The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, marineland said:

I understand what you mean by God becoming "our" God; through some marriage with a woman
who herself became a God - they had spirit children.

No, that's not what I mean at all.  You keep misconstruing the meaning.   God offered us a plan, we accepted.  That's how God came to be our God.  We existed with him prior to that point, but he was always the greatest of all.

4 hours ago, marineland said:

But Joseph Smith generally laid out how Heavenly Father became a God before he became "our" God.

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; 
and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the 
principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will 
have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation 
and exaltation even beyond the grave.  This is the way our Heavenly Father became God.

This fake quotation has been addressed multiple times in this thread (here and here by me, and here by Calm).   The red part of the statement is not a quotation from Joseph Smith, but it's an edited quotation from Gospel Principles, chapter 47, p. 305, but made to appear as a single quotation from Joseph Smith and copied from one of two publications by Vincent Poldrugovac (here or here).

The statement "This is the way our Heavenly Father became God" is editorial commentary from the 1997 Gospel Principles manual, and it's not a statement from Joseph Smith.  And the editorial commentary doesn't give the complete picture, because the process that Joseph described can only be understood in the complete context of his King Follet Discourse.  In that discourse he described God's plan for man to advance in knowledge (as described in the "When you climb up a ladder" portion of the quotation above) and he also explained in the same sermon that God himself was "more intelligent" than the other spirits around him (just like it says in Abraham 3).   I quoted that in my prior posts (here and here), and included again below:  

"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge.  He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits".

This is the part that doesn't fit with your narrative, but it is clearly an important part of what Joseph Smith was teaching that day.  

Edit to add:   In my prior post to you I asked you to provide a source where Joseph Smith ever said that God "was not God from everlasting to everlasting".  Is there such a source?  If not, then please say so.  And remember, his statement, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see." is not the same thing as saying he was "not God from everlasting to everlasting" (because "from everlasting" does not mean "from all eternity").

Edited November 16, 2022 by InCognitus

[marineland]

On 11/16/2022 at 3:16 PM, InCognitus said:

This fake quotation has been addressed multiple times in this thread (here and here by me, and here by Calm).   The red part of the statement is not a quotation from Joseph Smith, but it's an edited quotation from Gospel Principles, chapter 47, p. 305, but made to appear as a single quotation from Joseph Smith and copied from one of two publications by Vincent Poldrugovac (here or here).

I attached the image below.  The manual is downloadable at https://archive.org/details/GospelPrinciples1997

On 11/16/2022 at 3:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Edit to add:   In my prior post to you I asked you to provide a source where Joseph Smith ever said that God "was not God from everlasting to everlasting".  Is there such a source? 

I interpret from eternity to eternity to be the same thing as from everlasting to everlasting.  Maybe you don't.

[marineland]

On 11/16/2022 at 3:16 PM, InCognitus said:

God offered us a plan, we accepted.  That's how God came to be our God.

According to what I understand from LDS teachings, Heavenly Father becomes "our God" when "we"
are born as spirit children to him and his heavenly wife (or wives).   Or maybe it should be more specific
like "Heavenly Father becomes our Father when we are spiritually born to him and a heavenly mother".
I see the two as equal.  Maybe you don't.

But you never explained if you believe Heavenly Father (your God) was once an eternal intelligence
who became a god (or God if the two are the same in the exaltation scheme of things).

The LDS Church teaches Jesus became a god in the premortal life. I'm just wondering what you believe
on how Heavenly Father became a god.

Edited November 21, 2022 by marineland

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, marineland said:

On 11/16/2022 at 1:16 PM, InCognitus said:

This fake quotation has been addressed multiple times in this thread (here and here by me, and here by Calm).   The red part of the statement is not a quotation from Joseph Smith, but it's an edited quotation from Gospel Principles, chapter 47, p. 305, but made to appear as a single quotation from Joseph Smith and copied from one of two publications by Vincent Poldrugovac (here or here).

I attached the image below.  The manual is downloadable at https://archive.org/details/GospelPrinciples1997

I'm fully aware of what the manual says, but this is what you said:

On 11/16/2022 at 9:41 AM, marineland said:

But Joseph Smith generally laid out how Heavenly Father became a God before he became "our" God.

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; 
and so it is with the principles of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the 
principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will 
have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation 
and exaltation even beyond the grave.  This is the way our Heavenly Father became God.
 

You claimed (above and in your last post, and it was implied in your post here) that the entire quotation came from Joseph Smith, but it did not.  The blue portion came from the manual, and not Joseph Smith.    That's why it's a "fake quotation".   Compare what you posted above to the quote from the book by Vincent Poldrugovac (here or here), as shown on the left below, and compared to the manual image you posted:

Notice that the Poldrugovac book (on the left) makes it appear that this entire quotation came from Joseph Smith just like you did in your post.  Were you copying that from the Poldrugovac book, or from the Gospel Principles manual?  If from the Gospel Principles manual, why did you make it seem like it was once long quotation and claim it was something that Joseph Smith said?  

45 minutes ago, marineland said:

On 11/16/2022 at 1:16 PM, InCognitus said:

Edit to add:   In my prior post to you I asked you to provide a source where Joseph Smith ever said that God "was not God from everlasting to everlasting".  Is there such a source? 

I interpret from eternity to eternity to be the same thing as from everlasting to everlasting.  Maybe you don't.

It's not just me, the Bible doesn't say that everlasting to everlasting means the same as from eternity to eternity.  It means "from age to age", as it says so in several translations.

As I explained previously in this thread (here and here, and here), the biblical phrase "everlasting to everlasting" doesn't mean what you think it means. The phrase does not mean always and forever (as you are trying to imply), but rather it means from a long time (age) in the past and to a long time (age) in the future.   The Youngs Literal Translation of Psalms 90:1-4 proves this: 

"[1]...Thou hast been, To us -- in generation and generation,  [2] Before mountains were brought forth, And Thou dost form the earth and the world, Even from age unto age Thou [art] God.  [3] Thou turnest man unto a bruised thing, And sayest, Turn back, ye sons of men.  [4] For a thousand years in Thine eyes [are] as yesterday, For it passeth on, yea, a watch by night."

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

According to what I understand from LDS teachings, Heavenly Father becomes "our God" when "we"
are born as spirit children to him and his heavenly wife (or wives).   Or maybe it should be more specific
like "Heavenly Father becomes our Father when we are spiritually born to him and a heavenly mother".
I see the two as equal.  Maybe you don't.

God the Father has always existed and we have always existed (spirits or intelligences have no beginning or end).  Abraham 3 teaches this, and so did Joseph Smith.  God the Father has always been greater than and more intelligent than all other spirits that have existed eternally.  Abraham 3 explains this as well.   Your version above doesn't seem to take this into account.  So that suggests to me that God has always been God in the sense that he has always been the greatest or most intelligent ("the God of all other gods before this world was" - D&C 121:32), but he "became" our God (as Joseph Smith taught) when we he showed us his plan that provides a way so that we can progress and become like him and we accepted his plan.  

1 hour ago, marineland said:

But you never explained if you believe Heavenly Father (your God) was once an eternal intelligence
who became a god (or God if the two are the same in the exaltation scheme of things).

I explained that several times, and I explained it again above.  

1 hour ago, marineland said:

The LDS Church teaches Jesus became a god in the premortal life. I'm just wondering what you believe
on how Heavenly Father became a god.

I explained that several times, and again above.

By the way, the early Christians also taught that Jesus became God in the premortal life, it's not just the LDS Church that teaches that.  For example, Origen wrote this about "IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD":

Quote

[T]here are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.  (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

Maybe you don't accept the early Christian teachings?

[TheTanakas]

On 11/21/2022 at 4:34 PM, marineland said:

According to what I understand from LDS teachings, Heavenly Father becomes "our God" when "we"
are born as spirit children to him and his heavenly wife (or wives).   Or maybe it should be more specific
like "Heavenly Father becomes our Father when we are spiritually born to him and a heavenly mother".
I see the two as equal.  Maybe you don't.

But you never explained if you believe Heavenly Father (your God) was once an eternal intelligence
who became a god (or God if the two are the same in the exaltation scheme of things).

The LDS Church teaches Jesus became a god in the premortal life. I'm just wondering what you believe
on how Heavenly Father became a god.

@theplains @InCognitus

Hello gentlemen,

I'm LDS like Incognitus but I have a different understanding from him.

For the matter of semantics, I believe "from eternity to eternity" means the same thing as
"from everlasting to everlasting" in the context of God's existence.

Yes. I believe Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God.  The same thing is true for
Heavenly Mother. In the analogy Joseph Smith used, he and she started at the bottom end of
the latter and progressed upwards until they reached the top.

theplains, marineland - you make a reference to the 1997 Gospel Principles. Heavenly Father's 
plan is simplified as follows:

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is
to help his children become like him—a god. He has said,
“Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the
immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

The current version removes "a god".

I believe the plan of salvation with eternal progression is the same for all gods, before
and after even Heavenly Father and Mother became exalted to Gods themselves.

One aspect of "from everlasting to everlasting" can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

"By these things we a know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from 
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all 
things which are in them; And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and 
in his own likeness, created he them" (section 20:17-18, given around summer 1829).

So God is "God eternally, God from everlasting to everlasting, never not God".

This is different from Joseph Smith's later teaching that God is not God from eternity to
eternity and would agree with his other teaching that Heavenly Father became a God.  The 
church continues with the same theology (that Heavenly Father was once a man like us and is
an exalted man).  While I am a man (like Jesus was a man but as God-incarnate), I am not a 
man who is God.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:20 sets another tone for "everlasting to everlasting"

"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting 
to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are 
subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are 
subject unto them".

This means that our "everlasting to everlasting" Godhood time only begins when we are exalted
to Godhood.  So by extension, this would also confirm that Heavenly Father is not "God from
everlasting to everlasting".  The same applies to any other men or women that hope to be
exalted in the future if our theology is correct.  If not, I would say that I am in danger
of worshipping a false God.

Forgot to mention another thing. According to Abraham 3 in the Pearl of Great Price, we are
eternal beings (existing from eternity past) but we are not "gods from eternity to eternity"
nor "gods from everlasting to everlasting" when we were born to our heavenly parents long ago.

I hope this helps you understand some theology as coming from another Latter-day Saint.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

The current version removes "a god".

The manual removed a lot of redundancy.  Also simplified.  This is still taught in the manual, later in the manual after sufficient context has been provided imo.

https://basic.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Quote

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Calm

[marineland]

On 11/25/2022 at 10:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

I hope this helps you understand some theology as coming from another Latter-day Saint.

Yes. Thank you.

[InCognitus]

On 11/25/2022 at 8:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

@theplains @InCognitus

Hello gentlemen,

I'm LDS like Incognitus but I have a different understanding from him.

For the matter of semantics, I believe "from eternity to eternity" means the same thing as
"from everlasting to everlasting" in the context of God's existence.

I'm going to take your comments in a different order than you presented them, because one of the scriptures you quoted disproves your statement above, where you say you believe that "from everlasting to everlasting" means the same as "from eternity to eternity".

I'll show you what I mean:

On 11/25/2022 at 8:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:20 sets another tone for "everlasting to everlasting"

"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting 
to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are 
subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are 
subject unto them".

This means that our "everlasting to everlasting" Godhood time only begins when we are exalted
to Godhood.  So by extension, this would also confirm that Heavenly Father is not "God from
everlasting to everlasting".  The same applies to any other men or women that hope to be
exalted in the future if our theology is correct.  If not, I would say that I am in danger
of worshipping a false God.

As you noted above, the verse from Doctrine and Covenants 132:20 says that those who become gods will be "from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue".  Obviously this phrase doesn't mean the same thing as "from eternity to eternity" because, as you say, "our 'everlasting to everlasting' Godhood time only begins when we are exalted to Godhood".   So if it is true that those who are exalted become gods that are "everlasting to everlasting", then when the Bible says "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" it doesn't necessarily mean "from eternity to eternity", for the same reason you state above.  It can only mean, as Young's Literal Translation renders it, in Psalms 90:2 "from age unto age Thou art God". 

Given how the Doctrine and Covenants uses "from everlasting to everlasting" in a way that can't mean from eternity to eternity (as explained above), and how it is translated in Young's Literal Translation, let's compare to what you say on the other verse you gave from the Doctrine and Covenants:

On 11/25/2022 at 8:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

One aspect of "from everlasting to everlasting" can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants.

"By these things we a know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from 
everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all 
things which are in them; And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and 
in his own likeness, created he them" (section 20:17-18, given around summer 1829).

Is this verse really teaching that God has been God "from eternity to eternity"?  No.  Look at this statement in the verse: "we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal".  God is a being who is infinite and eternal, in the same way we are eternal beings, as you described later in your post:

On 11/25/2022 at 8:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

Forgot to mention another thing. According to Abraham 3 in the Pearl of Great Price, we are
eternal beings (existing from eternity past) but we are not "gods from eternity to eternity"
nor "gods from everlasting to everlasting" when we were born to our heavenly parents long ago.

God has always existed eternally and we have always existed, eternally.  But this is not saying that God has been God eternally.  We are all eternal beings, as it states in Abraham 3:18:

"... if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal."

The verse from Doctrine and Covenants 20:17 continues to explain that God is "from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God".   God is indeed the same unchangeable God "from everlasting to everlasting", but this can't mean "from eternity to eternity" as you believe, since your verse from Doctrine and Covenants 132:20 points out that those who become gods are "from everlasting to everlasting" too.  So how can this mean he is God eternally? 

Continuing on with your argument:

On 11/25/2022 at 8:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

So God is "God eternally, God from everlasting to everlasting, never not God".

False.  The verses don't even suggest such a thing.  And as you noted from section 132:20, others who become gods are "from everlasting to everlasting"

On 11/25/2022 at 8:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

This is different from Joseph Smith's later teaching that God is not God from eternity to
eternity and would agree with his other teaching that Heavenly Father became a God.  The 
church continues with the same theology (that Heavenly Father was once a man like us and is
an exalted man).  While I am a man (like Jesus was a man but as God-incarnate), I am not a 
man who is God.

This isn't different from Joseph Smith's later teaching, because nothing in the verses from section 20 suggest that God is God from eternity to eternity.

But this doesn't really matter anyway, because as I explained earlier in the thread, God has always been "God" in the sense that he is the greatest and most intelligent than all the other spirits who existed with him.  But the way that he "became" our God was when we agreed to follow him and become part of his plan to participate in all that he has.  That is what, I believe, Joseph Smith was teaching when he said he would refute the idea that God was God from all eternity. 

But there is another matter I want to discuss with you.  You jumped in just at the right time to explain some "theology as coming from another Latter-day Saint" to Marineland, in support of some of the things that Marineland was trying to put across.  And above you seem to want to prove a contradiction in what Joseph Smith taught (comparing what you think he taught early on to what he taught later).   But this is not the first time you have done this.  I want to also compare something else you included in your post:

On 11/25/2022 at 8:56 AM, TheTanakas said:

Yes. I believe Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God.  The same thing is true for
Heavenly Mother. In the analogy Joseph Smith used, he and she started at the bottom end of
the latter and progressed upwards until they reached the top.

theplains, marineland - you make a reference to the 1997 Gospel Principles. Heavenly Father's 
plan is simplified as follows:

All good things come from God. Everything that he does is
to help his children become like him—a god. He has said,
“Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the
immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

The current version removes "a god".

It is really interesting that you quote this portion of the 1997 Gospel Principles manual, because you (TheTanakas, "Pete"), @telnetd ("Gail"), @theplains ("Jim"), and @marineland ("Tony", who posted previously on this board as orion88), all seem to be highly preoccupied with this quote.  And in posting it you frequently call attention to the part that says "a god" (which has reference to God's children, and not to God himself), or point out that it was removed in the current edition.  Are you the same person as those other users?  Because your style and quotes are nearly exactly the same.  Or what is your relationship to them? 

Consider your quotation above, and compare that to what was posted by:

telnetd on 04/06/2012 (not even referencing the Gospel Principles manual), and 11/16/2013. 

theplains on 08/08/2012, 10/15/2012, 02/26/2015, 07/27/2016, 02/23/2017, 03/01/2017, and then more recently with interaction with me on 09/09/2019 (where he points out that "a god" was removed from the current edition), 08/08/2020, 08/19/2020 (where he tries to make an issue of the lowercase "g") and 10/24/2020. 

marineland ("Tony", posting as orion88) :  10/09/2011, 11/07/2011, 01/01/2012 (where he points out that "a god" was removed from the current edition), and 02/27/2012 (where he quibbles about the lower case "g" ) 

And you, previously on 07/03/2021. 

There's also a similar preoccupation with the quotation from Gospel Principles, page 47 that seems to be a direct quotation from the Vincent Poldrugovac book (source from here or here) that I asked marineland about above, and there is an odd connection between these quotes from the board member names orion88, marineland, and theplains.  This is the same quote where it is made to appear as if Joseph Smith said "This is the way Heavenly Father became God" in his sermon, when in reality it is commentary from the manual.   For example:

theplains on 07/22/2012 (where he seems unaware that the GP commentary is not from Joseph Smith), and 08/26/2021 (which is an exact quotation from Podrugovac's book here).

marineland ("Tony", posting as orion88) :  01/29/2012 (making it appear that the entire statement comes from Joseph Smith, just exactly as it appears in the Podrugovac book), but he includes some of the omitted Gospel Principles manual notation (i.e. "Joseph Smith taught:") in these posts on 09/28/2011 and 12/31/2011.   

marineland posting as marineland, earlier in this thread on 11/16/2022.

I realize that the Poldrugovac book may not be the actual common source of these quotations, because it's possible that the Poldrugovac copied it wrong from someone else (that happens a lot in that kind of literature).

I'm sure there are more similar posts that I didn't pull up in my list.  There has to be a connection between you all, because this is too strange to be merely a coincidence.

So are you all the same person, or part of the same group?  Or how do you know each other?

Edited November 28, 2022 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

On 11/26/2022 at 3:01 PM, marineland said:

Yes. Thank you.

Are you going to answer my question above about the source of that Gospel Principles quote?  Is it from the Poldrugovac book, or did you edit it yourself (or something else)?

Edited November 28, 2022 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

It does seem odd when n00bs bail out other n00bs the moment they get in too deep. I have noticed they don't respond at all when someone deviates from their script, and it's not covered in any books they have.

Like, I can go deep into Biblical accounts of the creation-birth of gods. The birth of the God Israel is an ancient tale deleted from Deuteronomy 32:43 by Masoretic Jews concernIng the firstborn Son of El and the command that all the angels worship him when he 'inherited' his father's name (Hebrews 1:4; John 5:43; Colossians 1:15), and by being El's son, Yahweh was counted as the species of "elim", gods, like the rest of the Seventy gods in the council referred to in Psalm 82. Then after the fall of Babel, Yahweh became the God of Israel after he was allotted Israel as his inheritance from his Father El, as redacted from Deuteronomy 32:8. Though this seems to be without a marriage, it seems Yhwh was pre-existantly married to an Anath as depicted in Proverbs 8, and they adopt human Israelite royalty as sons (2 Sam 7:2; Psalm 2:7) and so as sons of God, the Davidic kings made the same species of elim-gods, they are called "Emmanuels (gods with us)" in Isaiah 7 and 8 refers to the divine Davidic kings (and Christ as one of them), by apotheosis of the priesthood the day the king was married in the temple.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Pyreaux

[TheTanakas]

On 11/27/2022 at 11:32 PM, InCognitus said:

So are you all the same person, or part of the same group?  Or how do you know each other?

Don't quit your day job 'Sherlock'.  Even other Latter-day Saints can agree with how they (the
non-LDS) view our theology without being part of their group. 

Someone could eventually suggest I am you if I were to quote what you quote.

As for what I wrote or commented about Heavenly Father first becoming a God then our God via
a celestial marriage relationship with Heavenly Mother (who herself also became a God), I am
not willing to jettison that theology if I am to remain a member. 

If you want to continue with your conspiracy theory, then so be it.

[InCognitus]

On 11/30/2022 at 11:24 AM, TheTanakas said:

Don't quit your day job 'Sherlock'.  Even other Latter-day Saints can agree with how they (the
non-LDS) view our theology without being part of their group. 

You can believe whatever you want.  That's not really an issue here.  And I noticed that you side-stepped my question.

On 11/30/2022 at 11:24 AM, TheTanakas said:

Someone could eventually suggest I am you if I were to quote what you quote.

But it's not what you quote, it is how you quote it and where you got it from that makes it easy to tell that all four user names are either the same person, or at the very least from the same group (see below). 

On 11/30/2022 at 11:24 AM, TheTanakas said:

As for what I wrote or commented about Heavenly Father first becoming a God then our God via
a celestial marriage relationship with Heavenly Mother (who herself also became a God), I am
not willing to jettison that theology if I am to remain a member. 

People believe a lot of different things.  But the important thing is that we all be honest and open with our sources and what we actually believe.  When someone quotes commentary from a manual and claims it is a quote of something that Joseph Smith said, that's either being sloppy or deceitful.  The same goes for manipulating the narrative of a message board thread by posting under multiple user names.

On 11/30/2022 at 11:24 AM, TheTanakas said:

If you want to continue with your conspiracy theory, then so be it.

It's really quite simple.  At least three of you, @TheTanakas, @theplains, and @marineland,  have a clear association with the "LDS Learning" [sic] Website, and have quoted directly from publications on that site several times.  @telnetd also has a connection, as well.   I already demonstrated where theplains and marineland ("Tony") have quoted directly from the Vincent Poldrugovac books on that site (and it's interesting that one of the publications on that site has an author with the name "Tony" ).  

But to demonstrate your own association, look at this quote from the PDF file on that website titled, "The Masonic Lodge - To be or not to be a Freemason?".  This comes from pages 27 and 28 of the PDF:

Just a few lines later on the same page (28), it says:

Quote

It seems as if all good Masons are told that they will go to the Celestial Lodge after they die.

For the Hindu or Muslim Mason who believes in this false hope instead of in the glorious promise of Jesus Christ, a frightful realization awaits them as they die in their hope of this Celestial destination without Him as Savior.

Compare the above to your post on July 31, 2020:

Quote

I found this Masonic prayer at https://online.ucpress.edu/nr/article-pdf/4/1/28/317830/nr_2000_4_1_28.pdf

My Brethren, the roll of the workmen has been called, and one Master Mason
has not answered to his name.

He has laid down the working tools of the Craft and with them he has left that
mortal part for which he no longer has use. 

His labors here below have taught him to divest his heart and conscience of the
vices and superfluities of life, thereby fitting his mind as a living stone for 
that spiritual building - that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Strengthened in his labors here by faith in God, and confident of expectation of
immortality, he has sought admission to the Celestial Lodge above.

Amen

Masonry teaches the Celestial Lodge is the hope for muslims, hindus, bahais,
who don't accept Jesus as Savior.

The source link you provided in your post is to a Nova Religio (2000) 4 (1): 28–51 article titled "Celestial Lodge Above: The Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem as a Religious Symbol in Freemasonry", but the full "Masonic prayer" that you quote in your post is not found in the Nova Religio article in its full form (page 17 of the Nova Religio article includes only the latter portion of what you quote).  And your quote above, which can only found in the exact same format on the "LDS Answers" website article, even includes similar commentary about Hindus and Muslims (you added the Bahais to your post, which is a nice touch).  

@theplains quoted from the same PDF on that website, in his post on March 11, 2015:

Quote

From A Bridge to Light (Hutchens) in the chapter called "Master Architect (12th Degree)"

 

 

“The older versions [of this degree] recount that the True Word was engraved

on a triangular plate of gold which was cast into a dry well; but the new versions related

that the True Word, also engraved on a golden plate, was deposited in a purposely

prepared place to be found centuries later by three masters.”

 

 

I couldn't find any mention of the urim and thummim there.

 

Regards,

 

Jim

Compare the post above to page 41 of the "The Masonic Lodge" PDF (pasted here with no alteration to the formatting):

Quote

Page 88 – “The older versions [of this degree] recount that the True Word was engraved
on a triangular plate of gold which was cast into a dry well; but the new versions related
that the True Word, also engraved on a golden plate, was deposited in a purposely
prepared place to be found centuries later by three masters.”

I could show other examples.

Your posts (from all four of the member names involved) have made for some interesting discussions on this board here.  I only point out the association between the four of you with the hope that you will be more forthcoming about your beliefs and your actual sources in the future, and that you will not try to attribute words to Joseph Smith that come from commentary in the lesson manuals.  And if you really are an LDS member (as you claim), are your getting your unusual ideas about LDS beliefs from that website?

Edited December 3, 2022 by InCognitus

[TheTanakas]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

And if you really are an LDS member (as you claim), are your getting your unusual ideas about LDS beliefs from that website?

I'm not sure why you believe I have unusual ideas about LDS beliefs.   I'm pretty sure I'm not the only Latter-day
Saint who believes Heavenly Father progressed into becoming a God after his marriage with a woman who herself
became a God.  When I quote from official LDS sources that may be quoted on non-LDS sites, please don't find
fault with that.

If you believe Heavenly Mother and Father have always been Gods and never progressed into becoming Gods, then
I would be interested to see your justification.

Edited December 3, 2022 by TheTanakas

[InCognitus]

18 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

I'm not sure why you believe I have unusual ideas about LDS beliefs.   I'm pretty sure I'm not the only Latter-day
Saint who believes Heavenly Father progressed into becoming a God after his marriage with a woman who herself
became a God. 

Why do I believe you have unusual ideas about LDS beliefs?   Perhaps it goes along with why I believe you are the same person as, or contributors to the same website as the three other board members I listed previously.  You are constantly feeding into the narrative of @theplains and @marineland, as if your user name is a tool for them to further their version of "Mormon beliefs".  You did this above (in this thread) when you showed up just in time to back up marineland's narrative.   Or like you did with theplains when you (like him) thought (for some odd reason) that Professor Anthon needed to actually see the gold plates in order to pronounce the copied characters as authentic characters (in this post on 02/20/2022) (there are many other examples).   

Or that you ask the question "Why is polygamy necessary for exaltation?" (it's not) in your post on 12/04/2021, just like it is portrayed in the publication Who are the Latter-day Saints? on page 172 from the LDS Learning website.  Or where you say you are "aware of the proxy work of D&C 138 but tend to believe Alma 5:24-25, 28 and Alma 34:32-35 more" (as if this is supposed to be some kind of contradiction) in this post on 07/31/2020, just like it is portrayed in the publication Who are the Latter-day Saints? on pages 183-188 from the LDS Learning website.  There are other possible examples.

18 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

When I quote from official LDS sources that may be quoted on non-LDS sites, please don't find
fault with that.

So are you admitting here that you are getting your material from that website?  Your source for the "Masonic prayer" is undeniably the same. 

18 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

If you believe Heavenly Mother and Father have always been Gods and never progressed into becoming Gods, then
I would be interested to see your justification.

I explained my point of view on that topic earlier in this post here.

Edited December 4, 2022 by InCognitus

[TheTanakas]

On 12/4/2022 at 1:07 AM, InCognitus said:

So are you admitting here that you are getting your material from that website?  Your source for the "Masonic prayer" is undeniably the same. 

I'll pray for you.

You seem to be coming unhinged.

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

I'll pray for you.

You seem to be coming unhinged.

Based on your response, I'm obviously on the right track.  Thank you for your prayers. 

[TheTanakas]

On 12/8/2022 at 12:56 PM, InCognitus said:

Based on your response, I'm obviously on the right track.  Thank you for your prayers. 

Sorry.  I was a little harsh in my last comment.

[Tacenda]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:39 PM, TheTanakas said:

I'm not sure why you believe I have unusual ideas about LDS beliefs.   I'm pretty sure I'm not the only Latter-day
Saint who believes Heavenly Father progressed into becoming a God after his marriage with a woman who herself
became a God.  When I quote from official LDS sources that may be quoted on non-LDS sites, please don't find
fault with that.

If you believe Heavenly Mother and Father have always been Gods and never progressed into becoming Gods, then
I would be interested to see your justification.

That surprises me to think he believes that because that's not the teachings of Joseph Smith right? Also, in the temple we aren't already Gods. And it's sad the Mother in Heaven isn't spoken of much, it's like the church is separating from the belief publicly, to fit in with mainstream Christianity.

[teddyaware]

On 11/30/2022 at 1:24 PM, TheTanakas said:

Don't quit your day job 'Sherlock'.  Even other Latter-day Saints can agree with how they (the
non-LDS) view our theology without being part of their group. 

Someone could eventually suggest I am you if I were to quote what you quote.

As for what I wrote or commented about Heavenly Father first becoming a God then our God via
a celestial marriage relationship with Heavenly Mother (who herself also became a God), I am
not willing to jettison that theology if I am to remain a member. 

If you want to continue with your conspiracy theory, then so be it.

For logical thinkers, there’s a very simple way to settle this debate: If sealed husbands and wives go on to become procreating God’s and Goddesses in eternity, then the logical can reasonably presume God the Father and Heavenly Mother obtained their thrones of divine power and authority in the same way. In fact, Doctrine and Covenants 132 testifies that by virtue of becoming omniscient and omnipotent Kings and Queens of heaven the exalted are proclaimed to be divine beings who had no beginning and will have no end because the uncreated Spirit of Truth, which is bestowed upon them in an eternal fulness, had no beginning and will have no end.

Anyone who is thus endowed with the fulness of the same uncreated divine intelligence that God himself possesses inherits a divine power of mind that had no beginning and will have no end. The Lectures on Faith testify that the Father and the Son are one because they both posses, to eternal fulness, the same perfect omniscient Mind (yes, the Lectures on Faith do say that the Father and the Son posses the same Mind, spelled with a capital M). Simply put, the minds of the exalted are infused with the fulness of the uncreated Spirit of Truth which gives then the right to say that they have existed from all eternity because the endowment of perfect divine intelligence  that permeates their consciousness has existed from all eternity. The exalted are living embodiments of the uncreated Light of Truth that had no beginning and will have no end.

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by teddyaware

[Pyreaux]

While its possible, as some LDS speculate that the progression to Godhood goes backwards, perhaps infinitely, but purely, doctrinally speaking, its equally possible that this cycle just started and that God the Father is a self-existing, or self-made, first-generation God. Even presuming the King Follet Discourse was canonized, God's "mortal" experience could equally have been like ours or nothing like ours. If He was like Jesus, that could well mean he could have been a god throughout and before his mortality, that he obtained premortal perfection, etc. As with Jesus, the title of God isn't always obtained post-mortem, and thus indeed there might not be a definite time when God the Father was ever not a God, even if He were once a man. Jesus was both once a man like us and yet was fully God, very unique and not a man like us. I can however show that the Lord God of Israel, Jesus, became God when he was born of God the Father. Biblical notions of "sonship" are what we call "godhood", by becoming born again as a son renders one part of the same family, species or "genos" of God, thus the birth of new gods.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

13 hours ago, teddyaware said:

For logical thinkers, there’s a very simple way to settle this debate: If sealed husbands and wives go on to become procreating God’s and Goddesses in eternity, then the logical can reasonably presume God the Father and Heavenly Mother obtained their thrones of divine power and authority in the same way.

 

But it is still a presumption. 

My grandfather was an engineer who worked in a company full of engineers.  He was, in fact, in charge of them all by the time he retired.  All those who worked with him were college graduates.  The logical could reasonably presumed looking at him and those who surrounded him that he too got his engineering skills, his job by going to college, graduating, getting a degree and getting hired to work as an engineer.

They would be wrong.  As a teen (think he was 14 or 15) he knew he wanted to be an engineer, so he dressed himself up decently and found a mechanic shop and went and asked to be hired…way too young and no training, of course they refused.  So he offered to sweep out the shop.  They told him they weren’t interested in hiring him, he said he would do it for free, so of course they let him.  Every day he came to sweep the shop and then he branched out and started cleaning the rest of the place and then would just hang out and watch what they were doing.  Started to help in other ways by running little errands, handing tools to the mechanic while looking over his shoulder, etc.  Made himself so useful after a year went by and he was old enough, they offered him an apprenticeship.  But his intent was not to stay a shop mechanic, but to become an engineer.  He started getting engineering and other books from the library, practiced his handwriting and read English texts to improve his writing and speech so he would look like a college grad even if he wasn’t (had the most beautiful handwriting I have ever seen).   Always asking questions.  Kept moving up in the job, left the shop and shifted to an company that had engineers.  When he started making enough money, he started buying the clothes to match the lifestyle he aimed for and got a car to finish the look.  All the girls swooned according to Grandma when he and his pal asked them to take a drive down to the Point of the Mountain to have a picnic (often stopping several times to fix the tires).  In the end he never went to college, but rose to the top level of his profession, running and even building plants for U&I Sugar Company and Morton Salt, an equal and even superior to the many college grads that worked with him every day.  No sign of the blue collar roots he came from (dad was a cop and mom took in laundry iirc).  No one looking at him or his work or surroundings would have known where he started or how he got there by an alternative route.

Presumptions are not always right, even when highly reasonable.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

But it is still a presumption. 

My grandfather was an engineer who worked in a company full of engineers.  He was, in fact, in charge of them all by the time he retired.  All those who worked with him were college graduates.  The logical could reasonably presumed looking at him and those who surrounded him that he too got his engineering skills, his job by going to college, graduating, getting a degree and getting hired to work as an engineer.

They would be wrong.  As a teen (think he was 14 or 15) he knew he wanted to be an engineer, so he dressed himself up decently and found a mechanic’s shop and went and asked to be hired…way too young and no training, of course they refused.  So he offered to sweep out the shop.  They told him they weren’t interested in hiring him, he said he would do it for free, so of course they let him.  Every day he came to sweep the shop and then he branched out and started cleaning the rest of the place and then would just hang out and watch what they were doing.  Started to help in other ways by running little errands, handing tools to the mechanic while looking over his shoulder, etc.  Made himself so useful after a year went by and he was old enough, they offered him an apprenticeship.  But his intent was not to stay a shop mechanic, but to become an engineer.  He started getting engineering and other books from the library, practiced his handwriting and read English texts to improve his writing and speech so he would look like a college grad even if he wasn’t (had the most beautiful handwriting I have ever seen).   Always asking questions.  Kept moving up in the job, left the shop and shifted to an company that had engineers.  When he started making enough money, he started buying the clothes to match the lifestyle he aimed for and got a car to finish the look.  All the girls swooned according to Grandma when he and his pal asked them to take a drive down to the Point of the Mountain to have a picnic (often stopping several times to fix the tires).  In the end he never went to college, but rose to the top level of his profession, running and even building plants for U&I Sugar Company and Morton Salt, an equal and even superior to the many college grads that worked with him every day.  No sign of the blue collar roots he came from (dad was a cop and mom took in laundry iirc).  No one looking at him or his work or surroundings would have known where he started or how he got there by an alternative route.

Presumptions are not always right, even when highly reasonable.

Great heritage you come from Calm!

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

While its possible, as some LDS speculate that the progression to Godhood goes backwards, perhaps infinitely, but purely, doctrinally speaking, its equally possible that this cycle just started and that God the Father is a first generation. Even presuming the King Follet Discourse were canonized, God's "mortal" experience could have been like ours or nothing like ours. If He was like Jesus, it could merely mean he could have still been a god throughout and before his mortality, that he obtained premortal perfection, etc. As with Jesus, Godhood isn't always obtained post-mortem, and thus indeed there might not be a definite time when God the Father was ever not a god, even if He were once a man. I can however show that the Lord God of Israel became God when he was born of God the Father. Biblical notions of "sonship" are what we call "godhood", by becoming born again as a son renders one part of the same family, species or "genos" of God, thus the birth of new gods.

This is pretty much the way I understand it as well.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Great heritage you come from Calm!

Yeah, they were good people, even with their weaknesses.  Grandma never went to college, but she ruled as high school spelling bee champ.