The reasons for the flood

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Looks pretty similar with my definition......

Your addition of "acts very natural" is irrelevant to the condition.  They experience discomfort is the general condition, how they express that discomfort can be different for each person and is not part of the actual definition.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Your addition of "acts very natural" is irrelevant to the condition.  They experience discomfort is the general condition, how they express that discomfort can be different for each person and is not part of the actual definition.

We read the same thing and reach different conclusions, it's fine with me.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

We read the same thing and reach different conclusions, it's fine with me.

Sure, it just sets off the former clinical psych student in me when people use psychology terms inaccurately.

Edited August 18, 2018 by Calm

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Sure, it just sets off the former clinical psych student in me when people use psychology terms inaccurately.

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values.

You; It has nothing to do with how someone acts.

Above is wiki explanation and your interpretation is below; what is the difference in belief vs action? No matter how hard you try, you cannot make it anything different than what actually it is. And it is a very powerful self preservation tool which most of us utilize successfully, myself included. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

And it is a very powerful self preservation tool which most of us utilize successfully, myself included. 

This is what you have wrong.  Cognitive dissonance is essentially the feeling of discomfort, it is the pain, it is coming to realize you hold beliefs that conflict each other.

It is not the tool that removes the discomfort.  Resolving the conflict, however, that is done removes the cognitive dissonance, it is not the cognitive dissonance itself.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is what you have wrong.  Cognitive dissonance is essentially the feeling of discomfort, it is the pain, it is coming to realize you hold beliefs that conflict each other.

It is not the tool that removes the discomfort.  Resolving the conflict, however, that is done removes the cognitive dissonance, it is not the cognitive dissonance itself.

Would this be called “coping”?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Would this be called “coping”?

The resolution of the disconnect/dissonance/conflict of beliefs/actions/self-identity/whatever would be coping.

https://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/cognitive_dissonance.htm

Quote

Cognitive dissonance theory is based on three fundamental assumptions (see Figure 1).

Humans are sensitive to inconsistencies between actions and beliefs.

According to the theory, we all recognize, at some level, when we are acting in a way that is inconsistent with our beliefs/attitudes/opinions. In effect, there is a built in alarm that goes off when we notice such an inconsistency, whether we like it or not. For example, if you have a belief that it is wrong to cheat, yet you find yourself cheating on a test, you will notice and be affected by this inconsistency.

Recognition of this inconsistency will cause dissonance, and will motivate an individual to resolve the dissonance.

Once you recognize that you have violated one of your principles, according to this theory, you won’t just say "oh well". You will feel some sort of mental anguish about this. The degree of dissonance, of course, will vary with the importance of your belief/attitude/principle and with the degree of inconsistency between your behavior and this belief. In any case, according to the theory, the greater the dissonance the more you will be motivated to resolve it.

Dissonance will be resolved in one of three basic ways: 

Change beliefs 
 

Perhaps the simplest way to resolve dissonance between actions and beliefs is simply to change your beliefs. You could, of course, just decide that cheating is o.k. This would take care of any dissonance. However, if the belief is fundamental and important to you such a course of action is unlikely. Moreover, our basic beliefs and attitudes are pretty stable, and people don’t just go around changing basic beliefs/attitudes/opinions all the time, since we rely a lot on our world view in predicting events and organizing our thoughts. Therefore, though this is the simplest option for resolving dissonance it’s probably not the most common.
 

Change actions 
 

A second option would be to make sure that you never do this action again. Lord knows that guilt and anxiety can be motivators for changing behavior. So, you may say to yourself that you will never cheat on a test again, and this may aid in resolving the dissonance. However, aversive conditioning (i.e., guilt/anxiety) can often be a pretty poor way of learning, especially if you can train yourself not to feel these things. Plus, you may really benefit in some way from the action that’s inconsistent with your beliefs. So, the trick would be to get rid of this feeling without changing your beliefs or your actions, and this leads us to the third, and probably most common, method of resolution.
 

Change perception of action 
 

A third and more complex method of resolution is to change the way you view/remember/perceive your action. In more colloquial terms, you would "rationalize" your actions. For example, you might decide that the test you cheated on was for a dumb class that you didn’t need anyway. Or you may say to yourself that everyone cheats so why not you? In other words, you think about your action in a different manner or context so that it no longer appears to be inconsistent with your beliefs. If you reflect on this series of mental gymnastics for a moment you will probably recognize why cognitive dissonance has come to be so popular. If you’re like me, you notice such post-hoc reconceptualiztions (rationalizations) of behavior on the part of others all the time, though it’s not so common to see it in one’s self.

You needs tools to help you get over/deal with cognitive dissonance; it is not the tools.

Think of dissonance in music...it is disturbing.  We do not like to be disturbed.  We figure out ways to remove the disturbance.

A number of people misuse the term "cognitive dissonance" by assuming it means the third option that may resolve it.  Basically a synonym for rationalization.  Other people use it for other forms of resolution.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Calm

[Atheist Mormon]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is what you have wrong.  Cognitive dissonance is essentially the feeling of discomfort, it is the pain, it is coming to realize you hold beliefs that conflict each other.

It is not the tool that removes the discomfort.  Resolving the conflict, however, that is done removes the cognitive dissonance, it is not the cognitive dissonance itself.

Thank you, I understand better...I guess I expressed myself wrong, while it is not a tool, it's rather a situation one finds himself in....I don't emphasize this situation for a derogatory purpose, I am a strong believer of this situation, seeing the examples very close to me, including myself at times.....

[Okrahomer]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

The resolution of the disconnect/dissonance/conflict of beliefs/actions/self-identity/whatever would be coping.

My Dad has an amazingly high emotional IQ (not sure if that’s a scientific term.). He senses when “things” are off and people around him are experiencing dissonance of any kind.  Invariably, he will ask in a good natured and non-invasive way:  “Is everything copacetic?”

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Okrahomer

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Thank you, I understand better...I guess I expressed myself wrong, while it is not a tool, it's rather a situation one finds himself in....I don't emphasize this situation for a derogatory purpose, I am a strong believer of this situation, seeing the examples very close to me, including myself at times.....

No problem.  Like I said, when I see the label used imprecisely it sets off the former student in me.  Probably had it on a test or two.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Calm

[co-eternal]

On 8/16/2018 at 8:16 PM, longview said:

Agree.

Adam and Eve were immortals (in a Terrestrial state, Paradisiacal Glory) when they were placed in the Garden of Eden.  They partook of the Forbidden Fruit and their nature fell (as well as the whole earth and everything in it).  They became corruptible and subject to death.

They did not cause the earth to fall by eating the fruits, they caused the world to fall by eating the fruits.  The fruits of the earth already contained the seeds of death before they ate them, the earth had already fallen. On this earth is two worlds, the mortal world and the spirit world. In this we can understand the difference between earth and world. By eating the fruits of an already fallen earth, the bodies created through Adam and Eves’s unions were created from the dusts of this already fallen earth and were thus mortal.  This is what it means, that Adam ans Eve cased the world to fall, they caused their offspring to be born to bodies madefrom the dusts of a fallen earth containg the seeds of sin and death. 

It is said that Adam and Eve became a little lower than angels. D&C tells us that angels are perfected resurrected imortal beings of flesh and bone (no blood). When Adam and Eve entered the garden they were perfected resurrected immortal beings of flesh and bone. When they ate of the fruits of a fallen world containing the seeds of sin and death they then became a little lower than the Gods. But when they returned to their celestial home and ate of the fruits of a perfected world not containing the seeds of sin and death, the blood was replaced with a finer celestial fluid restoring them to the level of the Gods, Adam and Exe were a God and Godess before the Garden and were returned to that state after completeing their task on this earth and returning to their celestial home.

[theplains]

7 hours ago, co-eternal said:

It is said that Adam and Eve became a little lower than angels. D&C tells us that angels are perfected resurrected imortal beings of flesh and bone (no blood). 

Is the angel Lucifer a resurrected immortal being of flesh and bones?  How about all the other angels God created
before he procreated Adam (the Archangel Michael)?

Jim

[longview]

On 10/7/2018 at 12:34 PM, co-eternal said:

They did not cause the earth to fall by eating the fruits, they caused the world to fall by eating the fruits.

Seems like a self-contradicting sentence?  Unless you mean earth is NOT the same thing as world?

On 10/7/2018 at 12:34 PM, co-eternal said:

On this earth is two worlds, the mortal world and the spirit world.

In the Pearl of Great Price we learn that Earth is a sentient being composed of physical planet energized with spirit entity.  Moses 7:48 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?

On 10/7/2018 at 12:34 PM, co-eternal said:

D&C tells us that angels are perfected resurrected immortal beings of flesh and bone (no blood).

Not all of them.  Some are "pre-born" spirit children of God waiting their chance to come into the world.  Some are human beings serving "ministering" at the bidding of God.

On 10/7/2018 at 12:34 PM, co-eternal said:

When Adam and Eve entered the garden they were perfected resurrected immortal beings of flesh and bone.

The Adam/God confusion is explicitly rejected by the Restored Church of Christ.  I am solidly convinced of the error of the "theory".  See FairMormon - -

"During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly."

On 10/7/2018 at 12:34 PM, co-eternal said:

When they ate of the fruits of a fallen world containing the seeds of sin and death

I strongly believe that the Gods created a pristine planet that was Terrestrial (Paradisiacal) in its entirety.  There were NO seeds of death anywhere except in the ONE solitary tree in the middle of the Garden called the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".  It was merely a symbolic "trigger" that allowed the transformation of the world and all its occupants to become subject to death and decay and corruption.

The Law of Eternal Justice would NOT permit any exalted Beings to create anything of a fallen or corruptible nature.  Also, the Gods cannot corrupt their bodies.  That would be a violent violation of the Eternal Law of Justice.

The reason this tree was there was because the "Plan of Happiness" was embedded in the Priesthood that very carefully laid out guidelines for carrying out the 1- Creation; 2- Fall; 3- Atonement; 4- Resurrection/Exaltation.  Everything was done by Priesthood Ordinances.  This is why the Law of Eternal Justice required God to keep His hands off the implementation of the Plan.  He could only offer two choices (mutually exclusive) and Adam/Eve had to try to figure it out and make the choice.

Were we victimized by coming into a fallen world?  NO, we made covenants in the pre-existence to accept the process of the Plan of Happiness and to gain important experiences.

Edited October 8, 2018 by longview

[co-eternal]

On 10/8/2018 at 1:22 PM, longview said:

Seems like a self-contradicting sentence?  Unless you mean earth is NOT the same thing as world?

In the Pearl of Great Price we learn that Earth is a sentient being composed of physical planet energized with spirit entity.  Moses 7:48 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?

Not all of them.  Some are "pre-born" spirit children of God waiting their chance to come into the world.  Some are human beings serving "ministering" at the bidding of God.

The Adam/God confusion is explicitly rejected by the Restored Church of Christ.  I am solidly convinced of the error of the "theory".  See FairMormon - -

"During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly."

I strongly believe that the Gods created a pristine planet that was Terrestrial (Paradisiacal) in its entirety.  There were NO seeds of death anywhere except in the ONE solitary tree in the middle of the Garden called the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".  It was merely a symbolic "trigger" that allowed the transformation of the world and all its occupants to become subject to death and decay and corruption.

The Law of Eternal Justice would NOT permit any exalted Beings to create anything of a fallen or corruptible nature.  Also, the Gods cannot corrupt their bodies.  That would be a violent violation of the Eternal Law of Justice.

The reason this tree was there was because the "Plan of Happiness" was embedded in the Priesthood that very carefully laid out guidelines for carrying out the 1- Creation; 2- Fall; 3- Atonement; 4- Resurrection/Exaltation.  Everything was done by Priesthood Ordinances.  This is why the Law of Eternal Justice required God to keep His hands off the implementation of the Plan.  He could only offer two choices (mutually exclusive) and Adam/Eve had to try to figure it out and make the choice.

Were we victimized by coming into a fallen world?  NO, we made covenants in the pre-existence to accept the process of the Plan of Happiness and to gain important experiences.

Here are my references, where are yours?

Doctrine and Covenants 129:1

1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones—

THE TRUE GARDEN STORY.

Adam had a spiritual body until mortality came upon him through the violation of the law under which he was living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones…. Now what is a spiritual body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood…. When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all other creatures.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,1:76-77)

 

Not subject to death when he [Adam] was placed upon the earth, there had to come a change in his body through the partaking of this … fruit that brought blood into his body; and blood became the life of the body instead of spirit. And blood has in it the seeds of death, some mortal element. Mortality was created through the eating of the forbidden fruit. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Fall-Atonement-Resurrection-Sacrament, 125)

 

Why did Adam come here? Not subject to death when he was placed upon the earth, there had to come a change in his body through the partaking of this element--whatever you want to call it, fruit--that brought blood into his body; and blood became the life of the body instead of spirit. And blood has in it the seeds of death, some mortal element. Mortality was created through the eating of forbidden fruit, if you want to call it forbidden, but I think the Lord has made it clear that it was not forbidden. He merely said to Adam, if you want to stay here [in the garden] this is the situation. If so, don't eat it.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Sacrament and the Atonement," address given at the LDS institute of religion, Salt Lake City, 14 Jan. 1961, 5)

 

The word fall describes well what transpired when Adam and Eve were driven from the garden. A transformation took place which made them “a little lower than the angels.” (In the Hebrew text, the word “angel” is given as “gods,” see Ps 8:5, Heb 2:7-9.)

 

The bodies formed for mankind became temporal or physical bodies. The scriptures say “the life of all flesh is in the blood thereof”

(Boyd K. Packer, Lev 17:11-13; Deut 12:23; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 199-200, 367 Kimball 5-6).

 

After the transformation caused by the Fall, bodies of flesh and bone and blood (unlike our spirit bodies), would not endure forever. Somehow the ingredient blood carried with it a limit to life. It was as though a clock were set and a time given. Thereafter, all living things moved inexorably toward mortal or temporal death. Temporal, I repeat, means temporary.

(Boyd K. Packer, "The Law and the Light," Book of Mormon Symposium, BYU, 30 October 1988).

 

Adam and Eve had now exercised their agency and of their own volition had partaken of the fruit of which they were commanded not to eat,and thus they had become subject to the law of Satan.... Instead of spirit fluid, which had made them not subject to death, there had now come another element. The life of the body is the blood, and in the bloodstream there were to be found the seeds that were to bring about their mortal death.

(Harold B. Lee, "The Fall of Man," Lecture Given to Seminary and Institute Teachers, June 23, 1954, Brigham Young University)

 

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Gods, even the sons of God - are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it?Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

[Brigham Young Brigham Young, August 28, 1852 JoD 6:275:4]

[co-eternal]

On 10/7/2018 at 7:55 PM, theplains said:

Is the angel Lucifer a resurrected immortal being of flesh and bones?  How about all the other angels God created
before he procreated Adam (the Archangel Michael)?

Jim

I've seen no scripture or quote that says that.

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, co-eternal said:

I've seen no scripture or quote that says that.

Angels are not human. They are spirit beings.

[co-eternal]

On 10/15/2018 at 11:10 PM, Anon the Great said:

This post Is going to tackle the Adam-God theory and angels using the Bible and the mind of reason.  The problem with Brigham Young is that he most likely received the ideas from Joseph Smith who received it from the immortal sons of God to confuse the LDS Church.  The ideas are so weird, they do not make sense.  The LDS church by the power of the Holy Spirit has spit the cricket idea into the salt sea and have moved away and "shelved it".  But they have no intention of praying about it and asking the Lord for the truth, because many of he GAs and Saints know it is false by the Holy Spirit. 

That being said, angels are not confusing in the Bible if we consider both the inner and outer kingdom of God.  Angles that have wings are symbolic of the angels in the inner kingdom.  They are ideas of power and grace from God  and are separated from Yahweh Elohim to keep Him holy in His Eternal Spirit and Power from our created spirits.  He calls them angels because He must transfer His power to our spirits to destroy the evil in us, but remain the Holy One.  The 1/3 angels that followed the dragon is symbolic of truth.  1=Father, 2= Son, 3=Holy Spirit.  1/3 of the angels cast out of heaven within us means the major paradigm ideas in us do not believe in the ideas of the Son of Yahweh, such as translation.

Angel in the outer kingdom do not have wings, but they never disobey God.  They do not have free will to disobey God.  They have sexual organs like humans but have no freewill to have sex outside the commands of God.  God is pleasured and happy by the angels worshipping Him in this manner when He tells them to have sex.  But they cannot create offspring. They are resurrected angels, and Jesus told us they never marry or are given in marriage  Therefore, He can command them to change sex partners when He wants to.   Sex is all about His glory and not theirs.   Christ consummates His marriage to the Holy Spirit female in this manner.  Christ and the Holy Spirit lives inside bodies.   He will marry His Bride and consummate the marriage after the resurrection. 

As resurrected angels, they don't have freewill to choose between good and evil.  Angles always do the will of God.  Thus, if we are resurrected, we will be like the angels having sex, but no offspring.  Angels appear to humans like humans, so Paul taught that some people were entertaining angels and did not know it.  They do not want to show off their power and glory of God because mortals are supposed to be poor in spirit to enter the first heaven.  The experiences with Abraham and Lot are a good example.  God wants us to love His Character and not His power.  Lot was told not to look at the power of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.  Looking at and loving God's Power turns us into pillars of salt like Lot's wife, spiritually speaking.  God does not appear in power and glory like He did  at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 20), unless He intends to translate the  people from the outside in, which will be done after the third temple is built by immortals.

The corruption of the pure ideas of angels taught by Jesus was twisted by the Book of Enoch by the occult cabal that controlled Israel.  The book of Enoch identifies the sons of God and Lucifer as fallen angles, when they are not, because they have not been resurrected.  They promote the idea that resurrected angels can disobey God, when they can't.  He hides behind the concept because he was born immortal like Adam and Eve, and he can rebel.  The immortals birthed by Eve in the Garden of Eden are called the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-2 and not angels.   By calling Lucifer an angel, no one can figure out these very simple but true Biblical paradigms that make rational sense.

Translated beings birth immoral bodies as babies that grow up to be like Lucifer, Adam and Eve, and other immortals that stay in the third heaven and never rebel against God.  They never become mortal to know good and evil, but there is always the risk they will rebel like Lucifer.  Only Yahweh knows.  They are not resurrected angels.

The bible proves you wrong - Michael - Adam is the archangel. What is an Archangel?  It is the head/King angel.  What is an angel? The Bible tells us that it is a God. Do you believe the Bible?

[co-eternal]

On 10/15/2018 at 10:26 PM, LittleNipper said:

Angels are not human. They are spirit beings.

No, they are Gods. It's in the Bible!

[The Nehor]

God already apologized for that.

[co-eternal]

On 10/17/2018 at 2:45 PM, Anon the Great said:

  We can figure out the truth.  1+1=2.

Well, some of us can. There are other meanigs of the word "God", not just as you have said.

[co-eternal]

7 hours ago, Anon the Great said:

There are more complex meanings, as I acknowledged.  I have simplified the meanings into what I wrote.  There is a weakness of simplifying to omit some of the meaning.  I am glad you study the complex meaning, but that being said, the interpretation I rendered is in the meaning of the word God.  

Paul says we have a spirit, soul, and body.  Jesus infers that the devil and those that commit the unpardonable sin go to hell-fire that destroys the body and soul.  The soul is not tortured forever.   What about the spirit-orb that is placed in the soul to create life?  This is impossible to register in the brain as LDS.  They define the spirit incorrectly, excluding the soul.  Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is not a male personage of Spirit.  The Hebrew Grammar tells us the Holy Spirit is female: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_the_Holy_Spirit

The trinity was created by those who had control of all the documents and created an all-male deity.  Joseph Smith didn't touch that paradigm in everyone's head when he created his new religion, other than teaching God has a body, confusing everyone, for the trinity defines God is a Spirit, although it falls way short.  If the LDS would argue the trinity incorrectly defines what is inside God's body as the Spirit of the Father as four parts of Yahweh Elohim living inside His body, indeed, inside our mortal bodies too, then the communication gap will close when examples in the Bible show God has body.  Joseph Smith never took that approach because he believe God was what he saw in vision on the outside not the inside.  He was blinded by the twisted light, glory, and love of the fallen sons of God.  They love us and want to save us from Yahweh, the lying criminal, they believe.

Because of the women's movement, thank Yahweh, the Biblical Hebrew is being interpreted more and more accurately by the public to abandon the trinity to include the Spirit Female aspect of Yahweh Elohim.  The truth is slowly becoming public knowledge because of the Internet.

You are ignoring one historical fact, the Counsel of Nicea was not made up of Christians, it was made up of Pagans trying to maintain their power over the people in face of  Christianity. The Catholic or Universal Church doctrine was established to be palatable to pagan and (deceived) Christian alike. There is no wonder as to why a pagan would accept this doctrine because it was essentially pagan. But the wonder is why Christians would - which is a statement as to how far Christians had deviated from the pure doctrines of Christ.  The Catholic Father, Mary, and son are actually Nimrod, Simiramis, and Tammuz, Simiramis being the creator of the pagan religion in jealousy of the power her husband had over the people who she then murdered. and then married their son, Tammuz inorder to maintain her power. She then murdered  Tammuz as well. Nimrod, Simiramis, and Tammuz are the prototypes of all Mythological Gods - including Catholicism. 

So, the Nicaean Creed was no credibility for true Christians, Christ defines his doctrine, not pagans. And Christ Was sired by his Father, Christ does his Father's will, Christ prays to his Father. at his baptism, all three members of the Godhead were present - each as separate individuals.  . You can believe the words as they are written - or you can believe the pagan interpretation of the written words, your choice.

[co-eternal]

8 hours ago, Anon the Great said:

There are more complex meanings, as I acknowledged.  I have simplified the meanings into what I wrote.  There is a weakness of simplifying to omit some of the meaning.  I am glad you study the complex meaning, but that being said, the interpretation I rendered is in the meaning of the word God.  

Paul says we have a spirit, soul, and body.  Jesus infers that the devil and those that commit the unpardonable sin go to hell-fire that destroys the body and soul.  The soul is not tortured forever.   What about the spirit-orb that is placed in the soul to create life?  This is impossible to register in the brain as LDS.  They define the spirit incorrectly, excluding the soul.  Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is not a male personage of Spirit.  The Hebrew Grammar tells us the Holy Spirit is female: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_the_Holy_Spirit

The trinity was created by those who had control of all the documents and created an all-male deity.  Joseph Smith didn't touch that paradigm in everyone's head when he created his new religion, other than teaching God has a body, confusing everyone, for the trinity defines God is a Spirit, although it falls way short.  If the LDS would argue the trinity incorrectly defines what is inside God's body as the Spirit of the Father as four parts of Yahweh Elohim living inside His body, indeed, inside our mortal bodies too, then the communication gap will close when examples in the Bible show God has body.  Joseph Smith never took that approach because he believe God was what he saw in vision on the outside not the inside.  He was blinded by the twisted light, glory, and love of the fallen sons of God.  They love us and want to save us from Yahweh, the lying criminal, they believe.

Because of the women's movement, thank Yahweh, the Biblical Hebrew is being interpreted more and more accurately by the public to abandon the trinity to include the Spirit Female aspect of Yahweh Elohim.  The truth is slowly becoming public knowledge because of the Internet.

As to your assertion that Joseph Smith "created" a religion, it is just a blind assertion. What he did was to be the instrument through which Christ restored the true doctrines and His Church. As to the nature of us as individuals, my handle here on this forum is that true nature, lost doctrine restored through Joseph Smith - we are co-eternal with God. We as individuals can neither be created nor destroyed. and we are all on the path of eternal progression - co-eternal with God -  he is much much farther along that path than we - and his primary goal is to help us along the path he has already traversed. "It is my work and my glory, to bring to past the exaltation and eternal life of man".    Just as we have a Savior and a Father, so did they.

And for the believing LDS reading this,  Holy Ghost, Redeemer, and Father are steps along that path. There was never a Father that was not first a Son, and there was never a Son that was not first a Holy Ghost. These are the truths hidden in plain sight in the scriptures.

Edited October 20, 2018 by co-eternal

[MiserereNobis]

25 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

You can believe the words as they are written - or you can believe the pagan interpretation of the written words, your choice.

🙄

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Anon the Great said:

The salt water lakes on earth are in Utah and the Holy Land.

You are forgetting quite a few:

• Aral Sea
• Bakhtegan Lake
• Caspian Sea
• Don Juan Pond
• Laguna Verde
• Lake Assal
• Lake Eyre
• Lake Gairdner
• Lake Hillier
• Lake Mackay
• Lake Natron
• Lake Torrens
• Lake Urmia
• Lake Van
• Lake Vanda
• Little Manitou Lake
• Lough Hyne
• Maharloo Lake
• Mono Lake
• Namtso
• Salton Sea
• Sawa lake
• List of saltwater lakes of China
• Sambhar Lake, Rajasthan, India

Edited October 20, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

You are ignoring one historical fact, the Counsel of Nicea was not made up of Christians, it was made up of Pagans trying to maintain their power over the people in face of  Christianity. The Catholic or Universal Church doctrine was established to be palatable to pagan and (deceived) Christian alike. There is no wonder as to why a pagan would accept this doctrine because it was essentially pagan. But the wonder is why Christians would - which is a statement as to how far Christians had deviated from the pure doctrines of Christ.  The Catholic Father, Mary, and son are actually Nimrod, Simiramis, and Tammuz, Simiramis being the creator of the pagan religion in jealousy of the power her husband had over the people who she then murdered. and then married their son, Tammuz inorder to maintain her power. She then murdered  Tammuz as well. Nimrod, Simiramis, and Tammuz are the prototypes of all Mythological Gods - including Catholicism. 

So, the Nicaean Creed was no credibility for true Christians, Christ defines his doctrine, not pagans. And Christ Was sired by his Father, Christ does his Father's will, Christ prays to his Father. at his baptism, all three members of the Godhead were present - each as separate individuals.  . You can believe the words as they are written - or you can believe the pagan interpretation of the written words, your choice.

You are saying this ironically right? Please......