Serg

There is the same commitment in exmormons to tell the TRUTH to their still mormon brethren, just as mormons have it to convince christians how apostate they are.

Good question. Im sure that the record would show that he got them at the same time as his brethren in the endowment room over the Newel K. Whitney store. They made a makeshift endowment house for the purposes of giving out the first endowments. Look at it the same way that Joseph became an Elder. He ordained Sidney Rigdon, and then Rigdon ordained him. "God" had already given him that authority, but the formality of it was needed to begin. Pretty easy to understand if you look at it like that. While he may have used the endowment room in the NKW store, its very likely he just did it out in the open somewhere. During the heavy persecution days in pre-manifesto Utah, many General Authorities sealed men to plural wives in secret. One story goes that a man was sealed to his new wife while riding in a carriage! It's the authority that counts, not the place. For another example of authority over location, the early Utah Mormons used the top of Ensign peak (which isn't much of a peak if you ask me, but that's another story) to perform temple ceremonies, more especially the prayer circle. They did this in fact all during their trek westward from Nauvoo. Found a nice hill somewhere, and used it for a make-shift temple. Historical precedent is where Im going here Serg. It's not unthinkable. This question is answered already. Where is the NKW store (likely). When is already known. Excuse me now while I go throw-up for being so pro-lds...... Yes go and throw up! It is lies, lies and lies. The same Lord that prohibited Smith in D&C to baptize people for the dead in rivers also was allowing sealings and endowments(a thing most important-or sacred) in masonic lodges and "stores" or hills. Please! Truly our God contradicts Himself! Why am I still lds? ...oh, yes, because of the trinity concept.

It's a simple concept; seems like a lot of whining over nothing... Yes, to those who are on the side of Power, lol.

That is not good history.

When you enter a contest in which you have to pay an admission, let it be sports, arts or gameshow(which is free), you are not gambling. Cause you are in to prove a skill to win something, in the casino, we may argue that cards are a skill(and indeed are), but it invloves a vice, a conduct of trying to win as much as you can without putting the equal effort, if the Church officials tell you that it is wrong, dont listen to them. It is not wrong. At any case, Hinckley gambled his life while going to war to fight (obviously) against his will for satanic porpuses(USA's), anyways, I would have said just as Joseph Smith concerning that issue, "Never as long as i live, will I submit humbly to the damn government of the ,masses"(my translation)(discourse delivered at navoo prior to his arrest and further death).

While reading, i encountered something unusual but very ignored. I'll introduce this thread asking questions(is more fun): Where did Joseph get his endowments? Where did Joseph got sealed for time and eternity to his more that 25 spouses? Where and when did Joseph introduce and took to effect the endowments and sealings of most early apostles? Well, most people i know from my ward(to whom i NEVER talk of such things), may say "at Kirtland" and others may say "at Navoo".LOL. In fact let's try such claims: a) Kirtland; It is nonsense, for the ceremony of endowments was first introduced after 1842 a time at which they had left already Kirtland, plus, "The Church Restored" explains that the Kirtland Temple "was never intended' to be a regular modern temple to effectuate ordenances, but a holy place of gathering. In fact, Kirtland had none of the rooms in which we now celebrate such ordenances, but was one of the many type of evangelical churches. b)Navoo could have not been the place either. That temple was finished in 1846 two years after Smith had received his endowments(and most leaders), and almost a decade since Smith had began taking plural wives, and "sealed them" to him. Interesting though, that these ordenances are yet recorded in the Church records, but were effectuated in a masonic lodge at navoo. There all of our leaders had their ordenances and marriages. Now, what would you think if i even suggested we could have our endowments in a masonic lodge? or for that manner in any other church building? Why did they do it in the Lodge and not in a chapel? wow...deep. Just to see. Regards,

If your's is an honest question, yes I am. But, not because of the Action(per sé) but because of the LOGIC of such. There is absolutely NO logical need(at least from a balanced lds mind) to hide such conversations. ...anyways, i am not angry at any of you, it is just a feeling of angry against the whole mind structure most people her egot, anyways, thanks, keep up the good work regards,

Yup, also the reasons for which i dont believe in most of our Church i wont put here in this forum, but yes, too much confusing and alerting stuff

I believe Graham is one fellow to admire

With out access to that forum, all posts in that forum will be invisable. It's a safety procaution to keep members from being exposed to things they may not wish to be exposed to. Even though it's your posts, if you are not a member of that forum, you will not see the posts. That is unacceptable! How does our administrator chooses "what" is exactly what people lds dont want to be exposed to? True History? It is not good nor fair for lds people to be "protected" against their own will, how does "person #1" know that (for example) my topic would be one of those to which he hoped "not to be exposed" when in fact, he has not seen it!? Thank you, i never noticed such politics, indeed, when 10 months ago, in very alarming threads(including Jason's) people were "exposed" to such topics and nothing like this was done, why not better erase it?! At these moments, i am greatful Soulsearcher, that you are yet a part of this Church....oh. Regards,

why dont i see my posts in my profile then?

I just dont find it within my "Topics" in my profile, nah, Ill get to it, thanks. In fact, nor even the posts of it do i find in my profile. Is it that the administrator commited a mistake? I hope so, and i believe so. Weird though.

I just posted some days ago a Thread concerning the Poligamy revelation and it just suddenly disappeared, well, did the thread became a Threat? Cant the brethren here take facts as men? Or at least, as "even as i am"(said Jesus in the BoM? Are YOU being SUCH men? Do you visualize Jesus running away from 'false" acusations" or facing facts? Thats all, thank you, Regards

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that Jesus banned the gospel from being preached to the Gentiles??? He sometimes told the disciples "not yet," but never intimated a ban. Furthermore, to suggest that Jesus banned the gospel to the Gentiles, and then to say that "of course the prophets are fallible" may be read as "Jesus was a prophet who, of course, was fallible." Is this what you mean? One subtle disagreement I might have, even if I were LDS--I do not believe all actions of prophets--even God's prophets--are "approved." God did not tell Abraham to lie about his wife, nor do I see approval. Yes indeed. And what most of lds brethren dont get, is that we CAN NOT always justify prophets, they commit errors(a lot) just like us. In fact, Apostleknight or Ray might believe me an apostate(which thing I am sure they do not, but as supposing), but no one here dares to defend Brigham's assertion on poligamy while saying "I am above the law, and this people here also", obviously now with Hinckley we say "no, we respect the law", well, who was right? Hinckley or Young? Of course, Hinckley. But no, one cant dare to suggest the mistake leaders make in the Church, because they quickly believe we are falling away or being apostates. Regards, Wow, you know more than prophets, huh? I personally believe the priesthood ban was necessary to keep the fledgling church afloat until it got to Utah. I think the reasoning about blacks' worthiness in the pre-existence is rubbish...that doesn't mean the policy was rubbish. Yeah, let's see what would've happened to a church in Missouri that had black clergy presiding over white members in the mid 1800's... Anyone who does a little reading will find that Joseph Smith ordained two black men Elders (the melchizedek priesthood!) and sent them on missions. Anyone who has problems with the priesthood ban might as well criticize Christ for the gospel ban of the Gentiles. Sure it was later "repealed," but so was the priesthood ban. Of course prophets are fallible...but unless God removes them from their calling, He approves of their actions in that office. God has said He will never let a prophet lead His church astray. Cut 'em some slack Serg, remember what happened to Miriam and Aaron when they murmured against Moses. :) Heaven forfend that we take our lead from God's anointed! If I have to choose between a prophet called of God to be His mouthpiece to the world, and Serg, I'm sorry but I'm going with the prophet. :) So when you say "serious lds people," you must mean people who think like you do. Because I'm a serious "lds person" and I find I disagree with you about many an issue. Step down off the pedestal Serg, the rest of us aren't covered in too much mud. One other suggestion...slow down when you type your messages...your meaning frequently eludes me due to typos, accidental truncations and sundry grammatical anomalies. Thanks. :) The priesthood ban was not necessary, but a lateral desicion without consulting God. proof is, that Joseph ordained Elijah Abel, who was right, Smith or Young? Cause Young didnt let Elijah get sealed to his wife, whereas Smith gave him permission, oh, you cant get it right always while trying to justify wrong desicions. "Serious lds" is people who read, who study and mostly apologists in this respect, it was just a figure of speech. No , I would never run for prophet. In fact, polygamy was a revelation directly adreessed to Emma, to persuade her to admit Smith's intention(or established practice) of polygamy, if for such an event(that NOW we consider as not essential to salvation-hence-present-meaningless) how much more did we need a revelation cocnerning the priesthood ban!? But guess what? There is none. But a fatal desicion made by Young, in constant opposition to Smith's.

Wow, you know more than prophets, huh? I personally believe the priesthood ban was necessary to keep the fledgling church afloat until it got to Utah. I think the reasoning about blacks' worthiness in the pre-existence is rubbish...that doesn't mean the policy was rubbish. Yeah, let's see what would've happened to a church in Missouri that had black clergy presiding over white members in the mid 1800's... Anyone who does a little reading will find that Joseph Smith ordained two black men Elders (the melchizedek priesthood!) and sent them on missions. Anyone who has problems with the priesthood ban might as well criticize Christ for the gospel ban of the Gentiles. Sure it was later "repealed," but so was the priesthood ban. Of course prophets are fallible...but unless God removes them from their calling, He approves of their actions in that office. God has said He will never let a prophet lead His church astray. Cut 'em some slack Serg, remember what happened to Miriam and Aaron when they murmured against Moses. :) Heaven forfend that we take our lead from God's anointed! If I have to choose between a prophet called of God to be His mouthpiece to the world, and Serg, I'm sorry but I'm going with the prophet. :) So when you say "serious lds people," you must mean people who think like you do. Because I'm a serious "lds person" and I find I disagree with you about many an issue. Step down off the pedestal Serg, the rest of us aren't covered in too much mud. One other suggestion...slow down when you type your messages...your meaning frequently eludes me due to typos, accidental truncations and sundry grammatical anomalies. Thanks. :) The priesthood ban was not necessary, but a lateral desicion without consulting God. proof is, that Joseph ordained Elijah Abel, who was right, Smith or Young? Cause Young didnt let Elijah get sealed to his wife, whereas Smith gave him permission, oh, you cant get it right always while trying to justify wrong desicions. "Serious lds" is people who read, who study and mostly apologists in this respect, it was just a figure of speech. No , I would never run for prophet.

Interesting reason Serg. So you believe that most of Mormon dogma is baloney, but because you like the doctrine of the godhead, you will stay LDS? So, let me ask you (sorry to derail this thread again Traveller) what about the Holy Ghost? You stated that the LDS godhead theory was "well constructed," but how does the requirement to be a god as outlined in D&C 131 & 132, which includes the necessity of taking on a body of flesh and being sealed for all eternity fit in with the idea that a spirit personage, who has never had a body nor been married, get to be a god equal with the Father and the Son? I mean, if you just like the christology of the godhead doctrine, then why not be a Jehovah's Witness? I wouldn't say "damnable". Maybe dumb, but not damable. B) No, maybe Im not being clear. I do not think that "most" lds dogma is "baloney", yes, a lot of it is, but "dogma" is the "human" manifestation of faith , so most of it I consider resultant of Joseph's and most prophets' attempts to introduce teir OWN points of view(very far from God's), at the very core of this, lies the most blatant and obvious, the priesthood ban That is th ebest proof for falliable prophets in this Church. Also is wrong for the Church to try hide things as it has, but I consider the many(most) things in respect of doctrine, pretty sound and true. The priesthood, th etemple ceremonies, the concept of a "Leader', the obvious event of christian apostasy(although I dont agree that it was a "complete" one), the Godhead, etc... No, our doctrine of the Godhead has nothing in common with the Jehova Witnesses, they lessen Christ, and attribute no divinity at all to him. Ours in the contrary sustains that The Godhead is Eternal, and that Elohim , Jehova and the Holy Ghost have always been "God", of course , there's the clasic mormons who believe in a succesion of Gods from eternity and defend it, but is not completele true or even NEAR scriptural truth. Scriptures(Lds) teach of an Eternal Godhead(look: not eternal Elohim, but Godhead-the Three), who(three) deserve reverence, admiration and worship. The concept of the "necessary body" is a reflection based on the present requirement to US for exaltation. This is, We have been told, that Elohim as a Father, wants us to be like Him(thi sdoes not invlove that we will be more Supreme than He is) and in that manner we should "get" a "body". Truth is, that the requirement for a body in order to achieve exaltation has been given to US alone. This (speaking of SCRIPTURE) does not apply to the Holy Ghost or Jesus, because they were already Gods before ever havingt a body(in Christ's case). The Holy Ghost is NOT going to have a "body" sometime, and it is not a "mistery" we should leave to doubt, the Spirit is an essential part of the Godhead, and is God by Himself, is a Creator and Preserver(more that a 'testator" -the usual work-name) and is who lives inside every being full of God's goodness(even inside Elohim and Christ-for hey are One), not that they do not have separate "bodies" but that even so, the power and presence of the Holy Ghost lies inside everything and every one. Just as Jesus said the Spirit was inside of Him too-"by the finger of God do i do these things" , etc... So we encounter that most of common lds theology among members is biased and based on non official statememts and conclusions of prophets who (indeed) are falliable. Scriptures show us a Mormon God and members give us another. Is just like the case for th epriesthood ban, while serious lds people accept it was a wrong desicion and a stupid act by those as Brigham Young who committed it, it is yet heard among people the same 100 years old excuses and explanations concerning "unworthiness" in the preexistance, etc...Things which the Scripture say are not true but people just repet them as they heard them. The same with our Godhead, who said that a "God"(reffering to any God) or to refrase it, that "Deity" required a body? Not scriptures, certainly they say : " The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Now this plainly says that clearly, Elohim is a God and has a Body , the Son is a God and has a Body and the Holy Ghost is a God and has no body at all, it does not say that it matters that the holy ghost has no body, in fact, it asserts that even so, is yet a God. Also Scriptures say that : IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of emarriage]; This is clear, within the highest order of God, Deity itself, a MAN must enter marriage(hence have a body), but it makes it not stressed the fact of having a body, is agiven fact if we are talking of MEN who must enter heaven. See, it doesnt say "any being" but "Man". It does not reffer to the Godheadm which is already Deity. Scripture says: "For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world." In this He says that such Ordenance is a requirement for everyone who is to have a blessing(deity) from His hands. Such law instituted by Him befor e the world was, concerning US. Certainly He didnt enter into marriage(in case He did) if the blessing he persued came from the hands of Himself, but of Another. In whicg case we would have to contend if Scriptures allow the possibility for Gods predating Elohim, Jehova and the Holy Ghost, which in fact, they dont. Also: For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed. This states that there is no "greater concivable Being" besides the Godhead, hence even he was(or is) not subject to His laws in respect to punishment, but of nature. The fact that th epresence of the Holy Ghost as a God without body is necessary is shown in section 76 where it says : These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;. If the Holy Spirit were to obtain a Body at some point, then the Godhead would be incomplete, for there's the NEED for a noncorporeal Entity within the Godhead, who could ministrate to every corner of the Universe through the gods and angels, and yet live within them all. So the "well constructed' theology of ours, is seen when we take off the mythic parts of our mormon heritage, and are critics, indeed, a work i am reading yet, is Blake Ostler's book "Exploring Mormon Thought; The attributes of God" an amazing attempt and success at harmonizing our true views if God(as Scriptures proclaim) and the also orthodox God of Christians, in fact, the book(515pages) does not try to make our God seem more orthodox but to compare it to the orthodox one and make a ponit concerning which aspects of the orthodoxy we do(or should) also attribute to OUR God, and which sadly are just nonsense. It also deals with the infinity process, the chain of "gods" mormons believe we should believe, and so on. Buy it jason, you'll enjoy it.

I studied New Testament Greek in seminary for two years, through which God taught me great humility. The first year we learned all the rules. The second year we learned many of the exceptions to the rules. I very much doubt that the word for God's "foreknowledge," necessarily, or always, in any context, indicate intimate marital-like 'knowing.' As a simple example: 1. I love icecream! 2. I really like you, honey. Which one do I care more of. Now, the dictionary will clearly indicate that "love" is of a greater degree than "like." Yet, I care more for my honey than I do icecream. Likewise, God's foreknowledge of us in one case, and Adam's 'knowledge' of Eve in another, would not necessarily indicate the same type of relationship, even if the Hebrew word were the same. It is interesting that you found a couple of sects that teach preexistence, but I hope you are not trying to create the impression that such doctrine is widespread, or largely accepted in the Christian world. It's not. I would be truly amazed if the # of Christians who believe in the preexistence of human spirits would even register (i.e. would be greater than 0.5% of the 2 billion adherents in the world). Oh, but Ever incrising Faith Ministries is not a "sect", but an evangelical church, which by the way is accepted by the protestant comunity as it has over 30 years of ministry. Is just that fellow christians when they here these (their) brethren teach this, they take it with carefulness and mostly ignore it. But is there baby, is there Dont worry, i know biblical sistematic theology, and I know that "preexistance" "cannot" be attributed to mortals, couse in fact, is one of the best "proofs" of Christ's deity while contending with arrianism, and as it was used there in respect of Jesus, it follows that if we attribute it to others as well, then, no case for Christ's divinity in this aspect, and the battle against the Jehova Witnesses would be lost, in that respect.

Anyone who bites on this worm deserves the hook in their gills. :) Note: worm doesn't refer to Jason, but to his baited question If it is a "hook" then why are you still LDS? Seriously, if the BOM is, in fact, a true, historical record of some native american tribe or tribes that have yet to be discovered, then why should that "fact" alone mean that anything Joseph Smith ever said or did become "true"? (Off subject: I'll be honest here, I'd have an easier time believe the BOM were true than I would the Doctrine and Covenants. Those "revelations" are words of convenience if I ever read any.) Well, it is a hook(the question), for we know that most of our theology is not contained there. Even so, if you ask me why am I still in the Lds church, well, after a WHILE studying and thinking concerning each bielief and comparison to general christianity, although a lot is circumstancial, and a lot is plainly not from God, there is something that lingers in my heart and mind, and that is the doctrine of the Deity. No other christian Church has our concept of God, so coherent, so philosophically well constructed, that, as it also makes sense with the Bible more than what christian themselves really believe, I think is worth the try. I condemn that people conform themselves in their quest for Truth to the mere "burning" in the bossom, such a thing is damnable. But, as the Lord has said, the heart is more perverse than all things, who shall know it?, truly He touches our heart in order to "impress" us, but it is the mind journey, the study effort, the logical and truthfuls factors which shuld give us a testimony. I tell you, if it were not because of the doctrine we hold in respect of Christology I would not be here, cause my "testimony" of the Church(the burning in de bossom) is there cocnerning few things alone, but my mind, my mind is in every respect of what Smith taught concerning Christology, but you really want to know? I do not have a testimony of the Leaders, I do not have a testimony of the Prophets, I do not have a testimony of so many things that i find here incoherent, but the Idea of God as i find it here, and the peace of mind in that respect, is overwhelming. So the expression of "hook" here is well used, but it doesnt involve that we cant ackowledge falsehoods in our beloved prophets, for indeed they contained such, but that although some things do not(or DID not) go well, th eVITAL thing here, does work and DID work well.

Ok, thanks Ray.

Indeed Ray. But you seem to be struggling in something. 1) Intelligence has never been defined by scriptures as to let us KNOW exactly what it is. The scripture that ONLY mentions it calls it also "light of truth". The "Light of Christ" is indeed part of such intelligences(uncreated) but is certanely NOT a person. Joseph Fielding Smith in his works "Answers to gospel questions" in respect of "intelligences" said that we yet know nothing exact about them, the guide for study of scriptures says that it may very well reffer to "the(already) individuals(personalities) Abraham saw in preexistance" OR the "spiritual matter from which we are ALL created or organized" before birth here on earth. So we have to births, the first in Heaven(which process we dont know-some say is sexual-Mother and father) and our birth here. All, ALL, leaders from the very beginning of the Restoration have preached that we once were "spiritual babies" in the preexistance and by a process became 'grown ups". At the moment of our earthy birth we were already adults, intelligents, and some powerful indeed, and as Orson Pratt taught, the process by which adult spirits are "compressed' into tiny bodies make the work for the "veil" to weaken our memories, etc... 2) The phrase "from eternity to eternity" in describing Elohim's existance, in both leaders words and manuals(!) say that it does not mean that He(or us) existed in a personal way from always, BUT that He went(just as us) from one eternity(preexistance) to mortal life to then again eternal life. So it is more of a process definition rather that of nature of being. 3)In that sense, you have to admit two things: a)That is rather impossible for us in light of so much doctrine on it, that we were all(gods, angels, demons) existant form eternity as persons, and we just "popped" out of nowhere and began to co-exist. There was a "relative" beginning to each of us, although the escence of which we are made is as eternal as that of God. b)That if(as so many others say), there is an eternal chain of Rulling Entities, then, when I get there, I will say "hi" to one, then "hi" to Elohim, then "hi" to His Father, then "hi" to His Father's Father, then so on and on, and eternally I would spend my eternity saying hi to people that(as they havce NO creator or "first")will never end to appear before me, in which case, Neithr Elohim nor I will ever get to know them All, for if Elohim or I could get to know personally ALL the gods in the time line, that would include a last one(being he the First) in whic case we would have the True iniciator, the true First Cause, but if we dont, as we teach, is simply out of our knowledge. No worries, is just reason.

There never was a first man, because men have always been, just as there never was a first god, because gods have always been. But was there ever a first man on this Earth? Yes, named Adam. I’d like to see that quote from Orson Pratt, without someone else’s interpretation, because in reality there is a true God and we can define Him as we know Him by our rational senses with inspiration from Him. Yes. Everything Joseph said in that quote is true. What problem do you have with it? Heh, the person who wrote these words simply failed to understand “Mormonism”, or perhaps he or she simply didn’t understand that not all things have a beginning. More evidence of the fact that this person is limited in his or her knowledge of God and our nature and religion. And to try to say this simply, nothing is bigger or better than God, whether God is a Father or a Son. Good going to this point, Serg. There is nothing wrong with your statements just quoted. All good to this point, except for what I think you are stating in saying that matter is out of God’s control, because God does in fact control matter. Pretty much everything you said in this statement is true too, except for your idea that there was a time before there was Elohim, or that other beings existed before Him… because Elohim has always been. Since you seem to have some misunderstandings of our doctrine, please specify what is actually being taught. Please rephrase this statement. It’s too garbled for me to translate it perfectly. The first cause of what? And btw, please don’t mention anything you have seen in the temple with outsiders again. Again, the first cause of what? Again, the first cause of what? There is no first cause to God, or Man, because we have always been… although there was a first God and Man on this Earth, and I'm sure you know whose those were. Again, the first cause of what? Please see my comments above, while seeking further light and truth from God. We go out together every Friday night, and I always help around the house. And yes, I know, when I ask her for a cake, she'll bake it very happily because I asked. And my wife is an excellent baker. :) ... but I also want you guys to give me a cake, for my going away present, before parting. Thanks a lot Ray for agreeing to reason with me. As to your answers: 1)"Okay, one more time, Serg, since I know you won’t be satisfied with what I’ve already told you." -Indeed i was already "pleased" with it, but definitively more pleased with the long one 2) "There never was a first man, because men have always been, just as there never was a first god, because gods have always been. But was there ever a first man on this Earth? Yes, named Adam." -Here you are accepting our belief in multiple Rulling Entities,(called gods), and we attribute them "eternnity" of existence. But, the point of this antimormon propaganda goes more deeply my friend. First of all let me define the "First cause" as evangelicals and most christians define it, It is the CAUSE of which WE(and ALL) is an EFECT, hence COMES FROM HIM and is not as ETERNAL as Him. If God could not be eternal(and we agree) we could not have been created, cause nothing would have predated us(and ALL). In terms of our cosmogony, we know that we are spirit children of two Gods, namely Elohim and our Mother(s), although the process of our creation or "organization' as spirits(from eternal matter) came to be, we know that it envolved a Mother and a Father. This is , Two Gods. Furthermore, we know that we as "ego" are not eternal, but as 'escense" as "matter of being", the "intelligence"(btw-NEVER defined) consisted(as we might especulate) of eternal spiritual matter, from which Elohim formed us(just as Adam from de dust but in terms of eternal matter) and in this we share a sort of eternity with God. And it makes a lot of sense since if we are made of God's own nature(or matter) we share that with Him. BUT, just as we "always were" but we see that indeed we were but NOT from eternity with a personality, again, Elohim was from all eternity but not as a personality either, but as us. Joseph Smith taught that Elohim was once a spirit children of His father, just as we are His, and he went to his respective earth, earned salvation, resurected and ascended to be a god(just as WE are promised in the future), Joseph Fielding Smith also made echo of these words while talking of Jesus' role in preexistance and the character of God(Doctrines of Salvation 1), were he said that Jesus was "watching" what his Father made of His mortal life prior to His exaltation. Also, the famous words "As man is God once was, as God is, man may become". We are not dealing with how authentic are thses statements in terms of doctrine, but that they are what has been ALWAYS taught. While we have NO problem with 'eternal progression"(this including Elohim's mortal trial), it nevertheless brings a "gap" in our explanation for a Beginning(i know, iknow, we "dont believe in a beginning"). But its got somehow to hold in face of reason. The antimormon tell us that if then Elohim was as we are, this means that he did not exist 'from all eternity" as we think Him did, but (we saw) that He only existed eternally as WE existed eternally, this is, in form of eternal spiritual matter, but NOT always as "persons" or spirits who think and WILL. If then He dodnt existed as an individual Rulling Being from always, there was a Father to him that "organized" him from spiritaul matter, and taught Him what now he teaches us, and applied the same plan of 'salvation", etc...As we deal with this, we se that if Elohim also had a father and a God, then also such Father and such God(including His Mother-s-)had respective Fathers and Gods, Mothers, etc...There were a lot of Adams, predating Elohims earth trial, a lot of "Saviours"(although this is a very disputed theory among us-i dont buy it), etc...Their claim is, that we do not propose a God who ultimately and First caused everything to happen, but that we have an eternal chain of Gods who have no beginning or end. The problem(for them and for REASON) is that we cannot reasonably distinguish a Being in that chain which is "essential", ok, to make ot clear, if there was NEVER a First God(Cause), in that chain, but there is a God after the other until it never ends, there is NO possibility of us in "eternity" to know all the Gods, as it just 'goes on and on" backwards in Time. Hence as it predates" Him(elohim), He cannot know all the Gods who exist, because if He did, there the Chain stopped, and there would we have a first One, a first Cause. Hence Elohim(as atimormon teach) is not 'all knowing to us". 3)"Heh, the person who wrote these words simply failed to understand “Mormonism”, or perhaps he or she simply didn’t understand that not all things have a beginning." -No Ray, they undersatnd our point, is just that our point does not make sense to them(lol). 4)"More evidence of the fact that this person is limited in his or her knowledge of God and our nature and religion. And to try to say this simply, nothing is bigger or better than God, whether God is a Father or a Son. " -yes indeed, very ignorant people. 5)"All good to this point, except for what I think you are stating in saying that matter is out of God’s control, because God does in fact control matter." -yes, thank you, but what I mean by saying that Elohim has no control over matter is that He does NOT have ULTIMATE control over it, as he did not CREATED it, it PREDATED HIM, he awoke to "individual"(not in terms of matter) existence once, and found Himself surrounded by it, but in terms of creation9as we hold ot) of course He has control over, as he organizes it as he wills. 6)"Pretty much everything you said in this statement is true too, except for your idea that there was a time before there was Elohim, or that other beings existed before Him… because Elohim has always been." Yes Ray, but I alteady told you HOW we believe that all beings(intelligent ones) are from 'eternity", and that includes the belief that Elohim DID NOT exist as an independent and willing Being always, but existed as we have, as spiritual matter that was later organized by His father and mother. 7)"Since you seem to have some misunderstandings of our doctrine, please specify what is actually being taught." -in fact, i do not misunderstand OUR doctrine, I am telling you that we teach what we teach, by means of hymns we teach: a Mother in heaven, a plurality of Gods, by means of leaders we have taught: the progression of Elohim, the progression of jesus, the progression of us and our future divinity, by means of Scripture we teach: the eternity of God, the eternity of matter, the eternity of OUR spiritual matter(hence ours) You see? No misunderstandings, just facts. 8) "Please rephrase this statement. It’s too garbled for me to translate it perfectly." -Although the scriptures do not hold that elohim(God) had a beginning or a father yet we see in D&C that it holds the eternity of MATTER and hence it's coexistance with God(Elohim). 9) The first cause of what? And btw, please don’t mention anything you have seen in the temple with outsiders again. A First Causde for everything Ray, put in your mind that christians' Cause is NOT ours. And btw, I only mention that of the Temple to reenforce our teaching of the doctrine of Elohim's progression from mortal to God, because I know that if I only mentioned it you would say that we nowhere near the official doctrines teach that, but here you go with an example. Yes they are sacred things, but they are also preached outside the temple, so no worries with such statement. 10)Again, the first cause of what? There is no first cause to God, or Man, because we have always been… although there was a first God and Man on this Earth, and I'm sure you know whose those were. -I told you, there was a Cause for Elohim, as Elohim was the cause for us. yes, Elohim was not the MATERIAL cause for us, as our matter is eternal, but he was the Inteligent Cause for it, as he organized us and gave us our "rational' existance. So it happened to Him. And so on with His father, and the father of his father, etc... Ultimately, we need to evaluate the 'need' for a Cause, and armonize it with their "needless" Creation story, although we fight against ex-nihlo, we must bear the burden to reasonably explain away the gaps in our point of view. Specially the one concerning Elohims knowledge(or ours in the divinity state) and the impossibility of reaching the First god, as they are numberless. Thanks again Ray.

That of the cake....is funny. As to th eSERIOIS reason that brought us here: When we are dealing with a First Cause, Ray, we are dealing with THE "Frist Cause", as it states. A FIRST Cause for EVERYTHING. For matter, for planets, for all spiritual existance, etc... I already explained how the logic reasons go, im just waiting for someone to reason here PD: I have praid, guess what? Nothing. This is not a matter of life and death to me, that I shuold keep bothering the Lord, but is a matter of life and death to me, concerning MY personal and reasonal understanding of eternal truths, which i wanted to bring here. If for every doubt that i (or any one else) has and brings it here, we should tell them to go and ask the Lord, why then have this forum? I posted it, and I want someone who could point to some direction(in terms of studies, etc...). D&C 50: And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us areason• together, that ye may understand; 11 Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face. 12 Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand. Such pretty words, His words... Regards,

I'm not a student of Hebrew, but I've done some looking and this is what I found: "Before I formed you in your mother's womb7 I chose you.8Before you were born I set you apart.I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) 8 tn Heb "I knew you." The parallelism here with "set you apart" and "appointed you" make clear that Jeremiah is speaking of his foreordination to be a prophet. For this same nuance of the Hebrew verb see Gen 18:19; Amos 3:2. I have chosen him52 so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep53 the way of the Lord by doing54 what is right and just. Then the Lord will give55 to Abraham what he promised56 him." (Genesis 18:19) 52 tn Heb "For I have known him." The verb udy (y`d*u) here means "to recognize and treat in a special manner; to choose" (see Amos 3:2). It indicates that Abraham stood in a special covenantal relationship with the Lord. The more I read, the more I am impressed with just about everyone on this site. "I have chosen3 you alone from all the clans of the earth. Therefore I will punish you for all your sins." (Amos 3:2) 3 tn Heb "You only have I known." The Hebrew verb ud~y` (y`d^u) is used here in its covenantal sense of "recognize in a special way." And Adam had marital relations51 with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son. (Genesis 4:25) 51 tn Heb "knew," a frequent euphemism for sexual relations. (above from bible.org) For sexual intercourse, the Old Testament writers use the verb bo ("to enter" or "to go into" ) or the euphemisms "to lie with" (yashav) and "to know" (yada). ("To know" in this sense is subsequently found also in Greek, as ginosko.) These sexual terms occur many times in the Hebrew Bible, and typically each use covers the whole sexual encounter, any foreplay or other elaboration not being a narrative concern. (See KISSING.) Usually the only point seems to be that the lovers are about the task of being fruitful and multiplying (e.g., "And Adam knew Eve," who bears Cain [Gen. 4:1]), though at times the encounter, as far as the man is concerned, is for sexual gratification (see, for example, BATHSHEBA and JUDAH AND TAMAR). http://www.hobrad.com/andl.htm#LOVEMAKING M. Well is this so? If it is a "stated" matter that the old testament uses ONLY sucha word to discribe sexual intercurse, then I think I read WRONG when I read and adam "KNEW" eve and they begat a son. I am NOT saynig that such a word relates ONLY to sexual intercourse, but, that it connotates such a PERSONAL and MUTUAL recognition(be it 'foreknowledge" in the case of God, or "appealing to" in case of couples), that the jew scribes found no other word to describe it, or plainly let us know that such use of the phrase 'knew thee" could ALSO be understood as the intimacy of two persons, and brethren , is not me who is inventing this one, most of the Pastors who preach preexistance preach it with this text So is not us(only) that you all sholud be getting your arguments to, but a lot of other christians. :)

The problem with your conclusion is that it does not follow th eproper study of such instances in scripture. As in Jeremiah, the word "knew" is not of knowledge, but the same hebrew word described in genesis when "Adam knew his wife" and "begat Cain". It is a word intending intimacy of TWO, not one alone. Indeed one cannot have intimacy with the forknowledge of someone but with the present reaction of such person. If God(as a "defense of yours") could have such intimate relationship of love with us without creating us, then He didnt have to create us "out of his love to share it with us" as most protestants teach. He could have remain sharing His love PERFECTLY with His "premonition" of us. Further more, if we speak in terms of logic, He could not have known us intimately(as to "know"-hebrew) us without creating us, because if he had not recently created us he could not remotely remember or forknow such action. He foreknew that He creted us, as he later did. Not other wise. So this simply works otherwise to our fellow christian brethren, just as "Ever incrising Faith Ministries" in california, and "Fount of Living waters' in Puerto Rico, all both conservative and liberal evangelicals, are praching preexistance!

But what does it mean that they were saved? Were they consigned to the Terrestial Kingdom, forever to miss out on the presence of the Heavenly Father? And, who were "such men?" Just the heroes, those very few who did extraordinary things to further God's plan. It was meant to mean exaltation. Of no other sort of "salvation" does people reffer in the Conferences9or general Church in fact) unless he explicitly explains or denotes a difference. Hence, most leaders speak of salvation in th eultimate sense, just as 'salvation" is used by the NT, meaning exaltation. Ah, and that statement was made by Joseph Smith, whom the gerenal authority was quoting. And they were not just the heroes, but all christians alike of such circumstances.