The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[theplains]

On 2/8/2022 at 6:15 PM, InCognitus said:

You're welcome.  His statement that, "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false", leaves no room for doubt on what he teaches on the virgin birth, don't you think? 

Yes.
 

Quote

That's not what I asked.  I asked if you believe that God is the Father of spirits and that we are his offspring.  These are biblical teachings, so I'm surprised that you would respond that way.  (See Hebrews 12:9 and Acts 17:28-29.)   Do you believe that God is the Father of spirits and that we are his offspring?

I believe God is our Father in an adoptive sense, not a procreative one. Jesus said of some that they were
of their father, the devil (John 8:44-45).  Only those led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God and joint
heirs with Christ (Romans 8:14-17).
 

Quote

What is your understanding of the genetics of the man Jesus who was born of Mary?  Where did he get his Y chromosome?

Jesus was not born in a natural way (some interaction between an immortal man and a mortal woman) so I
don't believe chromosomes from Heavenly Father were involved.  In the same way, I don't believe (if it really
happened), that the chromosomes of a physical Heavenly Father and Mother were involved to produce spiritual
offspring.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Quote

That's not what I asked.  I asked if you believe that God is the Father of spirits and that we are his offspring.  These are biblical teachings, so I'm surprised that you would respond that way.  (See Hebrews 12:9 and Acts 17:28-29.)   Do you believe that God is the Father of spirits and that we are his offspring?

I believe God is our Father in an adoptive sense, not a procreative one. Jesus said of some that they were
of their father, the devil (John 8:44-45).  Only those led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God and joint
heirs with Christ (Romans 8:14-17).

Scripture makes it clear that we are children of God in both the literal and adoptive sense.  I explained this earlier in the thread (probably in more detail than necessary) in this post here, and I used John 8:33-44 as the example, where Jesus used both a literal understanding of "seed" and "children" as well as the figurative or adoptive sense as you are using it when you said some have for "their father, the devil".   Can you please read that post and give me your thoughts on how you view those differences?

You tell me that you believe that God is our Father in an adoptive sense only.  How does that fit with Paul's statement that all mankind is the very "genos" (offspring) of God, as it says in Acts 17:28-29?

[theplains]

On 2/24/2022 at 1:58 PM, InCognitus said:

Scripture makes it clear that we are children of God in both the literal and adoptive sense.  I explained this earlier in the thread (probably in more detail than necessary) in this post here, and I used John 8:33-44 as the example, where Jesus used both a literal understanding of "seed" and "children" as well as the figurative or adoptive sense as you are using it when you said some have for "their father, the devil".   Can you please read that post and give me your thoughts on how you view those differences?

You tell me that you believe that God is our Father in an adoptive sense only.  How does that fit with Paul's statement that all mankind is the very "genos" (offspring) of God, as it says in Acts 17:28-29?

I believe Paul viewed offspring in a creative sense sense instead of what others interpret to be of
a procreative one (where one or more heavenly mothers were involved).

The following may explain it further.

https://spindleworks.com/library/rfaber/aratus.htm

Edited March 11, 2022 by theplains

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe Paul viewed offspring in a creative sense sense instead of what others interpret to be of
a procreative one (where one or more heavenly mothers were involved).

The following may explain it further.

https://spindleworks.com/library/rfaber/aratus.htm

Do you believe God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ in the procreative sense or only in the creative sense? 

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe Paul viewed offspring in a creative sense sense instead of what others interpret to be of
a procreative one (where one or more heavenly mothers were involved).

I realize that is the popular view in modern Christianity (as is shown in the source you provided).  But taking that view of Acts 17:28-29 is problematic for at least two main reasons.

First, Acts 17:28-29 is clearly addressed to non-believers as indicated by the context. Paul is making the point that it is illogical to worship gods made by the hand of men. He indicates that we all have our existence, our being, because of God. Then Paul quotes the Greek poet, affirming that, “we are the offspring of God”. This phrase uses the Greek word genos which is translated as “offspring”. Genos is the same Greek word from which we get our English word “genes”. This word denotes a literal offspring, the progeny of God, the very same "kind" of being.

This distinction is very important to Paul’s greater point because Paul goes on to say, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.” That is, since we are related to God, his offspring, it is illogical to even consider that God is stone, or gold, or silver, because we are not stone, or gold, or silver.

If Paul was only saying that we are merely God’s creations (as you and your reference are interpreting it), then Paul’s audience could easily reason that a god of any kind (gold, silver, or stone) could “create” anything it desires, and Paul’s point would be meaningless. But the strength of Paul’s argument is in the fact that we have a relationship to God as his literal offspring, his genos, we are the same "race" as God, the very same "kind" of being as God, and thus to conceive of a god of any other kind is unreasonable.

Second, it's problematic to misconstrue the meaning of the Greek word "genos" to make it mean that Paul is saying we are merely God's creations.

According to Walter Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, the word genos is defined as follows:

1. descendants of a common ancestor… we too, are descended from him Ac 17:28 (quoted fr. Arat., Phaenom. …), cf. vs. 29.—Also of an individual descendant
2. family, relatives...
3. nation, people...
4. class, kind...

The Latin Vulgate translates genos in Acts 17:28-29 as genus.

The Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon notes that genos means race, stock, kin and is used opposed to “an adopted son”, that is, genos is literal, while adoption is not. It also defines the word as “direct descent” and “ offspring even of a single descendant, son”, or “generally, race, of beings”.

God "created" man in the sense that he was organized from existing materials, from the "dust" of the earth and the spirit of man that came directly from God.  And we are taught, in Hebrews 12:9, that God is the "Father of spirits".  We are therefore the very "kind" of being that God is, we are his genos.  We are spirit beings that came from God, being born into mortal bodies that were created from the elements of this world:   Gen 2:7  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life; and man became a living soul."

In the post I referenced in my last response to you (here), I made it clear that the Bible uses more than one definition of what it means to be a "child" or a "father", and I used John 8:33-44 to show that it should not be limited to a figurative understanding of those words (as you seem to want to use).   Did you read that post? 

Edited March 12, 2022 by InCognitus

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/28/2021 at 9:06 PM, The Nehor said:

If you are going to use that “word” [“irregardless”] it needs a trigger warning.

 

On 12/28/2021 at 9:17 PM, sunstoned said:

Where is Scott when you need him🙂

I only now saw it. But Nehor was a good surrogate. 

[theplains]

On 3/11/2022 at 6:20 PM, InCognitus said:

In the post I referenced in my last response to you (here), I made it clear that the Bible uses more than one definition of what it means to be a "child" or a "father", and I used John 8:33-44 to show that it should not be limited to a figurative understanding of those words (as you seem to want to use).   Did you read that post?

Yes. Thanks.  We can agree to disagree in some parts. 

But I think that the procreation of spirit children between Heavenly Father and an unspecified
number of Heavenly Wives can only be supported by believing what is mentioned in Doctrine
and Covenants 132.

Edited March 15, 2022 by theplains

[theplains]

On 3/11/2022 at 5:39 PM, teddyaware said:

Do you believe God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ in the procreative sense or only in the creative sense?

Jesus is the Eternal (from eternity to eternity, from everlasting to everlasting), uncreated,
non-procreated God.  There is only one God.

Edited March 15, 2022 by theplains

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

Jesus is the Eternal (from eternity to eternity, from everlasting to everlasting), uncreated,
non-procreated God.  There is only one God.

Sorry, that's not scriptural.  It's not even Biblical.

[teddyaware]

54 minutes ago, theplains said:

Jesus is the Eternal (from eternity to eternity, from everlasting to everlasting), uncreated,
non-procreated God.  There is only one God.

I’m asking if you believe God the Father is the Father of the body of the man Jesus Christ in the procreative sense or only in, as you call it, the “creative sense.”

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Yes. Thanks.  We can agree to disagree in some parts. 

But I think that the procreation of spirit children between Heavenly Father and an unspecified
number of Heavenly Wives can only be supported by believing what is mentioned in Doctrine
and Covenants 132.

We only know that we are all children of God, that God is the Father of spirits, we were with God before coming to this earth, and that we are the same kind of being (the very genos) as God.  How exactly God became the Father of our spirits hasn't been revealed to us.   

[theplains]

On 3/15/2022 at 11:05 PM, InCognitus said:

How exactly God became the Father of our spirits hasn't been revealed to us.

Supposedly it was through procreation in a marriage to at least one heavenly wife.  This seems to
be the thought in the church's proclamation.

[theplains]

On 3/15/2022 at 12:00 PM, teddyaware said:

I’m asking if you believe God the Father is the Father of the body of the man Jesus Christ in the procreative sense or only in, as you call it, the “creative sense.”

Jesus is begotten of Mary through the Holy Ghost. It was a miraculous birth, with no personal interaction
between Mary and Heavenly Father.

[theplains]

On 3/15/2022 at 11:09 AM, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, that's not scriptural.  It's not even Biblical.

Psalm 41:13  Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.

Psalm 90:2 - Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth 
and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalm 103:17 - But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that 
fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children.

Joseph Smith taught otherwise - "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation
of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character
and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God.
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." 
(History of the Church, volume 6 - http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI).

For those who accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God, you have Moroni 7:22 and
Mosiah 3:5 (which say God is from eternity to eternity, from everlasting to everlasting).

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, theplains said:

Psalm 41:13  Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.

Psalm 90:2 - Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth 
and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalm 103:17 - But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that 
fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children.

Joseph Smith taught otherwise - "In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation
of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character
and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God.
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." 
(History of the Church, volume 6 - http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI).

For those who accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God, you have Moroni 7:22 and
Mosiah 3:5 (which say God is from eternity to eternity, from everlasting to everlasting).

Ah, but we have a different understanding of what "eternity to eternity" or "everlasting to everlasting" means.  The fact that the phrases exists at all should be an indicator.
Can you go from one eternity to another?

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

On 3/15/2022 at 8:05 PM, InCognitus said:

How exactly God became the Father of our spirits hasn't been revealed to us.

Supposedly it was through procreation in a marriage to at least one heavenly wife.  This seems to
be the thought in the church's proclamation.

The Family Proclamation simply says we are all spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents.  There is no description provided in the Proclamation on how exactly that works.  It hasn't been revealed to us. But the Bible uses similar language in Hebrews 12:9, teaching us that God is the Father of spirits.  And, as noted in our prior discussion, Acts 17:28-29 takes that a step farther and teaches us that we are actually the very same kind of being as God, we are his genos.  You interpret that to mean God created us even though such an interpretation would be linguistically and logically a problem to Paul's overall argument.  You presume it to be one way, I understand it another way. 

I'm not willing to develop hard set opinions on exactly how God is the Father of spirits, or how we are spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents.  I want to be pleasantly surprised, and not disappointed that I didn't get it right, when we find out from our Heavenly Father how all these things fit together some day.  But those are true statements.  

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

Jesus is begotten of Mary through the Holy Ghost. It was a miraculous birth, with no personal interaction
between Mary and Heavenly Father.

Now you're starting to sound like Bruce R. McConkie and James Talmage. 

[theplains]

On 3/29/2022 at 12:09 AM, InCognitus said:

Now you're starting to sound like Bruce R. McConkie and James Talmage. 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained the condescension of God,
our Heavenly Father in this way:  

“The condescension of God lies in the fact that he, an exalted Being, steps down from his eternal throne
to become the Father of a mortal Son (The Mortal Messiah [1979], 1:314)”
(Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012).

Sounds like he had some interaction with Mary.

[theplains]

On 3/29/2022 at 12:07 AM, InCognitus said:

I'm not willing to develop hard set opinions on exactly how God is the Father of spirits, or how we are spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents.

Think of it as a higher manifestation of natural law.

[theplains]

On 3/28/2022 at 4:51 PM, JLHPROF said:

Ah, but we have a different understanding of what "eternity to eternity" or "everlasting to everlasting" means.  The fact that the phrases exists at all should be an indicator.
Can you go from one eternity to another?

I don't quite understand your question. Would you be able to rephrase?

[InCognitus]

55 minutes ago, theplains said:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained the condescension of God,
our Heavenly Father in this way:  

“The condescension of God lies in the fact that he, an exalted Being, steps down from his eternal throne
to become the Father of a mortal Son (The Mortal Messiah [1979], 1:314)”
(Book of Mormon Seminary Teacher Manual, 2012).

Sounds like he had some interaction with Mary.

Except you forget what Bruce R. McConkie taught about the virgin birth.  Remember this post, here, where I quoted McConkie saying "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin", and "denying the virgin birth" is a false teaching, and that the conception of Jesus was "miraculous"?   How could Mary have been a virgin at the birth of Jesus if there were "some interaction with Mary" as you claim he is saying? 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Think of it as a higher manifestation of natural law.

That is exactly the way I consider it to be. 

[theplains]

On 4/12/2022 at 1:52 PM, InCognitus said:

Except you forget what Bruce R. McConkie taught about the virgin birth.  Remember this post, here, where I quoted McConkie saying "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin", and "denying the virgin birth" is a false teaching, and that the conception of Jesus was "miraculous"?   How could Mary have been a virgin at the birth of Jesus if there were "some interaction with Mary" as you claim he is saying? 

That's what puzzled me about what McConkie wrote ... that Heavenly Father steps down from his
throne to become the Father of Christ.

[theplains]

On 4/12/2022 at 1:54 PM, InCognitus said:

That is exactly the way I consider it to be. 

Which served as a pattern for how mortal humans on earth would procreate?

Edited April 18, 2022 by theplains

[teddyaware]

34 minutes ago, theplains said:

That's what puzzled me about what McConkie wrote ... that Heavenly Father steps down from his
throne to become the Father of Christ.

Some questions: Do you believe the Lord had DNA and was therefore fully human, or do you believe he was only a partially human humanoid with DNA only from his mother’s side of the family? Do you believe the Lord had sex organs and that they were functional, or do you believe he was a sterile, non sexual being with no seed in his body? (I know I’ve heard many non LDS Christians throughout the years proclaim that Christ was fully human, and for that reason it would be strange to me if the Lord was a non sexual being who never had to learn how to control his naturally occurring sexual drive.) Finally, have you ever heard of artificial insemination?

Edited April 18, 2022 by teddyaware