The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[CV75]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

The June 1984 Ensign article says

The uniqueness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon several basic principles and
ordinances that the world has long forsaken in whole or in part. These unique features are taught in the Bible,
but through misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually deleted from the tenets of
modern Christianity.

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the
Savior of the world.

How does the Book of Mormon explain the phrase "literal Son of God" so there is no misrepresentation
and misunderstanding if one reads the Bible?

Read the rest of the paragraph beginning with the bolded part you quoted above to see how the Book of Mormon addresses the principle expressed in the phrase.

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the Savior of the world. To this principle, the Book of Mormon bears a second witness in dozens of instances. Its primary objective is to convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God. This correct second witness has become more and more valuable as the world has increasingly entertained various alternate opinions of Jesus. The Book of Mormon proclaims him to be more than a great teacher, or a great philosopher, or a great moral and ethical proclaimer. These opinions have replaced Isaiah’s prophetic designation of the Christ as “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isa. 9:6.) In making a substitution, splintered Christianity has assimilated fragments of philosophies and rituals that took the place of original Christian unity and the plan of salvation. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the Book of Mormon corrects the false doctrine and affirms the true.

You can also read through the Book of Mormon keeping this and any other question you may have prayerfully in mind. If you hold to any false doctrine that runs contrary to this principle as described in this paragraph in terms of alternate opinions, substitutions, fragments and rituals it can be corrected.

 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes.

Do you believe in miracles? Or does this most sacred event (the Incarnation of God) have to have a scientific explanation and match our understanding of biology?

Both Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God (Jacob 4:5) and the children of men dwell in a “tabernacle of clay” (Mosiah 3:9 and 1 Nephi 18:21, and Moroni 9:6, respectively). Both are miracles in my opinion.

1 Nephi 11:13 -21 expands upon the miraculous nature of Jesus’ coming into the world after the manner of the flesh, which I understand to mean conception, gestation and birth for the purpose of dwelling in a tabernacle of clay. (See Isaiah 7:14 / 2 Nephi 17:14; Alma 7:10; and Mosiah 15: 1 – 5).

The seemingly unique role of the Holy Ghost connecting the Father, Mary and Jesus to give Him a tabernacle of clay is miraculous. Also miraculous is that, in addition to Mary, Jesus also subjected Himself to the Spirit or the Father in this process. It is explicit in Mosiah 15 that Jesus in His tabernacle of clay and the Father are one; less explicit is Jesus and Mary being one by virtue of His gestation, the Father and Mary (who also submitted herself to the Father) being one in some way, and both Jesus and Mary submitting to the Father render the three of them one in some aspect.

Elsewhere in scripture we learn how we can all be one in Jesus as a covenant people.

Edited May 12, 2022 by CV75

[teddyaware]

Just now, CV75 said:

Both Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God (Jacob 4:5) and the children of men dwell in a “tabernacle of clay” (Mosiah 3:9 and 1 Nephi 18:21, and Moroni 9:6, respectively). Both are miracles in my opinion.

1 Nephi 11:13 -21 expands upon the miraculous nature of Jesus’ coming into the world after the manner of the flesh, which I understand to mean conception, gestation and birth for the purpose of dwelling in a tabernacle of clay. (See Isaiah 7:14 / 2 Nephi 17:14; Alma 7:10; and Mosiah 15: 1 – 5).

The seemingly unique role of the Holy Ghost connecting the Father, Mary and Jesus to give Him a tabernacle of clay is miraculous. Also miraculous is that, in addition to Mary, Jesus also subjected Himself to the Spirit or the Father in this process. It is explicit in Mosiah 15 that Jesus in His tabernacle of clay and the Father are one; less explicit is Jesus and Mary being one by virtue of His gestation, and the Father and Mary (who also submitted herself to the Father) being one in some way, and how both Jesus and Mary submitting to the Father render the three of them one in some aspect.

Elsewhere in scripture we learn how we can all be one in Jesus as a covenant people.

I believe the Book of Mormon makes an important clarification with regard to its testimony that Christ is the very Son of God. This clarification is found in 1 Nephi 11, when an angel of God testified of a great eternal truth:

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, AFTER THE MANNER OF THE FLESH.

I believe the angel’s deceptively simple statement “after the manner of the flesh” indicates that the natural processes by which every human being is born into the world (I.e. WITH 23 chromosomes from the child’s father and 23 chromosomes from the mother) would not be sidestepped in favor of some unnatural form of impregnation that doesn’t remain true to human biology. In saying this it needs to be remembered that there are now ways to impregnate women without them having to engaged in intimacy. Nevertheless, all children conceived through these procedures of are still the literal biological offspring of a man and a woman.

Another thing for skeptics to consider is this: if Jesus was resurrected with an anatomically male human body, this means that, like it or not, the God whom they worship has sexual organs. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I believe the Book of Mormon makes an important clarification with regard to its testimony that Christ is the very Son of God. This clarification is found in 1 Nephi 11, when an angel of God testified of a great eternal truth:

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, AFTER THE MANNER OF THE FLESH.

I believe the angel’s deceptively simple statement “after the manner of the flesh” indicates that the natural processes by which every human being is born into the world (I.e. WITH 23 chromosomes from the child’s father and 23 chromosomes from the mother) would not be sidestepped in favor of some unnatural form of impregnation that doesn’t remain true to human biology. In saying this it needs to be remembered that there are now ways to impregnate women without them having to engaged in intimacy. Nevertheless, all children conceived through these procedures of are still the literal biological offspring of a man and a woman.

Another thing for skeptics to consider is this: if Jesus was resurrected with an anatomically male human body, this means that, like it or not, the God whom they worship has sexual organs. 

The less explicit something is, the more open to private interpretation it becomes. I do not find the phrases, “after the manner of the flesh” and “tabernacle of clay” to be explicit about the Lord’s chromosomes. Of course, we easily assume as much, as we do about anatomy, physiology, charity and temptation. Inasmuch as these beliefs comport with the faith necessary to keep the covenants, become Christlike, and follow His ways, they are useful.

Being carried away in the Spirit and overshadowed by the power of the Highest do not come across to me as after the manner of the flesh, and is exceptional experience. The working of the light of Christ upon all things is common for all (D&C 88:7-13), but strictly speaking this is a not something the flesh does after its manner, or element for that matter, “For man is spirit” (D&C 93: 33 – 35).

That said, our latter-day scriptures do use the word “literal” to refer to genealogy (as in the right to priesthood office and order in D&C 68 and 107) and the seed of the body (Abraham 2:11), as well as physical phenomena (Articles of Faith 10). But even these are subject to the spiritual exercise of etrnal principle and priesthood keys, and so are not much after the manner of the flesh, either. Maybe after the manner of the exalted flesh!

[mfbukowski]

On 5/12/2022 at 8:29 AM, theplains said:

God's ways are above our ways.  He is fully God and fully man.  He is not part God from Heavenly Father
and part man from Mary.

He wasn't saying that.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/12/2022 at 9:29 AM, theplains said:

God's ways are above our ways.  He is fully God and fully man.  He is not part God from Heavenly Father
and part man from Mary.

Sounds like gobbledegook.  Then, of course, many Egyptologists believe that standard Christian trinitarianism is identical to and derived from ancient Egyptian trinitarianism.  You might want to read the Bible and formulate your notions about Jesus from that source.  Normative Christianity is alien to the Bible.

[Pyreaux]

On 4/26/2022 at 11:18 AM, theplains said:

Was any of his work discredited while he was still alive and teaching?

If I recall, his book he wrote as a theologian went out of print the moment he became an Apostle...

On 5/12/2022 at 10:29 AM, theplains said:

God's ways are above our ways.  He is fully God and fully man.  He is not part God from Heavenly Father
and part man from Mary.

There are many LDS Folk Doctrines. I don't hear it much anymore, but this comment reminds me of the Bloodless Theory, It stems from LDS teachings that that God is "flesh and bone", and not "flesh and blood", resurrected personages have spirit matter in their bodies in the place of blood. (John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, 166.)

The theory goes, that Christ was some demigod/half-god, and inherited some divine characteristics. That Christ couldn't bleed nor be harmed, like when they tried to stone him, they tried to grab him and throw him off a cliff but they couldn't harm him. It wasn't until Gethsemane that he was filled with blood, so he could then bleed and be killed. There are other evidences but that is the theory in a nutshell.

That God is fully God and fully man, I believe is also a theory, at least when used in the sense that he has a contrary human nature to explain his behavior that contradicts the Trinity theory. Why is this triune God acting schizophrenic in Gethsemane. Oh, its his fully "human" talking to his fully "God" side. I doubt it, but its a reasonable theory.

Now the Virgin Mary, who I believe was "fully woman" has no Y Chromosomal DNA to create a "fully male" child. God the Father would have to have crafted this embryo using a Y Chromosome some based on someone. Joseph perhaps, but if God the Father does have body, he could have used his own DNA. Because Jesus isn't the only person to be miraculously conceived. Somehow how Jesus is a begotten son of God in a way John the Baptist is not when God is the fertility agent for both.

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

If I recall, his book he wrote as a theologian went out of print the moment he became an Apostle...

Not quite.  The first edition was required to be changed with a number of corrections, but apparently not all that were requested, like changing the title iirc. There are various versions of how well he complied to other apostles and Pres. McKay’s requests. Mormon Doctrine was only taken out of print in 2010. It was very popular for much of that time in print, as were many of his other books. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Doctrine_(book)

Edited May 14, 2022 by Calm

[teddyaware]

On 5/12/2022 at 5:59 PM, CV75 said:

The less explicit something is, the more open to private interpretation it becomes. I do not find the phrases, “after the manner of the flesh” and “tabernacle of clay” to be explicit about the Lord’s chromosomes. Of course, we easily assume as much, as we do about anatomy, physiology, charity and temptation. Inasmuch as these beliefs comport with the faith necessary to keep the covenants, become Christlike, and follow His ways, they are useful.

Being carried away in the Spirit and overshadowed by the power of the Highest do not come across to me as after the manner of the flesh, and is exceptional experience. The working of the light of Christ upon all things is common for all (D&C 88:7-13), but strictly speaking this is a not something the flesh does after its manner, or element for that matter, “For man is spirit” (D&C 93: 33 – 35).

That said, our latter-day scriptures do use the word “literal” to refer to genealogy (as in the right to priesthood office and order in D&C 68 and 107) and the seed of the body (Abraham 2:11), as well as physical phenomena (Articles of Faith 10). But even these are subject to the spiritual exercise of etrnal principle and priesthood keys, and so are not much after the manner of the flesh, either. Maybe after the manner of the exalted flesh!

It’s ludicrous to imagine that “the man Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 2), even the Son of the Man of Holiness, wasn’t conceived with chromosomes inherited from both his Father and his mother, “after the manner of the flesh.” This obvious, inevitable conclusion is only avoided because those people who think procreation is always at least somewhat sinful get squeamish at the thought that God the Father would actually place his own sacred seed in Mary (while she still technically remained a virgin) so that the redeeming Son of God could be conceived and born into the world.

In similar manner, people also recoil at the idea that the Savior of the world was an anatomically correct male human being who, just like the rest of us, possessed the wherewithal and power to keep his own holy commandment to multiply and replenish the earth by cleaving unto a wife and becoming “one flesh” with her by bringing forth children.

The Book of Mormon teaches us that in the resurrection our bodies will be fully restored in every way to perfected full functionality, and it’s because of this that those who inherit the fulness of celestial glory are promised “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

All of these things pertaining to the “continuation of the seeds forever and ever” (D&C 132) are  clearly set forth in the temple, but I guess most people miss the plainly obvious because it strains their brains and delicate sensibilities too much to let it all sink in.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by teddyaware

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s ludicrous to imagine that “the man Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 2), even the Son of the Man of Holiness, wasn’t conceived with chromosomes inherited from both his Father and his mother, “after the manner of the flesh.” This obvious, inevitable conclusion is only avoided because those people who think procreation is always at least somewhat sinful get squeamish at the thought that God the Father would actually place his own sacred seed in Mary (while she still technically remained a virgin) so that the redeeming Son of God could be conceived and born into the world.

In similar manner, people also recoil at the idea that the Savior of the world was an anatomically correct male human being who, just like the rest of us, possessed the wherewithal and power to keep his own holy commandment to multiply and replenish the earth by cleaving unto a wife and becoming “one flesh” with her by bringing forth children.

The Book of Mormon teaches us that in the resurrection our bodies will be fully restored in every way to perfected full functionality, and it’s because of this that those who inherit the fulness of celestial glory are promised  “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

All of these things pertaining to the “continuation of the seeds” are clearly set forth in the temple, but I guess most people miss the plainly obvious because it strains their brains and delicate sensibilities too much to let it all sink in.

 

 

These are not scientific claims, that is for sure. Assuming that a man rising from the dead into immortality is not at all ludicrous, and within such a belief system:

The claim to know by revelation or divinely inspired assumption that Jesus had/has human chromosomes is less ludicrous than the revelation or divinely inspired assumption that He got those chromosomes by "sinful" or "squeamish" means -- your terms, not mine; that these means are within the covenants and thus not squeamish or sinful if one understands the covenants. But both assumptions are more ludicrous, scripturally speaking, than the principle that He was miraculously conceived and dwelt in a tabernacle of flesh. Thus, He is the literal Son of God (and Mary, a literal descendant of David, after Abraham, Isaac and Israel; Noah and Adam) after the manner of the flesh." Another divine principle is, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" who would be literal descendants as well,  in the sense of a literal gathering. So He literally reconciles the manner of the flesh (by Mary's and her ancestors' part) with the manner of heaven (by the Father's part, whatever one understand that to mean).

I don't think the testimony that Jesus is the literal Son of God is based on counting His chromosomes; it is a spiritual witness. Forgive me if I'm repeating others' remarks.

Edited May 14, 2022 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then, of course, many Egyptologists believe that standard Christian trinitarianism is identical to and derived from ancient Egyptian trinitarianism.

Egyptian, hey? Never heard that one but Plato was very influenced by Pythagoras who was very influenced by Egyptians.

For Plato, God was the Form of Goodness after which all good things took their image.

For Pythagoras, same with triangles.

Then Platonic forms became Aristotilian "substance" which came into "Christianity" through Aquinas and Scholasticism, which was taught in the "schools".

Makes sense to me. The good old cookie cutter theory of the trinity, you have the dough (substance) and the image/appearance (the cookie cutter).

Trinity is the same dough cut into different "persons".

That works.

For awhile 

[Robert F. Smith]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Egyptian, hey? Never heard that one but Plato was very influenced by Pythagoras who was very influenced by Egyptians.

For Plato, God was the Form of Goodness after which all good things took their image.

For Pythagoras, same with triangles.

Then Platonic forms became Aristotilian "substance" which came into "Christianity" through Aquinas and Scholasticism, which was taught in the "schools".

Makes sense to me. The good old cookie cutter theory of the trinity, you have the dough (substance) and the image/appearance (the cookie cutter).

Trinity is the same dough cut into different "persons".

That works.

For awhile 

Yup.  The late Klaus Baer (Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago) said that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one.  According to him, the Christian Trinity was developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]).  Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female.  All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him.    However, Jan Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or "triunity" at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, Search for God, 177-180,238-239.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yup.  The late Klaus Baer (Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago) said that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one.  According to him, the Christian Trinity was developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]).  Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female.  All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him.    However, Jan Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or "triunity" at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, Search for God, 177-180,238-239.

Thanks, great stuff! I will look it up.

And that is what influenced Pythagoras, then Plato, straight to Plotinus and Aristotelians, then Aquinas.

Makes perfect sense, and shows the direct lineage of the ideas.

Uh, not exactly biblical.

In fact wasn't there something about the Egyptians and Israelites not getting along.... ?

Moses had a problem with Egyptian gods, if I recall the story.

Didn't like that golden calf one bit.

And here we are still fighting it.

Wow.

 

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

If I recall, his book he wrote as a theologian went out of print the moment he became an Apostle...

There are many LDS Folk Doctrines. I don't hear it much anymore, but this comment reminds me of the Bloodless Theory, It stems from LDS teachings that that God is "flesh and bone", and not "flesh and blood", resurrected personages have spirit matter in their bodies in the place of blood. (John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, 166.)

The theory goes, that Christ was some demigod/half-god, and inherited some divine characteristics. That Christ couldn't bleed nor be harmed, like when they tried to stone him, they tried to grab him and throw him off a cliff but they couldn't harm him. It wasn't until Gethsemane that he was filled with blood, so he could then bleed and be killed. There are other evidences but that is the theory in a nutshell.

That God is fully God and fully man, I believe is also a theory, at least when used in the sense that he has a contrary human nature to explain his behavior that contradicts the Trinity theory. Why is this triune God acting schizophrenic in Gethsemane. Oh, its his fully "human" talking to his fully "God" side. I doubt it, but its a reasonable theory.

Now the Virgin Mary, who I believe was "fully woman" has no Y Chromosomal DNA to create a "fully male" child. God the Father would have to have crafted this embryo using a Y Chromosome some based on someone. Joseph perhaps, but if God the Father does have body, he could have used his own DNA. Because Jesus isn't the only person to be miraculously conceived. Somehow how Jesus is a begotten son of God in a way John the Baptist is not when God is the fertility agent for both.

The “flesh and bone” instead of “flesh and blood” is generally that resurrected beings do not have blood.

I have never heard of this attribute ascribed to Jesus in mortality and I don’t think that this folk doctrine is that widespread.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s ludicrous to imagine that “the man Jesus Christ” (1 Timothy 2), even the Son of the Man of Holiness, wasn’t conceived with chromosomes inherited from both his Father and his mother, “after the manner of the flesh.” This obvious, inevitable conclusion is only avoided because those people who think procreation is always at least somewhat sinful get squeamish at the thought that God the Father would actually place his own sacred seed in Mary (while she still technically remained a virgin) so that the redeeming Son of God could be conceived and born into the world.

In similar manner, people also recoil at the idea that the Savior of the world was an anatomically correct male human being who, just like the rest of us, possessed the wherewithal and power to keep his own holy commandment to multiply and replenish the earth by cleaving unto a wife and becoming “one flesh” with her by bringing forth children.

The Book of Mormon teaches us that in the resurrection our bodies will be fully restored in every way to perfected full functionality, and it’s because of this that those who inherit the fulness of celestial glory are promised “a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.”

All of these things pertaining to the “continuation of the seeds forever and ever” (D&C 132) are  clearly set forth in the temple, but I guess most people miss the plainly obvious because it strains their brains and delicate sensibilities too much to let it all sink in.

 

 

It is a little silly to harp on how obviously a deity would reproduce this way.

It would be like saying obviously resurrection occurs in a certain way.

We have a sample size of zero for both and only anecdotal accounts of them happening and no one has provided specifics.

[InCognitus]

Regarding the incarnation and humanity of Jesus, I think these verses say it well:

Heb 2:16-18:   "16  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.  17  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.  18  For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."
 

[theplains]

On 5/14/2022 at 6:10 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to read the Bible and formulate your notions about Jesus from that source. 

Some current teachings of the LDS Church (of Jesus being the first spirit child of heavenly parents and
that he became a God in the premortal life) is not found in the LDS canon.

[theplains]

On 5/12/2022 at 4:30 PM, CV75 said:

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the Savior of the world.

Does the Book of Mormon explain the phrase "literal Son of God" differently or more accurately than the Bible?

[Robert F. Smith]

58 minutes ago, theplains said:

Some current teachings of the LDS Church (of Jesus being the first spirit child of heavenly parents and
that he became a God in the premortal life) is not found in the LDS canon.

You might want to cite your sources for those claimed teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, providing exact quotes, rather than your personal version of what is actually taught.  Various people, including yourself, may have opinions of various kinds.  Justifying those opinions may not be so easy.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Does the Book of Mormon explain the phrase "literal Son of God" differently or more accurately than the Bible?

Neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible use the phrase "literal son of God."  You may be thinking of statements by Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith, https://www.mrm.org/jesus-christ-literal .  You need to learn to specify and cite your sources, Jim.  That is the only honest way to approach such issues.  Be up front and frank in expressing your views.    

 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Some current teachings of the LDS Church (of Jesus being the first spirit child of heavenly parents and
that he became a God in the premortal life) is not found in the LDS canon.

The LDS cannon does include these teachings, although I think you may have some added meaning in your thinking that you aren't articulating here.  Both are in the Bible:

Jesus is the firstbegotten of the Father:  Hebrews 1:6

Jesus was God in the premortal life:  John 1:1-3

[theplains]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible use the phrase "literal son of God."  You may be thinking of statements by Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith, https://www.mrm.org/jesus-christ-literal .  You need to learn to specify and cite your sources, Jim.  That is the only honest way to approach such issues.  Be up front and frank in expressing your views.    

 

Here are some sources:

Church manual - Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel - Teacher Manual

The condescension of God (meaning the Father) consists in the fact that though he is an exalted, perfected,
glorified Personage, he became the personal and literal Father of a mortal Offspring born of mortal woman"
(Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 155) (Page 30).
 

June 1984 Ensign - The Most Correct Book

The uniqueness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon 
several basic principles and ordinances that the world has long forsaken in 
whole or in part. These unique features are taught in the Bible, but through
misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually deleted from 
the tenets of modern Christianity.

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the 
literal Son of God and the Savior of the world.

This Ensign article says that the most important principle (Jesus being the literal Son of
God and Savior of the world) is taught in the Bible but that this principle has been
misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Does the Book of Mormon reveal to people how they should properly understand and 
interpret Jesus as the "literal Son of God and Savior of the world" and how this alternate
understanding and interpretation has been deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity?

[theplains]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Jesus was God in the premortal life:  John 1:1-3

When I look at these sources, Jesus became a God (god) in the premortal existence and was
appointed to the Godhead.

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he (Jesus) attained that pinnacle of intelligence 
which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state" 
(Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004, page 10, chapter 4). 
4, online).

"Christ, who is the firstborn in the Spirit of the children of God, was elevated to Godhood, 
and in the vision Abraham saw he describes him as being like unto God" (LDS President 
Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, chapter 6, page 74).

"Jesus was appointed to Godhood. In the Meridian of Time Christ came into the world, in 
fulfillment of the promise and appointment (LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, The 
Progress of Man, chapter 43, pages 511-512). 

God the Father is the ultimate repository of all intelligence, "or, in other words, light 
and truth" (D&C 93:36); Jesus Christ, the Firstborn, who became a god in the premortal 
existence, the Father's steward over his creations, is the one source of light for us as 
individuals; and the Holy Ghost is the "gatekeeper," as it were, the dispenser of light 
to us according to worthiness and ability to receive it (Ensign, December 1975, "How to 
Receive Spiritual Gifts").

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The LDS cannon does include these teachings, although I think you may have some added meaning in your thinking that you aren't articulating here.  Both are in the Bible:

Jesus is the firstbegotten of the Father:  Hebrews 1:6

Jesus was God in the premortal life:  John 1:1-3

 

4 minutes ago, theplains said:

...................

Does the Book of Mormon reveal to people how they should properly understand and 
interpret Jesus as the "literal Son of God and Savior of the world" and how this alternate
understanding and interpretation has been deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity?

The phrase you repeatedly ask about, Jim, "literal Son of God," is likely an extrapolation from both Bible and other holy books.  As with many theological phrases used by Protestants and Catholics, extrapolation is a major source of encapsulating such concepts in order to make them understandable to ordinary people.  Whether they are ultimately correct is up for discussion.  Nearly all Latter-day Saint beliefs can be found in the Bible.  InCognitus gives us just one small indication of that fact, above.  Indeed, such concepts were already commonly available in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, theplains said:

......................LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, .............

Joseph Fielding Smith published that book in 1936, when he was not LDS President.