Elohim and the creation

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

The purpose of not sharing it is for sacred reasons, not secret. The church is well aware the sacred temple ordinances are on YouTube. There specific things we promise to keep to ourselves and other things we refrain from sharing just because of the inherent sacredness (though no promises were made to not share them).

Its more a sign of our own devotion and reverence than it is about keeping it a secret.

Just adding for info, if members do wish to discuss the few limited topics we covenant not to share outside the temple, they can choose to discuss them in the temple, perhaps by having the temple President or someone else give a presentation to a small group or having a private discussion with family or friends or if questions, with one of the temple presidency or matrons (the wives of the presidency).

Generally speaking, members may be over cautious in discussing what happens in the temple. Our stake patriarch (a leader whose calling is to give blessings) told my ward we needed to be sharing our experiences more with our children to help prepare them.  However, even then choosing a proper time and place is important to invite the spirit. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by Calm

[poptart]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

The purpose of not sharing it is for sacred reasons, not secret. The church is well aware the sacred temple ordinances are on YouTube. There specific things we promise to keep to ourselves and other things we refrain from sharing just because of the inherent sacredness (though no promises were made to not share them).

Its more a sign of our own devotion and reverence than it is about keeping it a secret.

Lol 've seen more than that. I just chose to not be like like a lot of others and spread the nasty. 

 

[poptart]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

What completely confuses me about the debate world is that our faith relies almost entirely on the fact we have one scripture than just the Bible… then we engage in debates with Christians where the only common source of doctrine is the Bible. 
 

When we are argueing our points of doctrine, we are bound by the limitations of the Bible. Take away the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and modern day prophets, most of our unique doctrines fall on their face. At its VERY best, there is evidence (not proof) of our teachings in singular scriptures in the Bible. It’s like arguing with someone you can make a flying machine, and trying to prove it to them only by throwing a canoe really really hard into the sky.

The only points worth debating are Prophets, authority, and perhaps whether or not there is a true faith. Until there is an agreement there, nothing else should be discussed

Thats not true, there's the Bible, countless works written by saints, martyrs etc. Also, the countless holy orders both religious and laity.  If you really want to go there, traditional Christianity has waaaaaaaay more than you guys.  Problem is, you really need to be specific when you say traditional Christian.  Same debate/discussion you'd have with me and some of the people on this board may well be different than what you may have had with others on your mission.  What denomination were they?

Oh, as an aside, not all Bibles are the same.  My two favorites are the Orthodox study Bible and one of my Catholic ones.  Have a PDF of an Ignatius study Bible someplace.

[Fether]

14 minutes ago, poptart said:

Thats not true, there's the Bible, countless works written by saints, martyrs etc. Also, the countless holy orders both religious and laity.  If you really want to go there, traditional Christianity has waaaaaaaay more than you guys.  Problem is, you really need to be specific when you say traditional Christian.  Same debate/discussion you'd have with me and some of the people on this board may well be different than what you may have had with others on your mission.  What denomination were they?

Oh, as an aside, not all Bibles are the same.  My two favorites are the Orthodox study Bible and one of my Catholic ones.  Have a PDF of an Ignatius study Bible someplace

I may be wrong, but in a debate, doesn’t there need to be some consensus on what sources are reliable? That’s what I’m referring to. Not that we have more than you, but that that the source material is lacking when the only common accepted document is the Bible. 
 

The entirety of the gospel (according to us) is not found in the Bible.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Fether

[poptart]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

I may be wrong, but in a debate, doesn’t there need to be some consensus on what sources are reliable? That’s what I’m referring to. Not that we have more than you, but that that the source material is lacking when the only common accepted document is the Bible. 
 

The entirety of the gospel (according to us) is not found in the Bible.

Ops my bad misread that, you're right.

That I agree on hence why I'm a fan, clergy commentary, various clarification by religious scholars etc.  Easy way to fix things, Catechism as a child.  I was unlucky, due to a bad childhood I didn't get that. As an adult, had it from a nun with a priest checking in.  Not as nice but it did the job.

[mfbukowski]

On 7/3/2021 at 5:13 PM, Fether said:

What completely confuses me about the debate world is that our faith relies almost entirely on the fact we have one scripture than just the Bible… then we engage in debates with Christians where the only common source of doctrine is the Bible. 
 

When we are argueing our points of doctrine, we are bound by the limitations of the Bible. Take away the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and modern day prophets, most of our unique doctrines fall on their face. At its VERY best, there is evidence (not proof) of our teachings in singular scriptures in the Bible. It’s like arguing with someone you can make a flying machine, and trying to prove it to them only by throwing a canoe really really hard into the sky.

The only points worth debating are Prophets, authority, and perhaps whether or not there is a true faith. Until there is an agreement there, nothing else should be discussed

The first question I ask Bible thumpers who unfortunately knock on my door is why they believe in the Bible in the first place.  They cannot say that "God told them so" because that implies continuing revelation is possible AND  then that means that Moroni 10:4-5 is correct, and so is ongoing revelation.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The first question I ask Bible thumpers who unfortunately knock on my door is why they believe in the Bible in the first place.  They cannot say that "God told them so" because that implies continuing revelation is possible AND  then that means that Moroni 10:4-5 is correct, and so is ongoing revelation.

 

They usually resort to circular reasoning.  Something along the lines of the Bible is word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God and the Bible is the only authority.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They usually resort to circular reasoning.  Something along the lines of the Bible is word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God and the Bible is the only authority.

Yep, and then you point that out.

There is no rational reason to believe in the Bible, and for that matter,  to believe in our scriptures either, without a testimony.

And so they are in the same position we are in, but they don't know it!

And really this applies to us as well, and is why all of Joseph's foibles are irrelevant to his being a prophet.

We don't even know who the authors of many books of the bible are, and so the details of their lives are irrelevant- so Joseph's life is irrelevant also, as a writer of scripture, or how the BOM came to be.  

Testimony is all we have to even know God exists!

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The first question I ask Bible thumpers who unfortunately knock on my door is why they believe in the Bible in the first place.  They cannot say that "God told them so" because that implies continuing revelation is possible AND  then that means that Moroni 10:4-5 is correct, and so is ongoing revelation.

 

"Bible thumpers" likely believe in personal communion with God through the Holy Ghost.  Evangelicals believe in the priesthood of all believers and that they do not need a prophet figure head to reveal God's will to them.  So they do believe in personal revelation just is a different way than Mormons do. And they find their experience just as valid as you do yours. With different conclusions of course.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They usually resort to circular reasoning.  Something along the lines of the Bible is word of God because the Bible says it's the word of God and the Bible is the only authority.

Sort of like Moroni's promise.....

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sort of like Moroni's promise.....

Not at all.

Moroni's promise directs the reader to turn directly to God and revelation to confirm scriptural truth.

Sola scriptura only accepts itself as a source of truth.

Edited July 6, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.

Moroni's promise directs the reader to turn directly to God and revelation to confirm scriptural truth.

Sola scriptural only accepts itself as a source of truth.

It prescribes a method that can only result in one answer.  If you get an answer that the Book of Mormon is not the truth then you did it wrong and it is your fault. It is a manipulative methodology.

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So they do believe in personal revelation just is a different way than Mormons do. And they find their experience just as valid as you do yours. With different conclusions of course.

Fine.

So then what's wrong with receiving new scripture?   "Oh- God has already revealed all we need".

Yep.  Today we live exactly in the same circumstances as 3500 years ago in the Middle East, heck we don't need no stinkin fake revelation.

And that is a circular argument.  If ANYONE can receive revelation, then it is reasonable to believe that God can tell you which faith is "true".

So then why can't a person who receives such a revelation preach the new doctrine he has received??

"Oh- only certain people in the olden days could receive revelations for everyone, and were "prophets"

How do you know that?  We don't even know who wrote most of the Bible- how do we know what was "no revelation- totally made up"- OR " genuine personal revelation for  person x " OR revealed to a genuine prophet"?

Eventually it has to be "testimony" all the way down and the understanding to follow it.

And yes, all you can do is pray and follow it.  I myself was once an atheist and needed to go through that to know how much God can do and what HE meant to me.

If you are experiencing addiction and homelessness, God can lead you through steps to further enlightenment- you start where you are and then keep moving up the ladder.

We all have our individual paths, as long as we remain open to direction from above.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sort of like Moroni's promise.....

No, exactly the opposite of Moroni's promise

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fine.

So then what's wrong with receiving new scripture?   "Oh- God has already revealed all we need".

Yep.  Today we live exactly in the same circumstances as 3500 years ago in the Middle East, heck we don't need no stinkin fake revelation.

And that is a circular argument.  If ANYONE can receive revelation, then it is reasonable to believe that God can tell you which faith is "true".

So then why can't a person who receives such a revelation preach the new doctrine he has received??

"Oh- only certain people in the olden days could receive revelations for everyone, and were "prophets"

How do you know that?  We don't even know who wrote most of the Bible- how do we know what was "no revelation- totally made up"- OR " genuine personal revelation for  person x " OR revealed to a genuine prophet"?

Eventually it has to be "testimony" all the way down and the understanding to follow it.

And yes, all you can do is pray and follow it.  I myself was once an atheist and needed to go through that to know how much God can do and what HE meant to me.

If you are experiencing addiction and homelessness, God can lead you through steps to further enlightenment- you start where you are and then keep moving up the ladder.

We all have our individual paths, as long as we remain open to direction from above.

 

Your post above argues your dogma and seems to ignore all you talk about relating to personal experience as a way to discover many things. Why is your testimony that God gives new scripture more valid than the evangelical Christians whose testimony based on their experience and reality is that God does not give new canon? 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, exactly the opposite of Moroni's promise

It prescribes a method that can only result in one answer.  If you get an answer that the Book of Mormon is not the truth then you did it wrong and it is your fault. It is a manipulative methodology.

[poptart]

Kind of an aside, is Satan Jesus's or Elohim's brother?  Does the old line of "The Devil made me do it" fly with you guys?  Still have a chuckle when I look at the likes of Haggard and Swaggart were, well, caught.  Was hoping for them to blame the devil for everything, still disappointed in them.

 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your post above argues your dogma and seems to ignore all you talk about relating to personal experience as a way to discover many things. Why is your testimony that God gives new scripture more valid than the evangelical Christians whose testimony based on their experience and reality is that God does not give new canon? 

You are not getting this. Listen up.

IF God can can give personal revelation, He can give new scripture. Same process!

We are ALL "prophets", but for sake of order BECAUSE we all get different revelations for our different circumstances, only one of us, one who demonstrates his "prophethood" after over 50 years of experience or more, and God shuffling the cards of who stays and who goes home, can become "THE PROPHET"

There is no difference between you and the prophet, except his experience and demonstrated devotion to personal revelation.

Edited July 6, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Totally extraneous:

If God can shuffle the cards through a hundred years to get who he wants as prophet, why can't he use evolution thru millions of years to make human bodies?

Another thread I guess 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It prescribes a method that can only result in one answer.  If you get an answer that the Book of Mormon is not the truth then you did it wrong and it is your fault. It is a manipulative methodology.

Nope, that is such an obvious contradiction it cannot mean that. The whole idea, and you see it everywhere- contradicts itself.  

There are many paths to the Lord, AND HE REVEALS THE WAY YOU NEED. Maybe you needed this searching period.

I needed to doubt everything until I could prove it for myself. 

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are not getting this. Listen up.

IF God can can give personal revelation, He can give new scripture. Same process!

We are ALL "prophets", but for sake of order BECAUSE we all get different revelations for our different circumstances, only one of us, one who demonstrates his "prophethood" after over 50 years of experience or more, and God shuffling the cards of who stays and who goes home, can become "THE PROPHET"

There is no difference between you and the prophet, except his experience and demonstrated devotion to personal revelation.

I understand this.  But others have concluded that while God can give new scripture, he has decided not to and has no need to.  You dismiss and are even flippant about those you termed Bible Thumpers. Your approach seems to elevate your experience and revelation over theirs. Why is that?  

[Glenn101]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

It prescribes a method that can only result in one answer.  If you get an answer that the Book of Mormon is not the truth then you did it wrong and it is your fault. It is a manipulative methodology.

What this comes down to is that one or the other groups (i.e. those that claim to have received a revelation that the Book of Mormon is "true" or those that claim to have received a revelation that the Book of Mormon is "false") has been deceived. That question will only be settled definitively in the phase of life.

[latterdaytemplar]

On 7/6/2021 at 10:27 AM, mfbukowski said:

Totally extraneous:

If God can shuffle the cards through a hundred years to get who he wants as prophet, why can't he use evolution thru millions of years to make human bodies?

Another thread I guess 

I know you said it was extraneous, but I just wanted to share that the Promethean Adam hypothesis allows for evolution and the Creation to have occurred.

Sorry for adding to the extraneity.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

I know you said it was extraneous, but I just wanted to share that the Promethean Adam hypothesis allows for evolution and the Creation to have occurred.

Sorry for adding to the extraneity.

Thanks, will check it out.  We could always start a thread...

Edit:  Yeah I am definitely on the ste side of the fence with the possibility of the Promethean thrown in there two.  Perhaps if you are old enough, the pre-1990 temple endowment affirmed that the story of Adam and Eve were "strictly figurative insofar as the man and woman are concerned"- or words to that effect.  We get to talk about that stuff now.   Of course the question is where to draw the line between how far the story of the "man and woman" goes, for those concerned.

I am not concerned.  For me the story could be completely literal or completely allegorical or anything in between, the important point is that WE ARE IN GOD'S IMAGE"- whatever that means anyway.

We should treat eachother like gods and we are his "children" and should regard all as brothers and sisters.

That's quite enough for me to live up to, thank you very much! 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I understand this.  But others have concluded that while God can give new scripture, he has decided not to and has no need to.  You dismiss and are even flippant about those you termed Bible Thumpers. Your approach seems to elevate your experience and revelation over theirs. Why is that?  

Sorry for the attitude, you are right.  I am trying to be "colloquial" on this board so tend to be direct and simple and often take it too far.   I don't know of any SHORT description of who I call "bible thumpers" that describes what I see as their position.  "Evangelical Fundamentalists"?  But maybe they are not Evangelical, maybe not fundamentalist, etc.

Can't win for losing.

You are completely right that I have not addressed the idea that God affirms the choices through history made of all the documents in the Bible and essentially says "Good Enough".   That could be completely correct, but I am expressing my opinion here, nothing more or less.

I wil strive to be less contenious in the future