HappyJackWagon Posted March 22, 2017 Author Posted March 22, 2017 Darren, I'm hearing you say that unless something appears explicitly in scripture, we should not teach it. Talks by prophets and apostles, even conference talks, and therefore church publications like the Ensign, cannot be trusted to accurately portray church doctrine. Am I understanding your position?
HappyJackWagon Posted March 22, 2017 Author Posted March 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: There is only one true God with God defined as a particular kind of being, and all of us are that kind of being. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to become as perfect as our Father in heaven is. That wasn't an answer. Is God a supreme God, or is he a subservient god as a joint heir with another god (who acts as a silent partner)? If he's supreme for his sphere, wouldn't we also become supreme for our sphere?
Ahab Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, cinepro said: So, strictly speaking, the scriptures teach us that Adam lived in what is now Missouri after he left the Garden, so the location of the actual Garden of Eden would be any location within a distance that Adam might have reasonably traveled between being expelled from the Garden and settling in Adam-Ondi-Ahman. And assuming we ignore the reports of Abraham O. Smoot about Joseph claiming that that's where the Garden of Eden was and an "altar" they found was the altar used by Adam after getting kicked out of the garden... Hmm. Interesting. I don't recall hearing or reading about that before. I will seek further light and knowledge from our Father about that. I don't assume anyone is speaking for our Father unless or until our Father personally assures me that he is.
Ahab Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: That wasn't an answer. (It actually was, from me, Ahab) Is God a supreme God, or is he a subservient god as a joint heir with another god (who acts as a silent partner)? If he's supreme for his sphere, wouldn't we also become supreme for our sphere? He is supreme in his sphere and he works jointly in unity with everyone who is as perfect as he is, so when we become that perfect we will do as our Father does which is also what every other perfect person does.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 39 minutes ago, ksfisher said: And if children, then heirs; aheirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we bsuffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Romans 8:17 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s akingdom; therefore ball that my Father hath shall be given unto him. D&C 84:38 I don't think there's anything in the scriptures that would imply that any one person would be given any particular planet. Thank you for those examples it helps put things in better context.
bluebell Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: It says worlds without end and a continuation of the seeds forever in scripture. What does worlds without end mean to you and I'll ask anyone to answer this. I've never thought about it. It could be symbolic or it could be literal.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 22, 2017 Author Posted March 22, 2017 34 minutes ago, Ahab said: He is supreme in his sphere and he works jointly in unity with everyone who is as perfect as he is, so when we become that perfect we will do as our Father does which is also what every other perfect person does. So in addition to the marriage relationship we will also be in partnership with other gods with whom we are joint heirs, right? Beyond the simple Godhead there are other God's at play in our universe? So we are truly polytheistic, even beyond the separation between the father, son and holy ghost and however many heavenly mothers there are.
CV75 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Darren, I'm hearing you say that unless something appears explicitly in scripture, we should not teach it. Talks by prophets and apostles, even conference talks, and therefore church publications like the Ensign, cannot be trusted to accurately portray church doctrine. Am I understanding your position? The guidelines from the leak seem designed to bring the focus back to that which is easily verified in canon as a starting point in answering questions that are clearly formulated without a well-informed or sound understanding and/or appreciation of the canon or Church materials, or of how the Church approaches teaching about Eden, the pre-existence, exaltation, etc. Edited March 22, 2017 by CV75
Ahab Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: So in addition to the marriage relationship we will also be in partnership with other gods with whom we are joint heirs, right? Beyond the simple Godhead there are other God's at play in our universe? So we are truly polytheistic, even beyond the separation between the father, son and holy ghost and however many heavenly mothers there are. I prefer the term "people who are God" rather than the term "gods" but yes that is the general idea. Many people who are God will be working together.
Darren10 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- As I state in the quote, there is no documentation that I'm aware of. My knowledge comes from personal experience and conversation and claim nothing else. I can't prove it. I've already admitted that. 2- If you haven't issued a CFR there isn't a need for me to provide a reference or withdrawal. Again, I don't think you understand how this works. However, I will change my statement to say "I believe through personal experience AoA is its own mission..." That wasn't hard at all. The difference that you don't grasp is in your example you stated absolute fact that you could prove, but then didn't prove. In my case I stated upfront that there wasn't any evidence so people could choose to believe me or not, without any documentation provided. 3- It's not a proselyting mission. Documentation about internal church workings are only available if the church makes them available (or they're leaked). I agree that it may be strange, however there are a multitude of full time senior missionaries called to serve at AoA and it is not part of the Missouri, Independence Mission (despite being within mission boundaries). If you doubt that you can call the mission office (816) 252-6050 4- If no Adam ondi-Ahman existed it would mean Joseph was full of crap. It would mean Adam didn't really bless his children in the valley. It would mean that there is no prophesy about the second coming that concerns a meeting at AoA where key holders will return their keys to Adam, who will then turn all keys to Jesus prior to his Millenial reign. That stuff is pretty important...isn't it? 5- Why do you keep asking this same question? I've provided a number of references already. If those don't suffice for you google it. Very simple. What is the difference between the "Church" teaching these things versus "Leaders" teaching these things. When church leaders teach from the pulpit about AoA and the Garden of Eden, then it is a church teaching. If it was a one off comment, we could dismiss it, however, as I've demonstrated, there are multiple leaders who spoke on multiple occasions about these things. 2) "I will change my statement to say "I believe through personal experience AoA is its own mission..." That wasn't hard at all." Thank you. 3) I believe you. That wasn't hard either. 4) I meant if there nevr was an Adam-ondi-Ahman. There's plenty of LDS, such as rhe Atonement tsking all our sufferings, eternal families, home teaching, word of wisdm, etc. which, if never existed, you arguably would be either different including possibly bekng worse off. If there was no Adam-ondi-Ahman, how would tou be different or worse off? Perhaps you'd be better off with less confusion in your life but its existence I do not find to be of any real consequence. 5) While leaders can teach things like Adam is God the Father incarnated, the Catholic Church is the Great and Abominable Church, and that there are people on the Sun, but the *church* has never taught these things. As an organization, there has never been an obligation for any member to believe these things. That's the difference. Edited March 22, 2017 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Darren, I'm hearing you say that unless something appears explicitly in scripture, we should not teach it. Talks by prophets and apostles, even conference talks, and therefore church publications like the Ensign, cannot be trusted to accurately portray church doctrine. Am I understanding your position? Nope. If it's not in scripture, there's no official reason to believe it, nobthat it should not or cannot be taught in church. church publications are very reliable but not as absolute as scripture. Conference soeakers are not assigned talks. They are free to prepare talks as rhey deem necessary. I imagine that if anything were explicitly against LDS brliefs, policy, etc. then the proper leader would clarify. But, at the same rime, just because sonething spoken in General Conference was not explicitly denounced does not mean it is to be believed by Mormons just because it was spoken and not denounced. To me it's a matter if reliability, not absolute doctrine.
Darren10 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: That wasn't an answer. Is God a supreme God, or is he a subservient god as a joint heir with another god (who acts as a silent partner)? If he's supreme for his sphere, wouldn't we also become supreme for our sphere? Oh dear. I don't not think there us any doubt whatsoever that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares that God the Father is the supreme God. Above all other gods and all things. It's only when you embrace speculation as to the eternal nature of God that one gets confused as to "what Mormons believe" regarding God's supremacy.
Darren10 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: So in addition to the marriage relationship we will also be in partnership with other gods with whom we are joint heirs, right? Beyond the simple Godhead there are other God's at play in our universe? So we are truly polytheistic, even beyond the separation between the father, son and holy ghost and however many heavenly mothers there are. Good grief, ya'll need ro stick to scripture. The eternities are so much clearer when we do.
Darren10 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- As I state in the quote, there is no documentation that I'm aware of. My knowledge comes from personal experience and conversation and claim nothing else. I can't prove it. I've already admitted that. 2- If you haven't issued a CFR there isn't a need for me to provide a reference or withdrawal. Again, I don't think you understand how this works. However, I will change my statement to say "I believe through personal experience AoA is its own mission..." That wasn't hard at all. The difference that you don't grasp is in your example you stated absolute fact that you could prove, but then didn't prove. In my case I stated upfront that there wasn't any evidence so people could choose to believe me or not, without any documentation provided. 3- It's not a proselyting mission. Documentation about internal church workings are only available if the church makes them available (or they're leaked). I agree that it may be strange, however there are a multitude of full time senior missionaries called to serve at AoA and it is not part of the Missouri, Independence Mission (despite being within mission boundaries). If you doubt that you can call the mission office (816) 252-6050 4- If no Adam ondi-Ahman existed it would mean Joseph was full of crap. It would mean Adam didn't really bless his children in the valley. It would mean that there is no prophesy about the second coming that concerns a meeting at AoA where key holders will return their keys to Adam, who will then turn all keys to Jesus prior to his Millenial reign. That stuff is pretty important...isn't it? 5- Why do you keep asking this same question? I've provided a number of references already. If those don't suffice for you google it. Very simple. What is the difference between the "Church" teaching these things versus "Leaders" teaching these things. When church leaders teach from the pulpit about AoA and the Garden of Eden, then it is a church teaching. If it was a one off comment, we could dismiss it, however, as I've demonstrated, there are multiple leaders who spoke on multiple occasions about these things. 2) "I will change my statement to say "I believe through personal experience AoA is its own mission..." That wasn't hard at all." Thank you. 3) I believe you. That wasn't gard either. 4) I meant if there nevr was an Adam-ondi-Ahman. There's plenty of LDS, such as rhe Atonement tsking all our sufferings, eternal families, home teaching, word of wisdm, etc. which, if never existed, you arguably would be either different including possibly bekng worse off. If there was no Adam-ondi-Ahman, how would tou be different or worse off? Perhaps you'd be better off with less confusion in your life but its existence I do not find to be of any real consequence. 5) While leaders can teach things like Adam is God the Father incarnated, the Catholic Church is the Great and Abominable Church, and that there are people on the Sun, but the *church* has never taught these things. As an organization, there has never been an obligation for any member to believe these things. That's the difference.
Darren10 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, cinepro said: I guess the best clue is how the Church recommends the question be answered. Anytime someone says "strictly speaking", you can ignore what follows because they're going to be overly semantic in an effort to avoid saying the obvious and "general" truth. If a reporter or "opinion leader" asked the question and a Church representative gave that answer, it would be great if the reporter followed up by saying "So, generally speaking, yes?" Huh?
Darren10 Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I think the church is more focused on not teaching opinions as doctrine and that these official answers reflect that. I don't think anything more nefarious than that is going on. I've heard things taught over the pulpit that we definitely do NOT believe, and i've heard prophets and apostles say things that aren't LDS doctrine either. These things are sometimes taught in official channels but when the rubber meets the road--when we are talking about someone giving an official response of LDS doctrine to a specific question--sticking with what we currently teach and can verify through scripture and official revelations is better than quoting past personal beliefs and opinions. It causes way less problems down the road when new understandings (when new lines are added upon the previous lines) and we realize that our understanding was off a bit. I don't think these answers mean to speak to what might be literally true. Maybe we do each get our own world as previous generations have extrapolated from our doctrine! But I think they speak to what is known (as far as we can know it). In the words of Paul, right now we see only a part. I think it's good for these kinds of official answers to reflect that limitation. It's a different way of coming at the gospel than how they used to come at it in previous years, but i don't see that as deception. Just growth. I find this to be an outstanding post BlueBell. Thanks!
Oliblish Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 53 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Nope. If it's not in scripture, there's no official reason to believe it, nobthat it should not or cannot be taught in church. church publications are very reliable but not as absolute as scripture. Conference soeakers are not assigned talks. They are free to prepare talks as rhey deem necessary. I imagine that if anything were explicitly against LDS brliefs, policy, etc. then the proper leader would clarify. But, at the same rime, just because sonething spoken in General Conference was not explicitly denounced does not mean it is to be believed by Mormons just because it was spoken and not denounced. To me it's a matter if reliability, not absolute doctrine. Is the Word of Wisdom a commandment? According to the scriptures it is not (D&C 89:2). We have modern prophets saying it is a commandment. In this case it seems we take the word of modern leaders over what it says in the scriptures.
cinepro Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 I do find it hilarious that the only time a clear answer is given to a yes-or-no question is this one: Quote Do you believe in Grace? Yes. We believe God's grace is what ultimately saves us yet we must do all we can to live God's commandments and follow Jesus Christ's teachings. We do not believe salvation comes by simply confessing belief in Christ as our Savior. Faith, works, ordinances, and grace are all necessary. All of the other yes-or-no questions could have started the same way, with a simple "Yes." followed by explanation. But the "Grace" question is the only one that gets such clarity, even though the question is far from clear since the term obviously has a different meaning to many people (as explained in the follow up).
cinepro Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: Huh? Imagine asking anyone any question, and them starting the answer with "Strictly speaking..." "No, I don't need the 'strict' answer. Just give me the plain and generally understood answer. Then obfuscate after that." "Strictly speaking" is the conversational equivalent of shoveling horse droppings into a wheelbarrow. And notice how the "strictly speaking" answer to the previous question (about Jesus and Satan being brothers) is "Yes!", but for that question they had to take a different approach to try and throw up a smokescreen. Quote But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Edited March 23, 2017 by cinepro
Darren10 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Oliblish said: Is the Word of Wisdom a commandment? According to the scriptures it is not (D&C 89:2). We have modern prophets saying it is a commandment. In this case it seems we take the word of modern leaders over what it says in the scriptures. It wasn't a commandment for temple worthiness until after the 20th century. The brethren are 100% united behind this standard. Obey the Word of Wisdom = blessings physical and spiritual; disobey the Word of Wisdom = no promised blessings physical or spiritual. This means it's a commandment. Edited March 23, 2017 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, cinepro said: Imagine asking anyone any question, and them starting the answer with "Strictly speaking..." "No, I don't need the 'strict' answer. Just give me the plain and generally understood answer. Then obfuscate after that." "Strictly speaking" is the conversational equivalent of shoveling horse droppings into a wheelbarrow. And notice how the "strictly speaking" answer to the previous question (about Jesus and Satan being brothers) is "Yes!", but for that question they had to take a different approach to try and throw up a smokescreen. You still lost me. '"No, I don't need the 'strict' answer. Just give me the plain and generally understood answer. Then obfuscate after that.' What in the world are you talking about?
churchistrue Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 3 hours ago, cinepro said: So, strictly speaking, the scriptures teach us that Adam lived in what is now Missouri after he left the Garden, so the location of the actual Garden of Eden would be any location within a distance that Adam might have reasonably traveled between being expelled from the Garden and settling in Adam-Ondi-Ahman. And assuming we ignore the reports of Abraham O. Smoot about Joseph claiming that that's where the Garden of Eden was and an "altar" they found was the altar used by Adam after getting kicked out of the garden... Obviously, some LDS are hesitant to own this idea because it smacks of being a tad silly to non-LDS (and apparently some LDS as well). But can someone else explain to me why the idea of Adam and Eve and posterity living in ancient-Missouri after they left the Garden of Eden is any less silly than the idea that the Garden of Eden was nearby in the first place? "Oh no, don't be silly. Of course we don't believe the Garden of Eden was in ancient-Missouri. While Joseph apparently might have made that claim, it never made it into our scriptures so we can pretend he didn't say it. We do believe, of course, that the Garden was an actual, physical place that was somewhere, but we don't know exactly where. But we do know for sure that Adam and Eve were real people, and that after getting kicked out of the Garden they eventually lived in ancient-Missouri. This is affirmed in our scriptures and cannot be doubted." Yes, that's much less silly...we really dodged a bullet with that one. I concur with this logic. The problem is that Adam is in Missouri at all. Regardless of whether that be the Garden of Eden, or where they moved to.
Darren10 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, cinepro said: I do find it hilarious that the only time a clear answer is given to a yes-or-no question is this one: All of the other yes-or-no questions could have started the same way, with a simple "Yes." followed by explanation. But the "Grace" question is the only one that gets such clarity, even though the question is far from clear since the term obviously has a different meaning to many people (as explained in the follow up). Doesn't that depend on whether or not you realize that your audience may have a different understanding than the one you gave?
Darren10 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 3 hours ago, cinepro said: So, strictly speaking, the scriptures teach us that Adam lived in what is now Missouri after he left the Garden, so the location of the actual Garden of Eden would be any location within a distance that Adam might have reasonably traveled between being expelled from the Garden and settling in Adam-Ondi-Ahman. And assuming we ignore the reports of Abraham O. Smoot about Joseph claiming that that's where the Garden of Eden was and an "altar" they found was the altar used by Adam after getting kicked out of the garden... Obviously, some LDS are hesitant to own this idea because it smacks of being a tad silly to non-LDS (and apparently some LDS as well). But can someone else explain to me why the idea of Adam and Eve and posterity living in ancient-Missouri after they left the Garden of Eden is any less silly than the idea that the Garden of Eden was nearby in the first place? "Oh no, don't be silly. Of course we don't believe the Garden of Eden was in ancient-Missouri. While Joseph apparently might have made that claim, it never made it into our scriptures so we can pretend he didn't say it. We do believe, of course, that the Garden was an actual, physical place that was somewhere, but we don't know exactly where. But we do know for sure that Adam and Eve were real people, and that after getting kicked out of the Garden they eventually lived in ancient-Missouri. This is affirmed in our scriptures and cannot be doubted." Yes, that's much less silly...we really dodged a bullet with that one. "While Joseph apparently might have made that claim, it never made it into our scriptures so we can pretend he didn't say it." - Huh? Who is 'pretending' Joseph Smith never said anything about the matter? Who says we should pretend he never said anything because it is not scripture? You're really confusing me. not hard to do but...you are.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: So you don't like the question. I get that. But the response is disingenuous. "Of course Mormons don't get their own planets. But exalted Mormons will organize worlds and solar systems...." That's called obfuscation. Even if the question isn't asked in a polite way, the intent of the question is fairly clear but the answer is not. Is there, or is there not, revelation and/or prophetic claims that the historical location of the Garden of Eden? If there is, why would leaders answer in the way that is suggested? A couple of sources rom FAIR citing early prophets/apostles Other citations... This is not some kind of strange, obscure detail. This was talked about by many prophets and apostles. I have written extensively on these same issues myself, but I always provide proper context. The questions are obviously intended to bait, and I recognize them as the lowbrow types of denigration deliberately engaged in by anti-Mormons. I might expect such silly questions from a four-year-old, but not from a serious adult. However, no matter how such questions are framed, they need to be answered with context and nuance, not by the sort of meat-before-milk approach you recommend. Most parents recognize the need to deal with sensitive subjects with some care, but you get annoyed by it. Why? Impatience is not a virtue.
Recommended Posts