, can adequately represent correct Mormon doctrine?

Jay, I believe you and I believe when you say that you did not find Jesus when you were a member.  I don't have an explanation for situations like yours, but I also think that they are personal to those who find it.  I know Jesus as my Savior, Redeemer, and Master and I have found him within the Church of Jesus Christ.  Where you did not, I and many more like me have found Jesus within the restored church.  

I believe that God continues to work through humans as frail and imperfect as they are.  Fortunately, I don't need anyone between me and the Savior.  I know of only one intermediary between me and the Father.  Lastly, context is everything when trying to understand the scriptures or the words of prophets and apostles. 

[jayman]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

"Who, exactly, can adequately represent correct Mormon doctrine?" My advise is to obtain a full understanding of the scriptures, and to pray about them. If you are ready to receive the answers, the Holy Spirit will confirm it. I think it important to note that God reveals some things "precept upon precept" so He won't tell men until they are ready. This doesn't mean they are patient, or that they resist giving their best advice. I don't expect perfection from leaders. I expect what is given as scripture is right, and everything else goes through my interpretation filter. Does it conflict with scripture?

How do you determine what is and what isn't scripture? Didn't you, at least at some point in your spiritual journey, take someone at their word when they told you that the Doctrine and Covenants is scripture? Or the Book of Mormon? Perhaps you then went on to pray about these books and received your own confirmation, but why did you then stop there? Have you read and prayed about the Koran? The Bagavad-gita? There are so many other "holy" writings out there. By what criteria do you pick and choose which will get the "read and pray" test and which can be ignored? 

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, jayman said:

How do you determine what is and what isn't scripture? Didn't you, at least at some point in your spiritual journey, take someone at their word when they told you that the Doctrine and Covenants is scripture? Or the Book of Mormon? Perhaps you then went on to pray about these books and received your own confirmation, but why did you then stop there? Have you read and prayed about the Koran? The Bagavad-gita? There are so many other "holy" writings out there. By what criteria do you pick and choose which will get the "read and pray" test and which can be ignored? 

The church has so many qualities that many of these religions don't provide.  I think that is the catalyst!  Like for instances...a good youth program, a service oriented church that provides so many avenues to live your religion, a check up system to make sure the members are taken care of.  The church offers a way to sacrifice your time and talents, so you are bettering yourself and others.  There are so many attributes, that frankly I wish other religions could match.  Maybe there are, and I'm just naive.  Or it's individual preference too.  

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, jayman said:

How do you determine what is and what isn't scripture? Didn't you, at least at some point in your spiritual journey, take someone at their word when they told you that the Doctrine and Covenants is scripture? Or the Book of Mormon? Perhaps you then went on to pray about these books and received your own confirmation, but why did you then stop there? Have you read and prayed about the Koran? The Bagavad-gita? There are so many other "holy" writings out there. By what criteria do you pick and choose which will get the "read and pray" test and which can be ignored? 

One can only pray about the book he is exposed to, and even then the concept to pray about its truthfulness has to come to his mind since no one is inclined to pray about every book. Otherwise he decides for himself whether the book is scripture and whether it is true.

I think there is an element of grace in this: “God that made the world and all things therein …giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…” (Acts 17: 24-27).

I think any religious book can help someone seek the Lord, feel after Him and find Him to some degree given that individual’s circumstances. God’s design is for His children to eventually come to “fulness,” and the Book of Mormon as a religious book is in a remarkably unique position in this regard, for both the testimony and teachings it contains and the Restoration it is part of.

[RevTestament]

54 minutes ago, jayman said:

How do you determine what is and what isn't scripture? Didn't you, at least at some point in your spiritual journey, take someone at their word when they told you that the Doctrine and Covenants is scripture? Or the Book of Mormon? Perhaps you then went on to pray about these books and received your own confirmation, but why did you then stop there? Have you read and prayed about the Koran? The Bagavad-gita? There are so many other "holy" writings out there. By what criteria do you pick and choose which will get the "read and pray" test and which can be ignored? 

My spiritual journey is a long one. The Lord has spoken to me at various times, and years ago I asked if this church is His true church, and received an answer. Since that time I have gained a complete testimony and cannot really express the fullness of my experiences. How does one describe such things so that others believe it? One can't. They are my experiences, and others can't really appreciate them. I did sit down and read the entire D&C after receiving a testimony of the BoM, but by that time the Lord had already told me this is His true Church. So I guess I would say I took the Lord at His "word when [he] told you that the Doctrine and Covenants is scripture." He didn't say it in those exact words, and didn't say the Church was perfect however. The Church is simply a group of followers. The structure might be (it is) set up based on heavenly things, but that doesn't mean that men fulfill their callings perfectly. 
Since you ask, I believe I have received revelation regarding the Koran. I believe Zech 5 is a prophecy concerning the Koran and the two women which come out of it (Sunni and Shiite branches). If the Bible is true, which I gained a testimony of, then the Koran cannot be true because it teaches that God does not have a Son. It says far be it from the glory of Allah to have a Son. The Bible teaches that He who denies the Son denies the Father also, and is anti-Christ. The two books simply cannot be reconciled, and therefore, I know the Koran is false. I know much more about the Koran if you wish to discuss it. The only prophecy it ever gave which came true, already happened by the time the book was written down out of its oral history....so not a good test there. There has been 1400 years since then, and no true prophecies? The Bible has many. Joseph Smith gave a true prophecy regarding the civil war beginning with S. Carolina. Mohammed "the prophet" yeah...not so much. I can go on and on about Islam and the Koran if you want....R U considering converting to Islam? IMHO it is an enemy to Christ in these last days. I am not saying there are not good people in Islam. I am simply saying they are led astray by a false "gospel" - one that teaches things opposite to Christ. So not too hard for me to determine the Koran is not true scripture. IMHO it is some truth mixed with a lot of falsehood. Its truth is then overshadowed by later "revelations" which the Koran allows to replace earlier conflicting ones....how is that for "true?"

I can honestly say I have never read the Bagavad-gita. I am not into the Hindu religion. I have more respect for the Buddhist philosophy, and have actually worked up a comparison of the 8 fold path to scripture, but I disagree with some of the fundamental truths the Buddha came up with. Despite rejecting gods, the philosophy some how adopts Hindu traits like reincarnation, a belief in god-like beings in an outer world....Don't know how the Buddha came up with that without revelation. I guess he was the only one allowed to remember it or something. Anyway, I don't believe one reaches enlightenment by avoiding suffering. That certainly wasn't Jesus' path...and JS didn't teach that either. Christ descended below all that "He may know how to succor" us. That is a different path than the Buddha taught. I have also studied other philosophies and faiths including Taoism, Confucianism, etc, and found nothing to supplant my Christian faith, although many have some good teachings. Perhaps the most like the faith taught in the Bible is Zoroastrianism. Like the eternal god of fire, the Israelites were to always keep a flame burning in the temple. I believe Zoroastrianism may well have roots back to religion in the days of Adam... or at least Noah. 
However, I humbly give you my testimony that the only way you are going to become like Christ is to receive the true priesthood and follow Him in the restored gospel.

Edited February 16, 2016 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, jayman said:

I was a member in good standing until I was 38 years old. I served a mission to Japan, married in temple, kids, and I was serving as an Elder's Quorum President when I left the church. Four years of seminary. Read the Book of Mormon several times through. At least 9 times. You can doubt my resume all you want. The LDS church failed to bring me to Christ. The LDS Church only has the power to bring someone to itself. In the temple, you do not covenant to give all to God. You covenant to give all to the Church.

You may tell me I do not understand Mormon doctrine, but some of you here are also telling me that even the General Authorities are not fully teaching correct doctrine, that you don't agree with Holland and that BY "flubbed it.". So, what gives?

Who, exactly, can adequately represent correct Mormon doctrine?

Proof you do not understand 

We have no doctrine. Half of this board is dedicated to this point.

Prophets and General Authorities are not infallible.

[jayman]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We have no doctrine. Half of this board is dedicated to this point.

 

You have no doctrine? I don't understand what you mean? 

[longview]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

So here's the point: While it's true there is a unity of purpose that exists between each of the three members of the Godhead, and a similar unity of purpose that exists between the Godhead and the sanctified saints, even so, in LDS theology there is an actual substance that enables that unity of purpose to exist; and without that shared substance there could exist no unity of purpose within the LDS Godhead. You see, each member of the Godhead is filled to eternal fullness with the uncreated Spirit of divine intelligence and truth, and without that shared Spirit (remember the prophet Joseph Smith taught us the Spirit is an actual material substance) there could be no divine unity between the members of the Godhead, no unity of purpose between the Godhead and the saints, and no unity of purpose among the saimts. So on this very specific point of LDS theology (divine unity), the theological concept that separates the Latter-day Saints and the Trinitarians is not whether or not there is an actual unifying divine substance, because there most certainly  is, but the parting of the ways is found in the fact that Latter-day Saints define what the unifying divine substance actually is (the Spirit), while the Trinitarians do not define what the substance is because they believe it's an incomprehensible mystery.

In the "immortal words" of Apostle Paul, I believe he referring directly to the purpose and function of the Holy Ghost Himself.  We have also the "Light of Christ" that is given to every man that is born into the world.  That is the basis for our feelings of conscience.  But the "office" of the Holy Ghost entails certain responsibilities such as warning people, validating covenants, sealing Temple relationships, and so on.  He also helps the members to develop their gifts to enable a more bountiful harvest of goodly fruits.

However, I agree with you that Joseph taught that spirit is finer matter that we cannot see with our physical eyes.  The scriptures also speak of "Light and Truth" and their interactions with spirit.  I am inclined to believe that ALL spirit contain some level of intelligence.  I think a more applicable scripture dealing with the "substance of the spirit" is found in D&C 93:

 2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;
 3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—
 9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.
 11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.
 12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
 13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
 14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
 16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;
 17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.
 19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.
 20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.
 23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
 36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
 37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

But before you and anyone else here rejects out of hand the concept of an LDS version of a unifying divine substance (I'm wary because of past experience with this subject on this board), I have a question for you: Do you believe Christ could have successfully functioned in his role as Savior without first receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost?

Because of section 93 (see above), I believe He could have obtained instructions directly from Heavenly Father plus communications from the Holy Ghost.  This is how Jesus was able to discern the thoughts of the people around Him (unless He is able to read minds).  If I were you, I would forbear on too much speculation on the nature and function of the medium of the spirit (or LIght and Truth).

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, jayman said:

The LDS church failed to bring me to Christ. The LDS Church only has the power to bring someone to itself. In the temple, you do not covenant to give all to God. You covenant to give all to the Church.
 

Maybe the issue is that you have taken something that you believe is true for you (that the LDS church failed you) and have projected it onto everyone else (the church only has power to bring someone to itself).  At it's heart it's a very self-centered ideology (if it's true for me, it must be true for everyone else, if it's not true for me it can't be true for anyone else.  You have set yourself up as the standard that everyone else must be measured against).

The problem with your statement is that you have no authority to speak on behalf of members of the church.  Neither do you have the knowledge to state something like that as a fact.  

And lastly, church members covenant to give everything to the kingdom of God, which we believe the church represents on the earth at this time. Given your past experience with the church, you should know that and be able to describe our beliefs accurately.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And lastly, church members covenant to give everything to the kingdom of God, which we believe the church represents on the earth at this time.

In all fairness to Jayman, we do covenant to give everything to the Church for the building up of the Kingdom of God.
That's still giving all to the Church.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In all fairness to Jayman, we do covenant to give everything to the Church for the building up of the Kingdom of God.
That's still giving all to the Church.

I realize that, but as I know you know, we only covenant that because we believe that the church is the kingdom of God on the earth.  The distinction is important.   I'm guessing he knows that, but that explaining our beliefs in the worst ways possible suits his purposes.

[consiglieri]

5 hours ago, jayman said:

Don't worry mfbukowski....I didn't sin. Is it really so hard to believe that someone could possibly leave the church because they actually don't believe it?

Leaving the church is the worst sin of all.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, longview said:

In the "immortal words" of Apostle Paul, I believe he referring directly to the purpose and function of the Holy Ghost Himself.  We have also the "Light of Christ" that is given to every man that is born into the world.  That is the basis for our feelings of conscience.  But the "office" of the Holy Ghost entails certain responsibilities such as warning people, validating covenants, sealing Temple relationships, and so on.  He also helps the members to develop their gifts to enable a more bountiful harvest of goodly fruits.

However, I agree with you that Joseph taught that spirit is finer matter that we cannot see with our physical eyes.  The scriptures also speak of "Light and Truth" and their interactions with spirit.  I am inclined to believe that ALL spirit contain some level of intelligence.  I think a more applicable scripture dealing with the "substance of the spirit" is found in D&C 93:

 2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;
 3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—
 9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.
 11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.
 12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
 13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
 14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
 16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;
 17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.
 19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.
 20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.
 23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
 32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
 33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
 34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
 35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
 36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
 37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.

Because of section 93 (see above), I believe He could have obtained instructions directly from Heavenly Father plus communications from the Holy Ghost.  This is how Jesus was able to discern the thoughts of the people around Him (unless He is able to read minds).  If I were you, I would forbear on too much speculation on the nature and function of the medium of the spirit (or LIght and Truth).

There's little need to speculate. If the King Follett discourse is true (I believe it is), then the Father received the fullness of the Spirit in the same way we all do. And as Paul said, it is only by the shared Spirit that there is true spiritual unity. The Father and the Son are not exempt from the same principle that also spiritually empowers the saints. Plus, whatever spiritual light and power is imparted to man through the Holy Ghost, it must be understood that that light and power has it's ultimate origin in the Father through the the Son. The Holy Ghost has no light and power of his own to impart to man apart from his connection to the Father and the Son. The Son receives his light and power through the Father, and the Holy Ghost receives that same light and power through the Son. In the final analysis, if the Holy Ghost inspires a man, it is the Father who is the ultimate source of that inspiration, not the Holy Ghost. In addition, D&C 88 makes it clear that light, life and union with God can only be obtained by means of the indwelling of the Spirit. 

 6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;

 7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

 8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

 9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

 10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.

 11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

 12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

 13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88)

It's the substance of the Spirit that enables the Father and the Son to be one God. Such eternally perfect oneness is not obtainable by the mere agreement of two independent minds. Without the power of the eternal Spirit, the Father and the Son could never be one. Men become Gods when they receive the fullness of the Spirit, and our God became God by receiving a fullness of the same Spirit. And when the Father commands us to become one with him, doing so would be an utter impossibility without the indwelling of the same Spirit that animates both the Father and the Son. The Lectures on Faith tells us that the Father and the Son have the same "Mind," and it goes on to say that that divine Mind is the Holy Spirit. 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[jayman]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Utter nonsense.
There were sins that were taught to be so serious they required the shedding of your blood, but you had to be pretty far progressed and commit a pretty serious sin to merit that.
An average member leaving the church was not one of them.

Thanks for the correction. Was this doctrine ever carried out? In other words, were people slain in order to allow forgiveness for their sin? Is this still the practice today? If not, why not? Was it not a correct principle? 

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, jayman said:

Thanks for the correction. Was this doctrine ever carried out? In other words, were people slain in order to allow forgiveness for their sin? Is this still the practice today? If not, why not? Was it not a correct principle? 

Not by the Church. People were just excommunicated if they committed egregious sins. 
I think it is more a matter of celestial principles. In other words sometimes sacrifice is called for. 

The Torah had many types of sacrifices other than the sacrifice of the bullock to atone for the sins of the congregation.

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, jayman said:

Thanks for the correction. Was this doctrine ever carried out? In other words, were people slain in order to allow forgiveness for their sin? Is this still the practice today? If not, why not? Was it not a correct principle?

Was this doctrine ever carried out?  Big fat maybe as far as authorized by the Church goes.
Of course it's not the practice today.
As for it being correct principle, I believe the doctrine behind it was correct.  The application of the doctrine maybe less so.
And I am certain many on the board here would disagree with me about the doctrine even being correct.

14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not by the Church. People were just excommunicated if they committed egregious sins.

Sorry Rev, but there were a couple of examples in church history.
How involved "The Church" was directly is definitely up for debate, but it did happen.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Leaving the church is the worst sin of all.

Deliberate lying distortion. This other poor guy hasn't a clue.

For you, it could be. 

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry Rev, but there were a couple of examples in church history.
How involved "The Church" was directly is definitely up for debate, but it did happen.

Not that I doubt you but CFRs please so I can read up on it.

The Jews stoned sinners, but they had a court. The first thing the modern church did was excommunicate. If a murderer was put to death tho, I probably wouldn't be too sad about it. The church was basically the only law in the pre Utah days of "Utah." 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, jayman said:

Thanks for the correction. Was this doctrine ever carried out? In other words, were people slain in order to allow forgiveness for their sin? Is this still the practice today? If not, why not? Was it not a correct principle? 

My, you do have that pharisee act down pat, me thinks.  Now tell me, who do you think is fool enough to play that game with you?  The Savior did not play it either. 

[Calm]

Had to remove formatting to allow it to post, go to the site if it is confusing for you:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Blood_atonement

Quote

 

Did early Mormon leaders teach that apostasy was the unforgivable sin, and that the only thing an apostate could do to redeem himself was to give his own life, willingly or unwillingly?

Accusations are unsupported which seek to establish these as activities promoted, condoned, or concealed by the Church or its leaders

While one is no doubt able to dig up examples of blood being shed by those of the LDS faith, accusations are unsupported which seek to establish these as activities promoted, condoned, or concealed by the LDS church or its leaders generally.[3]

As Gustave O.Larson noted in the Utah Historical Quarterly:

Denials of murder charges which rode in on the backwash of the Reformation gradually resolved into defensible positions that (1) some known killings of the reform period resulted from motives not related to blood atonement, (2) that in spite of extreme statements by some of its leaders the church did not officially condone taking life other than through legal processes, (3) responsibility for any reversions to primitive practices of blood shedding must rest upon fanatical individuals. The whole experience continued in memory as a reminder of ill effects growing out of good causes carried to extremes.[4]

The Deseret News reported the following on June 17, 2010, reporting the Church's recent statement on the subject of Blood Atonement:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday:

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.[5]

 

Question: Were apostates secretly put to death by "blood atonement" during the administration of Brigham Young?

Despite a number of rhetorical statements in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young

Brigham Young spoke of a doctrine called "blood atonement." Despite a number of rhetorical statements by LDS leaders in the late 1850s, there is no evidence that anyone was "blood atoned" at the orders of Brigham Young or any other general authority. Contemporary claims for such actions uniformly come from anti-Mormon books and newspapers with lurid titles such as The Destroying Angels of Mormondom[6]and Abominations of Mormonism Exposed.[7]

The First Presidency issued an official declaration on the matter of killing apostates, as a form of blood atonement, in 1889. This declaration reads, in part:

Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.

We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.[8]

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

On February 15, 2016 at 11:56 AM, jayman said:

I am John Cline, the author of the essay to which Tacenda has linked. I was pleasantly surprised to see it show up over here and a discussion following it. 

Longview: you say that "the LDS Godhead is much more straightforward." Please explain to me just how straightforward it is. You may argue that the Trinitarian doctrine of a God that is "one in substance" is erroneous because the Bible never says "in substance." I will also point out to you that the Bible also does not say "one in purpose" either. Both "in substance" and "in purpose" are ways of describing exactly what the Bible means when it says "God is one." But the Bible never qualifies that statement. 

I find the LDS concept of God more confusing than the Trinitarian concept of God. In Mormon theology, God is God by virtue of the fact that He has an eternal wife. No wife....no exaltation. God is God because He has gender and He uses his gender to procreate. Sex is at the core of Mormon theology. This is alchemy, the alchemical marriage. This is the Occult. That is what it ultimately all comes down to. To read more about how occultic teachings about sexuality are peppered all through Mormon doctrine, read this post I wrote several months ago: https://deadtothelaw.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sacramental-sexuality/#more-100

Here is an authoritative statement about the Godhead as you requested. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng. 

 

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Deliberate lying distortion. This other poor guy hasn't a clue.

For you, it could be. 

I was just kidding!

Sorry the "other poor guy" didn't understand that.

I do think a case can be made that failing to sustain the prophet is the worst sin in the Mormon canon.

Or having parents who are in a committed gay relationship. 

 

[jayman]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I was just kidding!

Sorry the "other poor guy" didn't understand that.

I do think a case can be made that failing to sustain the prophet is the worst sin in the Mormon canon.

Or having parents who are in a committed gay relationship. 

 

This "other poor guy" figured out you were joking eventually, while walking home from work. It suddenly just came to me, like a revelation..."Wait! Consiglieri was joking!" 

Having a parent in a gay relationship is worse that rape. At least rape doesn't automatically require a disciplinary council....

 

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, jayman said:

This "other poor guy" figured out you were joking eventually, while walking home from work. It suddenly just came to me, like a revelation..."Wait! Consiglieri was joking!" 

Having a parent in a gay relationship is worse that rape. At least rape doesn't automatically require a disciplinary council....

 

oh gosh wrong still again on 2 counts. 

 

[RevTestament]

49 minutes ago, jayman said:

This "other poor guy" figured out you were joking eventually, while walking home from work. It suddenly just came to me, like a revelation..."Wait! Consiglieri was joking!" 

Having a parent in a gay relationship is worse that rape. At least rape doesn't automatically require a disciplinary council....

Rape actually does automatically require a disciplinary council for the raper. 

OTOH, being the child of gay parents requires no response whatsoever. They are not disciplined, and are welcome to come to church. 

But I'm sure that does not have the shock value you're looking for...