Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Fourth Abrahamic religion?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sara H said:

Jesus received the priesthood when he was foreordained savior of the world, therefore he holds the title Elder along with many other priesthood titles. So there's nothing wrong with calling him Elder Jesus. 

Can you provide any revelation where he is called "Elder Jesus"?  (Probably not).  So no.  We'll stick with the Christ, the LORD.  

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Jesus received the priesthood when he was foreordained savior of the world, therefore he holds the title Elder along with many other priesthood titles. So there's nothing wrong with calling him Elder Jesus. 

Is the bolded your opinion?  Because I don't recall ever hearing that He received the priesthood when He was foreordained.  I'm not sure I've ever heard a teaching describing when or how He received the priesthood or how He became a god.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, webbles said:

Is the bolded your opinion?  Because I don't recall ever hearing that He received the priesthood when He was foreordained.  I'm not sure I've ever heard a teaching describing when or how He received the priesthood or how He became a god.

Screenshot_20230918_114759_Chrome.thumb.jpg.14387e78efd9357dac4868ad765e66a6.jpg

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Sara H said:

The priesthood isn't just here on earth and in our heaven, it governs all God's, all future God's and beyond. Our doctrine teaches that both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ lived on a planet just like we do now, which means that they both had times in the past when they lacked the authority of the priesthood. The gospel is the priesthood, and the activities of the Gods, all billions of them, are governed by the gospel, the priesthood. If the gods have free will, then they have the same potential to fall from their priestly roles as you do. Meaning they're IN the priesthood.

This is fascinating, and it sounds exactly like our prior poster, AtlanticMike, who said almost exactly the same thing in this post here:

Quote

Years ago I also believed God could speak to anyone he wanted but today I'm not to sure. Yes, since he's  the Govenor of this world, he can communicate with anyone we wants here, but he still has to work inside of the rules of the holy priesthood and the priesthood puts certain limitations on our God. The priesthood governs everything, even Gods. As they progress, they to gain further knowledge as the veil is lifted even further allowing them to communicate with other Gods who are further along in eternal progression. I personally think our God is a fairly new God because of the limitations that have been put upon him. Would you like to speak more on this because I'm not sure if I can. Will minos the moderator kick me off the board, I'm not sure how much my opinion is wanted here.

Compare the above to your OP in your Is Lumen Output An Indicator Of Our God's Power? thread here:

Quote

 I believe that the dull seer stone is a good indicator that the God we worship may be a new God and that he may not be as knowledgable as the Gods that have come before him. Other signs that our God is a new God include the imperfections that are present in our mortal bodies, such as cancer, male pattern baldness, arthritis, and a great deal of other diseases and conditions

And compare this one here from AtlanticMike

Quote

 All I'm wondering is, does that mean our god is limited. All worlds are governed by the priesthood, I'm just wondering if maybe some worlds are more advanced than ours because there eternal God is more advanced. I have 2 words for you, Eternal Progression. If your progressing that means your learning, if your learning then someone more knowledgeable is teaching you. Bamm!! There it is😁🤣. I know alot of people dont like to talk about this anymore but I often think about it. Let me leave you with a few words from one of my favorite talks by Spencer W Kimball. "Brethern, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000." Spencer W Kimball. The privilege of holding the Priesthood.

Doesn't this look exactly like the thread you opened recently?  

This is the thread and post I have in mind, posted by you:

Quote

To tie in with my other thread, the one where I'm being ridiculed for saying that our God may not be the most powerful God out there, I think there's a good chance that one day we actually see the aliens that have visited our planet like many important people are now saying, and that when we do, we will see a more perfect version of a spirit child that was formed from a different God than the one that we worship. If they are able to go in a spacecraft, penetrate our atmosphere, then there is a good likelihood that the God they follow is probably further along the path of eternal progression than our God. Perhaps the extraterrestrial will be green, or perhaps it will be blue. Who knows? But if they are able to do so, then there is a good chance that their God will be more advanced than our God. 

You and Mike are one of a kind in that regard.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This is fascinating, and it sounds exactly like our prior poster, AtlanticMike, who said almost exactly the same thing in this post here:

Compare the above to your OP in your Is Lumen Output An Indicator Of Our God's Power? thread here:

And compare this one here from AtlanticMike

Doesn't this look exactly like the thread you opened recently?  

This is the thread and post I have in mind, posted by you:

You and Mike are one of a kind in that regard.

Two posters have been named as AtlanticMike in the last six days. For whatever reason, you share Tacenda's preoccupation with labeling posters she disagrees with as being AtlanticMike. I am aware of many LDS members who share my view that God is subject to eternal rules, also referred to as the everlasting priesthood. Many of the early church members shared my beliefs. 

 

Once more, you're implying that I'm a man, just like you did yesterday before changing your mind and editing your message. You're a typical LDS man who can't stand women who hold different opinions than your own, so you think it's okay to misgender me.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Once more, you're implying that I'm a man, just like you did yesterday before changing your mind and editing your message. You're a typical LDS man who can't stand women who hold different opinions than your own, so you think it's okay to misgender me.

No, I'm not implying you are a man.  Mike could have been a woman posting as a man, because (as Mike would say) no real man would post as a woman.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This is fascinating, and it sounds exactly like our prior poster, AtlanticMike, who said almost exactly the same thing in this post here:

Compare the above to your OP in your Is Lumen Output An Indicator Of Our God's Power? thread here:

And compare this one here from AtlanticMike

Doesn't this look exactly like the thread you opened recently?  

This is the thread and post I have in mind, posted by you:

You and Mike are one of a kind in that regard.

What occurs, in my opinion, is that you and your pals, like Calm, become weary of successful discussions that you disagree with, therefore you try your hardest to have them closed down. Starting arguments is a surefire method to do this. Shame on you for stooping that low.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Sara H said:

What occurs, in my opinion, is that you and your pals, like Calm, become weary of successful discussions that you disagree with, therefore you try your hardest to have them closed down. Starting arguments is a surefire method to do this. Shame on you for stooping that low.

Who is arguing?  The only thing I've done is provide the evidence.  The evidence shows what it shows.

Link to comment
On 9/16/2023 at 5:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

He isn't IN the Priesthood, he IS THE Priesthood 

Agreed.

Along imo similar lines, Christ is the way, the truth, and the light, and no one comes to the Father but by him.  Christ is also the light of the world, and on another occasion Jesus said that we are the light of the world, and I don't think that parallel wording was accidental.

On 9/13/2023 at 12:04 PM, Leaf474 said:

A Christian is a follower of Jesus - that would be a big tent definition, I think. And I'm fine with that, definitely 👍

I'm just also saying it may end up including groups we don't normally think of as Christian. I know there are Hindus who talk about "Christ Consciousness".

"Christ consciousness" in the Hindu sense is outside of the LDS comfort zone, but imo there is a sense in which something that might be called "Christ-centric consciousness" is part of LDS thought:  In partaking of the Sacramental bread Latter-day Saints witness "that they are willing to always remember [Christ]", and in partaking of the Sacramental water Latter-day Saints witness "that they do always remember [Christ]".  To "always remember" Christ would imply that Christ is always either in the foreground or background of one's consciousness. 

Further, LDS scriptures say that we are to become "the same manner of men [and women]" as Christ, and that we are to be "filled with the pure love of Christ".  Arguably these both entail a shift in one's consciousness to a consciousness that embodies at least some aspects of Christ's consciousness, independent of the Hindu concept of "Christ consciousness". 

And speaking of tents, I'm in favor of a tent sufficiently big that everyone is inside of it, regardless of how they self-identify. 

 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Sara H said:
On 9/16/2023 at 4:28 PM, mfbukowski said:

The "church" after the millennium will not even exist as a "church".

Wrong! 100% Wrong. See below for what our doctrine teaches. 

Your screen shot quotes the following:

Quote

So, what will people do during these 1,000 years? We know that a main focus will be to continue the work of salvation—helping people come unto Christ. Church members will share the gospel with those remaining who have not received it in its fulness. Family history and temple work will be especially important and will link the entire family of man all the way back to Adam and Eve.

Note the differences.  So obviously, what you posted doesn't really prove what @mfbukowski said is wrong.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...