In the 1974 October General Conference of the Mormon Church Marion G. Romney (Second Counselor in the First Presidency) said,
“I am going to talk about some of the very fundamentals of the gospel of Jesus Christ of great importance…
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms as its Third Article of Faith:
‘We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.’ [A of F 1:3]
“In these remarks I shall set forth some views of the church of Jesus Christ on this subject.
“Saved as here used means resurrected and returned as a sanctified, celestialized, immortal soul to the presence and society of God, there to pursue an endless course of eternal progress.
“To get a glimpse of what this means requires a knowledge of the form and nature of God and of man and their relationship to each other.
“Man is a soul, that is, a dual being, a spirit person clothed in a tangible body of flesh and bones. God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life. He is both immortal and exalted to the highest glory. He is enjoying that blessed condition which men may attain to by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. (“How Men Are Saved,” Ensign, November 1974)
Broken down, then, what Mr. Romney taught about God is this:
- He is immortal.
- He is perfected.
- He is exalted.
- He is saved.
Because God is saved (per Mr. Romney’s stated definition),
- He is resurrected (immortal).
- He is sanctified.
- He is celestialized.
- He is returned to the presence and society of [his?] God.
- He is to progress eternally.
Therefore, in Mormonism, God the Father was “saved,” that is, “resurrected and returned” to the presence of God with several new attributes, including sanctification. Bruce McConkie defines sanctification:
“To be sanctified is to become clean, pure, and spotless; to be free from the blood and sins of the world; … a state attained only by conformity to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. The plan of salvation is the system and means provided whereby men may sanctify their souls and thereby become worthy of a celestial inheritance.” (Mormon Doctrine, “Sanctification,” 675)
If “to be sanctified” is to become clean, pure and spotless, then there must have been a time when Heavenly Father was not clean, pure and spotless.
Is this what Mr. Romney intended to teach the Mormon membership about the LDS view of the nature of God? Whether that was his intent or not, it seems that this is actually what many Mormons believe about Heavenly Father – that he was, perhaps, once a sinner.
Diversion, Diversion, friends.
You are trying to distract from this by focusing on Adam God and anything else possible.
Name one person, other than Jesus, who has had the power to lay down their lives and take it up again.
Nobody. But that is how God the Father is described by Joseph Smith. His life on an earth was “just like Jesus Christ. Nobody else’s life was “just like Jesus Christ.”
God never sinned. Our doctrine, and the basis for that doctrine does cannot be reconciled with that claim.
faithoffathers, perhaps you need to realize what the problem is here. This thread by Sharon
contains a statement by a Mormon apostle (Romney) where he says that HF is a saved soul,
and the terms he uses to teach that doctrine (resurrection , sanctification etc ) has led many
Mormons to embrace the belief that to them HF as a man on another earth probably sinned
in His journey . These Mormons take in consideration what their leaders have said about HF,
such as Pres. Snow’s couplet , and factoring in their own destiny of progressing from sinner to
become future HF’s , they have arrived at this belief . I’m not surprised . But let’s not forget
that before we even look at this we should see how Joseph Smith tried to justify his new doctrine
of HF being a man who was produced by a another man-God and wife , He then went through a
life like you do today and eventfully died and was resurrected and supposedly became the God
we meet in the Bible —-God Almighty creator of heaven and earth . To justify that HF died and
was resurrected Smith does the obvious : like false prophets do these days he tries to sell his
new idea as being spiritual truth from God by appealing to the Bible . People are more prone
to be convinced it’s true when prophets use the Bible . What Grindael and those here are doing
is to show you how Smith and those after him have wrenched certain scriptures out of context
and manipulated them to make these new “truths” appear in the Bible . Verses like Jn 5:19,26.
That’s what is going on here . God the Father never was a man who lived on another earth and
who sought to do like Mormons here to become worthy , after dying and resurrecting , to then
become like many men before Him , an Almighty God and HF .
I think Sharon’s last paragraph sums this issue up well .
May you turn to the true and living Creator who alone can give you eternal life . He has always
been God Almighty .
FOF,
Diversion? The whole religion of Mormonism is a diversion. Study the history of the sect you belong to my friend, the way they handle their history specifically, and you will see endless diversion.
Adam-god was taught by your second prophet, Brigham Young, and was believed by the Mormon faithful, and is still embraced by the Mormon sect known as the FLDS. It’s plain that that these Mormons believe that the Mormon HF was once a sinful man. It’s plain. You claim “diversion” because what has been presented that the religion you belong to is one long line of “diversion”; diverting faithful Mormons from God.
So the Mormon HF and Jesus are the exception to the rule within the SLC LDS pantheon of gods.
FOF can you really keep all of the balls you’re juggling in the air? I think the balls are on the floor and you’re scurrying about trying to pick them up, booting them all about with your feet.
For the Mormon sects that left early on, they maintained the original Mormon revelation.
FoF, how is the second PROPHET of the LDS church’s doctrine that Adam was God a diversion from the conversation about God being a sinner before he became God? Brigham Young said he never gave a sermon that could not be considered scripture so this is not just his opinion or “folk lore”. Either he was a false prophet or he wasn’t. I can’t think of anything more relevant to the conversation at hand.
How about the doctrine I pulled out of the catechism, who would read that and come to the conclusion that our God was a firstborn spirit child such as Jesus on another world? No, it all teaches the circle of infinite exaltation via the covenant of eternal marriage for time and eternity. How is this a diversion in any way from the conversation at hand?
What about Snow’s couplet? I guess that is a diversion as well.
I like Grindael’s response, ” ‘Our god could never sin,’ oh no. But SOME Mormon gods HAD TO SIN or you might as well throw the whole “eternal progression” nonsense out the window. (Which you should) But not in the Mormon Bubble of denial, I guess.” Mormonism is built on a fantastic series of coincidences.
“You were born in Sandy, Utah in our times because you were one of the more valiant spirits in the pre-existence (unlike the rest of humanity)!” “Really? Wow! That is fantastic!”
“Our God was sinless like Jesus before his exaltation, unlike everyone else’s God who was born a SINNER like the rest of Jesus’ near-infinite number of spirit brothers (so stop asking that question)!” “Really? Wow! That is fantastic!”
Convenient answers are the only diversion here.
Uh, nope. Jo himself said that everyone has that power, because we are given it by God. You certainly can’t read or comprehend all the statements in addition to the ones you have tried to manipulate for your own bubble view of Mormonism. Jo said,
You are simply wrong, and living in a bubble of denial. Like making up what Jo never said: His life on an earth was “just like Jesus Christ. But that’s typical of those who can’t understand what Jo said, and try to manipulate it to say something it doesn’t. Jo’s very words prove you wrong. As for Adam-god, it definitely was a “revelation” by one of your “prophets” and shows how off the tracks these men were. You can’t answer it with your Mormon Bubble logic, so you call it a diversion. Nice try. Good luck convincing all the lurkers who actually can comprehend what they read.
Isn’t it just amazing how these Mormons just sort of make up a form of Mormonism they can live with?
They just fill it all up with their own meaning. I get what BY was saying. Obviously over the years the SLC sect of Mormonism got real uncomfortable with their doctrinal heritage. And the bizarre thing is that it’s all just a made up collection of mental meanderings searching for a cogent thought.
These so called prophets make it up, then the next generation dump it; at least that’s the history of the SLC sect.
Why in the world would anyone believe this nonsense especially when today they’ve got access to all the information that exposes it as the nightmare that it is.
Who can account for what people get hooked on and what they do to sustain it?
” ….that is how God the Father is DESCRIBED BY Joseph Smith. ”
This statement by F of F speaks volumes , and in fact it is a reminder of the great dividing line
which exists today for people to consider in order to avoid being misled by false apostles .
Teaching about God : Jesus’ original apostles or the latter days apostles of Mormonism .
There’s a clear choice : either embrace what those who were mentored and influenced by Jesus
to teach in His church about God. Or accept the teachings of Joseph Smith and of those men
who he mentored and influenced in the church he started , what did they say about God ?
It is wise, especially today , to test those who say they are apostles —-Rev 2:2
Let me get this straight. As man is God once was, as God is man may become. This is interesting that Aaron pointed this out that if this were true then God might have sinned if He had a life like we are having now. How do you teach someone good from evil? Send them to some place so they can fend for themselves and let them learn what is good and what is evil? Huh! Sorry got off the subject. Someone should have thought of this a long time ago. It has very stong implications to it but does not take in time factors or how long the process is between living on a planet and Godhood. If it took billions and billions of years for him to ascend to Godhood then the time He spent on a planet like we are living on now was probably a couple of nanoseconds compared to the eternality of His life. Huh! That was probably not a very good comment when you think about eternity. Now what if God lived so long that we could not comprehend how long he has been around so He would have to express himself by just saying to us that He has lived an eternity instead of saying He has been around billions of billions of billions of billions of billions ad nauseum ad infinitium of years. Huh!
Does this really help my salvation? I can see it does by knowing the nature of God. However should I believe in a God who knew we would not stay in the garden. Or should I believe in a God who some say came up with an inferior plan and Jesus was just an after thought. Or a God who has all ready selected those who are going to hell and to heaven. I should probably just go study more.
FoF, as to the couplet, you’ll notice I only used the first part. I intentionally left out the second. “As God is, man may become.”
Hmmmm….. So, we as sinners can still be like God, or is that part gone and therefore untrue.
And, spare a response suggesting that we can become partly like God.
Snow clearly meant the progression of man to include the ability to become gods ourselves. Or, do you want to dispute that?
clyde,
Sorry but I don’t really follow you. Of course I was reading through it pretty fast. But you finished up by writing the following:
“I should probably just go study more.”
What do you intend to study and from what source? Read the NT. It’s plain to me who God is from what is written there. If you’re going to study Mormon prophets and what they said you’re going to remain as confused as your writing indicates you are.
These Mormon prophets were just messing around playing religious games. They’d get an idea, expand upon it, and driven by their own pride, believe what they thought was true. Giving credence to anything they wrote/proclaimed won’t get you any closer to the truth.
Clyde,
<"How do you teach someone good from evil? Send them to some place so they can fend for themselves and let them learn what is good and what is evil? Huh!"
There is a serious problem with the teaching that man must fall to be with God. The problem is that this teaches that God needs evil. He depends on it. He is grateful for it, because without it, he couldn't make more gods. So in a way, evil is good. We need it to learn. Lets all be grateful for Satan, right? Let's all be grateful for Eve obeying Satan. Can you see how this is a problem?
<"However should I believe in a God who knew we would not stay in the garden."
Christian God is all knowing, so I would think He did know that His creation, with free will, would fall.
<"Or should I believe in a God who some say came up with an inferior plan and Jesus was just an after thought."
Who teaches that?
<"Or a God who has all ready selected those who are going to hell and to heaven. I should probably just go study more."
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Clyde, keep em coming ! Though it’s hard to figure out much of what you’re saying most of the
time, still, compared to the rationalizing we get from some Mormons on this site you’re a breath
of fresh air ! I’m glad you’re going to study more . Get to know what the Bible reveals about our
Creator , then measure Mormon apostles teachings by that .
Jaxi
You are wrong. We need to be able to differentiate between good and evil. God all ready knows this. Genesis 3:22 the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.
The last reference was to Calvinism.
Falcon
This topic is very speculative. . As man is God once was, as God is man may become. We can take this in a different direction. Maybe all man has to do is repent and endure to the end with a good knowledge of his savior. What he has done here is never remembered but has been the greatest learning experience God could ever give. I look at it that way.
I plan to study any and everthing.
This is the whole problem with Mormonism, which is the quintessential religion of Pseudepigrapha. But according to Jo and Brigham, it was “eternal life” to KNOW God. Only what they revealed about God was a jumbled mass of confusion that most modern Mormons are savvy enough to stay away from. Go figure. “Prophets” that reveal a message so convoluted that their own followers can’t handle it or make any sense of it, and deny that they believe it or in some instances even taught it. This all reached a crescendo around the turn of the 20th century when the mantra then became… it’s all a mystery.. leave them alone, that it’s all a “theory” and no one can really understand it, while in private they were saying it was “too precious a pearl to cast before swine”.
The fact is, if you read the private journals and minutes of those early “apostles” and “prophets”, you get a whole different picture of what Mormonism really is, just a group of men who tried for years to figure out what the hell Jo Smith was talking about but never really could put their fingers on. So they winged it. Young’s try at “revelation” gave them Adam-god and sank them all into even more confusion. That is why there are no new “revelations”, and Mormons have become today what Mormons loathed in the 19th century, a group of closed canon believers that are run by a corporation and cry, “Speculation, Speculation we need no more Speculation”.
clyde,
If you’re going to study to try and figure Mormonism out, don’t bother. It’s a total waste of time to try and “figure it out”. Sometimes the best thing to do with a knot of fishing line in a reel is just cut the mess up and throw it away. That’s what I’d suggest you do with Mormonism. You’re trying to figure out something that is little more than blue-sky speculation by a bunch of people playing “let’s start a religion”.
All you have to know is that Mormonism indeed is a mess of convoluted speculation. If you want to study something, go and get yourself a good book or two on the early history of the Christian Church. Take a look at the fundamental doctrines of the Church and what the Church Fathers wrote. Compare the Church Fathers’ writing with the absolute drivel that comes from those who fancied themselves “prophets”.
Clyde,
What am I wrong about specifically?
I took this from an answer in another forum because they worded it better than I could.
“From an Orthodox perspective, man was created in communion with God, but with the potential to either come to a deeper relationship with Him or to fall away and die. Since there is no end to how close we can come to God, we can always learn more from Him and attain a greater depth of love for Him.
God did not plant the tree in Eden to tempt Adam and Eve. It was placed there to show them that they had not yet attained a complete and final communion with Him. One day, when they were ready for it, God would have allowed them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They could have learned obedience and humility and gained an even greater level of perfection. Rather than trusting God and growing deeper in their love for Him, they tried to take the quick way to what they saw as perfection, and fell. They received knowledge that they were not prepared for and saw their nakedness and were ashamed. They gained knowledge that only God had previously, and so became like Him in that regard, but lost their dignity and perfection through disobedience. The loss was far greater than the gain.”
Do you see the huge difference? The Mormon God needs evil to teach. So evil is a good thing. Chrisitian God doesn’t need evil. It is an option to anything with free will, but it is not necessry to take part in in order to be with God.
There is a difference between a God that creates a plan that his creation was to take part in wickedness, and a God that plans for his fallen creation because he knew they fall.
@Jaxi,
I told myself I was done posting on here and I will more than likely regret saying anything at all but something you said really bugged me. You said god would have eventually let Adam and Eve eat from the tree of good and evil. What? Do we even know what the tree of knowledge of good and evil really was…no. And if god is the same and never changing, like everyone keeps saying, than why would he first say no and then say yes. I think there is a lot of assuming going on about a lot of things that we arent given information about in the bible.
Cattyjane,
I never said God changes. Just because I am saying that God does things by steps doesn’t mean he changes. He didn’t make man before creating the earth. He didn’t make everything simultaneously. The scriptures say he did things in steps. So I am in no way saying that the nature of God changes because I am saying that he does things in stages. Grant you it is an assumption that God would have eventually have allowed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree. But my point is this… We are to follow God. When we sin we are stepping away from Him. Adam and Eve disobeying God was not what God wanted. There is no joy in disobeying God. But just because we fall doesn’t mean that God isn’t prepared to redeem us, as long as we accept that gift of redemption. The point is Mormonism teaches that God secretly wanted man to disobey him. Christianity teaches that we went against God, but he loves us still, and is still reaching out to us.
Jaxi,
So if god does things in stages, and god does not tempt man to sin or want him to sin then why would he plant a tree [assuming its an actual tree] that was forbidden to be eaten from, forknowing that man would not resist the temptation to indulge in disobediance. What purpose does this serve? And how does that fit into god does not tempt man to sin. The only way that would work is if god did not put that tree in the garden and satan did instead. Another possibility would be if it wasnt really a tree at all and its all symbolic of something we dont know. But by saying this I start assuming things that are not specified in the bible.
Grindael,
You need to read the King Follett discourse.
I provided 3 direct quotations from that discourse which I itemized above.
Here is the first quotatation again: “God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”
Here are the other two since you might have missed those as well:
2. “What did Jesus say? Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”
3. “What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before.”
So, if you want to claim that we believe God sinned, or that our doctrine suggests such a thing, you must explain how that could possibly be reconciled with these three statements from Joseph Smith. After all, this is the sermon from which the doctrine originated. But you guys seem to want to take Joseph Smith out of context.
God never sinned. And our doctrine does not allow that possilibity.
Cattyjane,
It’s about choice and freewill. I honestly don’t know how allegorical the story of Adam and Eve is. I’m not sure I believe Satan was literally a talking snake. But there is something important in how the story is told. There is something crucial for our understanding of who God is and who we are and why we are in the situation that we are in. What is taught is that man chose to rebel against God. Man turned away and Christ our Savior, God Incarnate, turns us back to God. He makes us right with God. These are Christian basics. I’m really not sure why you don’t understand that God lovingly created us with freewill. He’s not out making robots. Why do we keep having this conversation? I feel like I am constantly on auto repeat.
Catty,
When it comes to answering your question we can only speculate. My Personal opinion is that God put that tree there for the specific purpose of allowing us to go against his will if we wanted to. He didn’t do it because he wanted Adam to sin. God is clear that he does not want us to sin, does not want us to perish, and does not want us to be separated from him. He also makes it clear that coming to him, obeying him, and loving him, is a choice. It can’t be a choice if there is only one option. That is just my personal opinion tho. Scripture doesn’t tell us why the tree was there.
If God eliminated everything that would tempt us to sin, then he would have necessarily eliminated free will.
FoF, Grindael has already answered your challenge and it has already been pointed out that you are taking a divide and conquer approach by twisting only one thing rather than looking at more than one thing at a time. You certainly argue like an apologist.
FoF, none of that says anything about God sinning. That God and the Son may have lived the same way while on earth does not preclude the possibility of them sinning.
MJP,
Sure it does.
Christ was sinless. Only a sinless lamb could pay the price of sin and rescue mankind from sin and death. And Joseph Smith very clearly stated that Jesus Christ’s life was modeled after the life of His Father.
Do you think it is possible for a person to “lay down his or her life and take it up again?” Who else but Christ has done that? Nobody.
And Joseph Smith said that the Father had that power in His life.
Mistaken Testimony,
What am I not addressing? What am I “dividing?”
If a person accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet and as the basis for the doctrine of the Father having lived on an earth, he or she would also need to accept the sermon in which Joseph described that doctrine. And the King Follett discourse teaches things that clearly preclude the Father having been a sinner.
Do you really not see that?
FOF,
What I see is that the Mormon Jesus and HF are the exceptions to the rule in the Mormon pantheon of gods.
How come they catch a break?
You obviously were not valiant in the Mormon pre-existence or something because my guess is that you are a sinner as are all the men who attend you local stake. You guys have a tougher go of it than the Mormon Jesus and HF. Actually you’ve got more of a challenge in becoming a god than they did.
Can’t you see that this whole Mormon religious system is a sham? Man-made nonsense. Given the number of Mormon sects that are out there, the so called restored gospel is an idea that has long ago spun out of control.
Brigham Young had his own form of Mormonism which is followed today by the FLDS. I don’t think you SLC bunch can claim him and not follow what he taught.
But consistency is not a major feature of your brand of Mormonism.
FoF, This is what you are “dividing”,
You are focusing on your interpretation of one sermon from the first LDS prophet, and yet you are not addressing any of his false prophecies of other sermons which when looked at ALONG SIDE this one sermon you attempt to stay focused on shows him to be a false prophet. You also refuse to discuss how the second LDS prophet taught that God was Adam, a sinner, which if you looked at this ALONG SIDE this one sermon you attempt to focus on shows both these men to be false prophets. You also continue to argue for your understanding of this one sermon while rejecting Grindael’s responce, which if you looked at this ALONG SIDE everything else discussed above which you refuse to address because it is not the only thing you want to twist… well you get my point. Etc. once again I say, “you are taking a divide and conquer approach by twisting only one thing rather than looking at more than one thing at a time.”
Do you really not see that?
Whether Joseph or Brigham were false prophets is beside the point. The issue is what it is that our doctrine maintains. The question is- what is our doctrine.
And for the answer, it is important to focus on a particular doctrine and its history. Do we believe Adam is our Eternal Father? No. We clearly do not. I see no reason to even argue about that.
Do we believe God was once an inhabitant of an earth like ours? Yes. Where did that doctrine come from? Ultimately, it came from Joseph Smith. What do we know about that concept? The most information about it came from Joseph Smith. The Snow couplet and other statements from prophets were much less explicit in details. They were mere illusions to this doctrine without any further explanations and essentially no details.
It really appears that the critics want to limit the information to the more vague statements from leaders of the church and ignore the statements with the most amount of detail from Joseph Smith. And while ignoring those statements of Joseph Smith, the critics (and admittedly some members) take a completely different line of reasoning based on their own assumptions, definitions, and bias. And one really has to wonder why it is that they refuse to include the full content of the King Follett discourse in their arguments and reasoning and insist on making a consistent series of assumptions that all lead to something that they feel will give them the most ammunition to criticize the church.
And you also mention Grindael’s response to me about the King Follett discourse. Sorry, but his responses really don’t deal with the issues I bring up. His is a simply a weak argument that ignores many important statements from Joseph Smith. And he is claiming that the quotations I provided from the King Follett discourse are not in the King Follett discourse. And they most certainly are. I am not sure why he is making that claim.
FOF,
So Joseph Smith is your go-to guy?
And his authority is based on what? Is this what a magic rock will do for a person when he gets done roaming the countryside at night with his friends looking for buried treasure?
If you’re going to sign-on to a false prophet I may be able to suggest some to you that won’t end up costing you a lot of time, money, effort and in the end your salvation.
Man I can’t figure out why you can’t see through this bogus outfit and their founder.
falcon,
I understand what your opinion is of Joseph Smith. And I am not surprised that you think I am wrong in believing he was a prophet of God. But I don’t think that is the point or debate of this thread.
The question is what is our doctrine. And my argument is that anybody who suggests that our doctrine allows for God to have been a sinner is uninformed with the doctrine.
Thanks.
By who’s word? Yours? You see folks, this is the problem with Mormonism. They have a dilemma on their hands but instead of addressing it directly we get all kinds of obfuscation, denial and claims of ignorance. (that we “don’t know” or are “uninformed”.)
The fact that we can sit here and quote documents that most of these Mormons have never read in their lives doesn’t faze them, we are still “uninformed”, because we don’t believe what they tell us is the “real” doctrine that their “prophets” have taught as “scripture” and “revelation”.
This whole subject of what Brigham Young taught as “scripture” and “revelation” – that Adam was God the Father, and that Jesus didn’t have the power to resurrect himself is just ignored by most of today’s Mormons. Why? Because they can’t face the truth.
Here is the truth. Young taught it (Adam-god) and another “prophet”, Spencer W. Kimball taught it was false doctrine:
You see here folks that Kimball couldn’t be honest, he said “alleged to have been taught”. There is no “allege” about it, you just read it in plain English above. So what do we have? It would be like the Apostle Peter teaching the Gnostic Heresy that Jesus really didn’t come in the flesh, the whole church hierarchy believing it, and then having another apostle like Paul (after Peter died) saying that those who believe that Jesus didn’t come in the flesh are teaching false doctrine, but not condemn Peter (or any of the other apostles who taught it) for doing so.
The truth is so blatantly obvious that to not believe that Young taught that Adam was God the Father of Spirits is to willfully choose to ignore it.
The fact that the Mormon God was a sinner (affirmed by at least one of their “prophets”)just doesn’t matter to them because they say it isn’t doctrine, when that very “prophet” said it was. So who do we believe?
We must believe the current “prophet” because he can trump the dead one. This makes no logical sense at all. They will use a straw man argument with this, by claiming that the dead “prophets” don’t live in today’s world, but that makes little sense because we are not talking about procedures, etc. we are speaking of the very nature of who God is.
The fact is, Brigham Young’s God is an entirely different God than the one Thomas Monson claims to get his “revelation” from. How in the world does that work? They have no answers for this, other than to ignore it or try to explain it away as a “theory” and have the very words of Brigham Young say something they do not. (This is the entire mission of FAIR, FARMS, The Maxwell Institute, etc.) Marion G. Romney once said,
So according to this, Brigham Young said on October 8, 1854 “what the Lord would say if he were here”. For some reason, the Mormon God wanted it to be known that he was Adam. Then, a hundred years later, Spencer W. Kimball got up and the Lord told him that he wanted it to be known that he wasn’t Adam anymore.
It’s as simple as that. You can come up with any reasoning you like to explain this Mormons, but the most likely explanation is that these men are not who they say they are: Prophets of the Christian God.
And since the doctrine that God is a man is not in the Mormon Scriptures, FOF is not abiding by the counsel of one of his “prophets”. You were warned, FOF! Why do you keep doing it? I guess it’s like all the other dead Mormon “prophets”.
Who really cares what they taught or counseled? Compare what the Lord told Orson F. Whitney to say,
Here, Whitney taught (in his apostolic office) that every Mormon would someday become an “Adam & Eve” to a future planet! To this dribble from the Mormon “Newsroom”:
This is how Mormons now perceive their own “apostles”. As “speculators”. Why should anyone take ANYTHING they say seriously? For all we know it is ALL SPECULATION. Scripture is scripture, because it was Voted on Speculation. These guys today claim they are “just like” those old “prophets” from the unprovable Book of Mormon, the ones that raised the dead, struck enemies dumb, predicted the future with amazing detail and all kinds of other miraculous events. Where is all that today? Nowhere to be found. I did, however find this interesting article about how Thomas Monson doesn’t display any of the “fruits” of his “calling” as a “prophet, seer & revelator”. Enjoy. http://zomarah.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/thomas-s-monson-a-seer-a-revelator-a-translator-and-a-prophet/
FOF,
Grindael made my point right at the beginning of his above post. That point is, if the prophet is a phoney than what he taught is bogus.
We don’t have to go any further than Joseph Smith. We don’t even have to go to Brigham Young although he’s the most comical of the bunch.
False prophets produce false doctrines. In the case of Mormonism it’s a false god also.
It’s plain, the Mormon god and Jesus were both sinners because the Mormon system makes no allowance for or preference for anyone.
FOF,
So who made the decision that the Mormon HF and Jesus would be sinless? Was it the council of the gods that chose the Mormon Jesus to come to earth; or isn’t that “doctrine” operational any more.
See there’s your problem. The yarn just gets spun and spun with more “interesting” elements all of the time. When we get to the second, third, fourth level of questioning, the Mormon system becomes more convoluted and nonsensical.
And, my friend, it’s not a matter of being super spiritual with an ability to “understand” these plain and precious truths. These things are neither plain, precious or true.
I haven’t had much time to post in recent weeks due to family problems but I do read what’s going on when I get the chance. I checked the link that Grindael provided & it made a fascinating read & although I’m straying from the topic there’s a couple of points I would like to raise concerning that article before I have to head south again.
Whilst inevitably agreeing with the author’s conclusions about Pres. Monson the article is a perfect example of the LDS propensity for circular reasoning. I’ve been attacked in the past for daring to say such a terrible thing but nevertheless it’s a common trait among LDS members, it’s something they fall back on when Scripture does not support their claims. The claims made by the author about Joseph Smith are perfect examples of what I’m talking about; for example, early in the article he says this & I quote
“First before, going into detail, I would like to define some terms. We as Latter-day Saints often throw around the terms, prophet, revelation, prophecy, etc. But what do they really mean. The best way to define them is by looking in the scriptures. The Word of God holds the key to knowing what these things really mean.”
He then quotes from D&C 107:92
“Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.”
The above quote from D&C was of course written by Joseph Smith & for me it doesn’t get much more circular than that. Call it what you will, self fulfilling prophecy or circular reasoning, it all adds up to the same thing, there is NO way of proving that Joseph Smith was a prophet outside of his own claims to be one.
Getting back to Pres. Monson & the fact that he has made no prophecies & received no revelations, perhaps that’s just as well. When we take a close look at Joseph Smiths prophetic abilities we find that he had exactly NONE. It’s glaringly obvious that he fits the scriptural definition of a false prophet & only someone who doesn’t want to know the truth would take anything he said at face value. It’s my opinion that Pres. Monson, knows this to be the case & in this age of instant communication he doesn’t want to be seen as having no prophetic abilities & the same could probably be said of his predecessors. He probably thinks that it’s better to say nothing & to just accept the title rather than take the risk of being found out that he’s no closer to God than any back street medium looking into a crystal ball. (seer stone)
I have to find this entire thread rather humorous. A point was made about God, and that point was very easily refuted by FoF in quoting the King Follett Discourse. Now people are trying to claim that it wasn’t refuted because the discourse was given by Joseph Smith. Of course we can’t listen to him because non-LDS don’t think he was a prophet, so he is not a good source to clarify the doctrine that he taught.
Are you kidding me? Are you going to claim that Muhammad is not the appropriate source when determining Islamic doctrine? That would be like a Jew telling you that you can’t use the words of Christ to explain Christian doctrine, since the Jews do accept him. Talk about diversions.
As to the power to lay down ones life, Joseph Smith was referring to John 10: 17-18
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”
No man had the power to kill Christ. Even when he was hanging on the cross the power of life and death was still in him, and he did not die until he choose to. Then, three days later, he took his life again, and resurrected himself. This power is unique to Christ among all the inhabitants of this world, and is the very power that Joseph Smith declares was possessed by the Father.
Catty
Honestly, we do know why the tree of knowledge was placed in the Garden. The entire purpose of the Fall, and God’s plan behind it, is explained nicely in the Book of Mormon. I don’t want to discuss it here, as it is kind of out of place, but you can visit my blog here http://shematwater.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/the-fall-of-man/ if you wish.