The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Are you referring to the language "born of the Father before all ages... begotten, not made" in the creed?    If so, how does that state that Christ was "eternally begotten of the Father"?

Also, the statement that Jesus was "incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man" does appear in the creed here.

In fact that is a huge difference from what I had to memorize in my Catholic High School, in the '60's.

Hope I can find something from that era...

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Imagine SEEING GOD?

What words would you use?

How precise COULD you be when there literally are NO WORDS to describe it?

Which is why the mystical Via Negativa is so useful. St. John of the Cross is a go to for me. 

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It pays, in philosophy to be as far as precise as words can take you, but there will always be the evil of INTERPRETATION anyway.

Ah! The joy of Interpretation! Errrr.......the evil of Interpretation? Seriously for a second . . . . Isn't doing one's best to rightly divide or interpret communication actually a worthwhile and challenging endeavor, even if we often fall short? Also, isn't one person's clarity another's tomfoolery? William Jame's work that I best like is "The Varieties of Religious Experience." His steak analogy frustrates me because I live four hours from the nearest wonderful steak restaurant. Along with my really great Green Chile Stew (he says with humility and certainty), I have had to learn to make my own really great steak. I have not yet mastered that task! Take care!

[theplains]

On 5/27/2022 at 12:52 PM, InCognitus said:

The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods

Based on that quote, then it seems the identity of the true God ("The God") is unknown,
and all formed after him (like Heavenly Father of Earth) are just gods.

[theplains]

On 5/24/2022 at 6:34 PM, teddyaware said:

Do you believe the man Jesus Christ had a human sexual reproductive system when he ministered on earth? If you do, do you also believe the Son of God’s resurrected body is an anatomically correct male human body? 

Yes to both.

[theplains]

On 5/24/2022 at 6:21 PM, teddyaware said:

Not only entertaining but also very compelling to anyone applying reason and common sense consistent with LDS doctrine. A question: Doctrine and Covenants 132 testifies that exalted men and women in the celestial kingdom will continue to have children throughout all eternity, a process which referred to as the “continuations of the seeds forever and ever.” Knowing that this claim is verified in scripture, do you believe God also has a perfected, functioning sexual reproduction system that produces seed “forever and ever?”

I believe Jesus explained this in Matthew 22:30.

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

[teddyaware]

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

I believe Jesus explained this in Matthew 22:30.

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

You’re not answering my specific questions. Here they are: Do you believe the man Jesus Christ, during the time of his pre-resurrection sojourn on earth, had a functioning male sexual reproductive system? And if you believe he did, do you also believe he was raised from the dead with an anatomically correct male human body? And if you do believe the latter, does it bother you to know the supposedly “immaterial” God whom you worship has male sex organs? 

Edited May 30, 2022 by teddyaware

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Are you referring to the language "born of the Father before all ages... begotten, not made" in the creed?    If so, how does that state that Christ was "eternally begotten of the Father"?

Also, the statement that Jesus was "incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man" does appear in the creed here.

InCognitus, hi.

Well yes and no. Yes, in that I THOUGHT the English translation was "eternally begotten of the Father", when it says "born of the Father before all ages". No, in that neither the Latin nor the English translation should be rendered "eternally begotten of the Father". 

I therefore concede that it does not "state" that Christ was "eternally begotten of the Father" in any good translation of the Nicene Creed.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Rory

 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Based on that quote, then it seems the identity of the true God ("The God") is unknown,
and all formed after him (like Heavenly Father of Earth) are just gods.

No, the identity of "The God" is God the Father.  He is the one God "above all" (Eph 4:6, see also Abraham 3:19).  

Edited May 30, 2022 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Ah! The joy of Interpretation! Errrr.......the evil of Interpretation? Seriously for a second . . . . Isn't doing one's best to rightly divide or interpret communication actually a worthwhile and challenging endeavor, even if we often fall short? Also, isn't one person's clarity another's tomfoolery? William Jame's work that I best like is "The Varieties of Religious Experience." His steak analogy frustrates me because I live four hours from the nearest wonderful steak restaurant. Along with my really great Green Chile Stew (he says with humility and certainty), I have had to learn to make my own really great steak. I have not yet mastered that task! Take care!

Well where the rubber hits the road, a saying which half here have never heard, when you say you have had your endowment and sealing by belief in Jesus Christ, that is quite different than what we mean by those two words.

It is "heaven" vs the "Celestial Kingdom", "immortality" vs "eternal life".

Different words different worlds, no possible communication.

Edited May 30, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

. Isn't doing one's best to rightly divide or interpret communication actually a worthwhile and challenging endeavor, even if we often fall short?

There's nothing to "fall short" FROM except being human.  That 's a little hard to stop being.

But yes of course we can always do better in communication, we just need to understand that we will never be able to do anything MORE than communicate with each other.

It's interpretations " all the way down" as we further create what we pretend is some "reality" beyond human communication.

We can only escape language through direct experience of what is literally ineffable.  That's God.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe Jesus explained this in Matthew 22:30.

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

That is of course correct; eternal marrital sealings must be performed on earth or by proxy on earth; that is why we do temple ordinances for the dead. During the millennium it is believed, that the spirits themselves, BEFORE resurrection will be able to communicate their desires to be sealed if they have perhaps been missed in genealogical research.  It is said that temples will abound for this purpose, and I am sure this is why we are building so many temples today, to prepare for these times to come.

That is the paradigm/belief/Doctrine 

Edited May 31, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

22 hours ago, teddyaware said:

You’re not answering my specific questions. Here they are: Do you believe the man Jesus Christ, during the time of his pre-resurrection sojourn on earth, had a functioning male sexual reproductive system? And if you believe he did, do you also believe he was raised from the dead with an anatomically correct male human body? And if you do believe the latter, does it bother you to know the supposedly “immaterial” God whom you worship has male sex organs? 

He did answer you and said yes to both.

Why are you so obsessed with Jesus' sex organs? This is like the 3rd or 4th time you've brought it up.

[3DOP]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

He did answer you and said yes to both.

Why are you so obsessed with Jesus' sex organs? This is like the 3rd or 4th time you've brought it up.

As Catholics, it seems enough to say Christ is fully human.  It seems superfluous to note that Christ had a larynx, a brain, arms, and so forth...duodenum...eardrums, fingernails, PLUS! All the private parts. How titillating!  Surely only LDS Christians can believe that Jesus had those too??? 

For what it is worth to anybody, not speaking for theplains, but suspecting agreement, Catholics believe Jesus is fully human. If you need us to spell it out, too bad.

Edited June 1, 2022 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

As Catholics, it seems enough to say Christ is fully human.  It seems superfluous to note that Christ had a larynx, a brain, arms, and so forth...duodenum...eardrums, fingernails, PLUS! All the private parts. How titillating!  Surely only LDS Christians can believe that Jesus had those too??? 

For what it is worth to anybody, not speaking for theplains, but suspecting agreement, Catholics believe Jesus is fully human. If you need us to spell it out, too bad.

In light of the fact that I believe It’s likely a great many Christians have never even considered the possibility that God could be a sexual being, would you find it disturbing to learn that among the many temptations the man Jesus Christ wrestled with and conquered were the urges of his fully human body’s sexual impulses? Or do you believe Christ was so “above it all,” even though he was fully human, that he never experienced the sexual impulses of his human body? And if Christ was fully human, even though he was simultaneously fully God, would you find it troubling to learn that Christ had ‘seed’ within his body that carried his own fully human DNA?

I ask these questions because at the center of this thread’s debate lies the question of whether or not God the Father could be the literal Father of Jesus Christ after the manner of the flesh? And to me it follows that if God, in the person of Jesus Christ, was/is a sexual being with seed carrying his own unique DNA, then  it shouldn’t be so hard to believe that God, in the person of the Father, could be the very literal Father of his Only Begotten Son.

Begotten: past participle of beget. Beget: “to produce offspring by sexual reproduction.” In this regard, sexual reproduction does not necessarily require intercourse as it can be accomplished by implantation.

I find it interesting that you think of my approach to this sacred subject as being “titillating,” when it’s God himself who created sexual procreation, and it is he who commands all of his children, where possible and lawful, to engage in the holy process of bringing sacred human life into the world through sexual reproduction.

[mfbukowski]

This entire subject is quite blasphemous to me.

But there is an easy answer within LDS Doctrine.

One may be married "for time" in the temple OR sealed "for eternity".

When say a man who is sealed passes away ,as a widow, his wife may decide to marry another "for life", or until "death do they part "

Now ponder the purpose of polygamy.

The exalted man we call El/Eloheim may have taken Mary as a wife for eternity, and she might have married Joseph fo time.  Nothing improper and nothing weird, within God's law, and the rest is none of our business. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the fact that I believe It’s likely a great many Christians have never even considered the possibility that God could be a sexual being, would you find it disturbing to learn that among the many temptations the man Jesus Christ wrestled with and conquered were the urges of his fully human body’s sexual impulses? Or do you believe Christ was so “above it all,” even though he was fully human, that he never experienced the sexual impulses of his human body? And if Christ was fully human, even though he was simultaneously fully God, would you find it troubling to learn that Christ had ‘seed’ within his body that carried his own fully human DNA?

I ask these questions because at the center of this thread’s debate lies the question of whether or not God the Father could be the literal Father of Jesus Christ after the manner of the flesh? And to me it follows that if God, in the person of Jesus Christ, was/is a sexual being with seed carrying his own unique DNA, then  it shouldn’t be so hard to believe that God, in the person of the Father, could be the very literal Father of his Only Begotten Son.

Begotten: past participle of beget. Beget: “to produce offspring by sexual reproduction.” In this regard, sexual reproduction does not necessarily require intercourse as it can be accomplished by implantation.

I find it interesting that you think of my approach to this sacred subject as being “titillating,” when it’s God himself who created sexual procreation, and it is he who commands all of his children, where possible and lawful, to engage in the holy process of bringing sacred human life into the world through sexual reproduction.

And of course there is the possibility that Jesus was sealed in this life and received the endowment.

Doctrinally it is as necessary as baptism 

[Pyreaux]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And of course there is the possibility that Jesus was sealed in this life and received the endowment.

Doctrinally as necessary as baptism 

Like the Wedding at Cana and the Mount of Transfiguration?

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Like the Wedding at Cana and the Mount of Transfiguration?

Yep. But I think the Transfiguration might have been mostly for Peter James and John with Jesus officiating.  Who knows?! 

And the screen presentation was done by TelldaVision to no man. Just like today in the temple. 

Matt 17

9And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. 10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? 11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. 12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Edited June 1, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In light of the fact that I believe It’s likely a great many Christians have never even considered the possibility that God could be a sexual being, would you find it disturbing to learn that among the many temptations the man Jesus Christ wrestled with and conquered were the urges of his fully human body’s sexual impulses? Or do you believe Christ was so “above it all,” even though he was fully human, that he never experienced the sexual impulses of his human body? And if Christ was fully human, even though he was simultaneously fully God, would you find it troubling to learn that Christ had ‘seed’ within his body that carried his own fully human DNA?

You keep posing these questions as a "gotcha, ya dumb Christians never thought about this, didya!" when in fact it is not a gotcha at all. Of course Jesus was fully human in all aspects of it (do you sit around contemplating whether his farts stank?). Of course he suffered sexual temptation, as he suffered ALL temptation (Hebrews 4:15). This is not troubling at all (and I'm not sure why you think it would be).

ETA: in fact, not only is it not troubling, it is actually a wonderful thing that Christ underwent sexual temptation. When I have sexual temptation, I know He understands and can fully help as he fully experienced it. Sexual temptation is a major part of being human. There would be a gaping hole in the Incarnation and Atonement if for some reason He chose to skip over it. So again, why do you think we believe that?

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And to me it follows that if God, in the person of Jesus Christ, was/is a sexual being with seed carrying his own unique DNA, then  it shouldn’t be so hard to believe that God, in the person of the Father, could be the very literal Father of his Only Begotten Son.

And here's where you misunderstand the Trinity. God the Father is NOT God the Son. Jesus, being 100% human and 100% God, does not mean that God the Father has a body (He does not). Jesus having reproductive organs as a human does not mean God the Father has a body.

Obviously you think Trinitarianism is wrong, and it is fine that you think so, but you are trying to argue from the point-of-view of Trinitarian Christianity that it isn't "so hard to believe that God ... could be the very literal Father." Since you misunderstand the Trinity, your argument doesn't work.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Begotten: past participle of beget. Beget: “to produce offspring by sexual reproduction.” In this regard, sexual reproduction does not necessarily require intercourse as it can be accomplished by implantation.

This is not the definition we use when we say "begotten."

"Filium Dei unigenitum,  ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula" = "the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages"

Notice "omnia saecula" or "before all ages" or "eternally" or "forever and ever" etc.

Christ is begotten and born of the Father eternally. It has always happened and will always happen.

Again, you can disagree with this, of course, but we are using our terms in an internally consistent way.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I find it interesting that you think of my approach to this sacred subject as being “titillating,”

3DOP wasn't saying it was "titillating." He was being sarcastic and pointing out that the fact you keep bringing it up probably means that you believe it is titillating to us. It is not titillating to us.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

when it’s God himself who created sexual procreation

Yes.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

and it is he who commands all of his children, where possible and lawful, to engage in the holy process of bringing sacred human life into the world through sexual reproduction.

Catholics do not believe that all are called to be parents.

Edited June 1, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This entire subject is quite blasphemous to me.

So why did you give teddyaware a heart reaction, as he is the one who keeps pushing the discussion of Christ's reproductive organs and God the Father implanting sperm into Mary?

[mfbukowski]

What a concept that Jesus himself as a human, complied with the ordinances we ourselves comply with. That clearly separates us from Evangelical Christianity, @Navidad

This is Father's church more than even Christ, the messenger.  We are the church of El as much as Christ, and that separates us from other Christian's.  We are Judaism and Christianity in one entity,  the fulfillment like a butterfly coming out of the Caterpillar 

Edited June 1, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

"Filium Dei unigenitum,  ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula" = "the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages"

Meh. The key is the translation of "unigenitum" sometimes translated as "one substance".

And I prefer "world" for "saecula" as in "secular"

Words.

Can't live with 'em, can't do without 'em.

Edited June 1, 2022 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Meh. The key is the translation of "unigenitum" sometimes translated as "one substance".

And I prefer "world" for "saecula" as in "secula"

Words.

Can't live with 'em, can't do without 'em.

Exactly. Begotten = of one substance, not sexually reproduced.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholics do not believe that all are called to be parents.

A key to personal revelation being crucial in Catholicism.  I knew there was a problem when I KNEW that BOTH I was to be married AND a PRIEST