dberrie2000

Although I do not disagree with the gist of your statements--I do take issue with this one comment. Could you explain what is meant by this statement--how is the worship of the Son any different from the worship of the Father?

Yes. But could you explain for me how the entire quote somehow mollifies the fact that any statement that the LDS do not worship Jesus Christ comes in direct conflict with the official church position--that the LDS worship Jesus Christ? Vort--it's a fact. The LDS worship Jesus Christ--and our sacrament meetings surround around that very doctrine--the worship of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer of the world. God the Son--as Deity.

So--you do not see any conflict or denial in the two statements? : Bruce R McConkie--"We do not worship the Son," LDS church--"Like other Christians, we worship Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God."

The "literal offspring' refers to our spirits, whom are the offspring of God the Father--the "sons of God" refer to our existence here and now, and into the future--as it relates to exaltation--and to the physical, resurrected being. That is the reason we have to be adopted--because Jesus Christ is neither the literal Father of our spirits or our bodies.

That probably would not be the only statement that McConkie made that the LDS church denied. This is the official church position, found on the Church Newsroom site: "Like other Christians, we worship Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God."

Because it is not just Christian unity, as pertaining to the mortal--but as it relates to the oneness of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. If this oneness is the same for the Christians, as it for the Father and the Son, then co-equal is an application to all the disciples of Christ also.

It is a problem I have brought up to the stake presidency more than once. As a high councilor within our stake, I have seen this very response a number of times--and find it not rare to the LDS membership. It is a false doctrine. The LDS worship Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer--period. There is no qualification nor clarification needed, as the LDS church is concerned. The membership, on occasion, belief that because the object of worship is the Father--that means that we do not worship the Son. All forms of worship pass through Jesus Christ first, and is the only form of worship the Father recognizes, and is the only true worship of the Father--the worship of His Son, as He is the Mediator between the Father and man. There is no such thing as circumventing the Son, and going straight to the Father, when referring to worship. I am looking at two notices from the LDS newsroom I have now--they start off with this line: "Like other Christians, we worship Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God." No clarification postulated--none needed. The LDS church recognizes this as a problem, that some members try to qualify this statement--or flat deny it, and it is a problem that infects even leadership itself. Since the high councilor speaks on the third Sundays in the different wards within the Stake--I have made this a point of clarification within my talks--that the membership not try to clarify this point, and certainly not to deny it--it digs deep holes of obscurity for the LDS church, and is a false doctrine. I have brought it up in the morning welfare meetings of the various wards--most are shocked to hear that some members take this stand--to deny or to clarify this doctrine--that the LDS accept God the Son as deity--and worship Him as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer. Shocking, indeed.

I have been part of forums for 12 years now--and I really have not had any difficulty engaging others in conversation--especially when the scriptures are used to engage a conversation. Why would my opinion induce any more difficulty in engagement that yours or others? It may be a different style--but is there just one style that is proper? Why does taking a particular stance draw the conclusion that there is only one interpretation? You are aware that the LDS do have particular doctrines that they believe are true? Why does that exclude all others from having a point? They are free to post their points also.

Jesus Christ was exalted by His Father: Acts5:31--"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." That seems to indicate that God the Son was not in full possession of all things before earth life, which Hebrews confirms: Hebrews1:2-5--"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Jesus Christ obtained those at a particular point, and was not in full possession of them always.

The scriptures have a repeating theme--God gives His grace to those who walk in His light: 1 John1:7--"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." IOW--we are saved by grace--and this grace goes to those who obey Christ. We are not saved by works(obedience to Christ)--but it is the basis for which God extends His grace unto mankind: Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" BTW--why does this verse indicate that we are not the literal offspring of God? The LDS believe they are the literal offspring, not of the physical, but offspring according to the spirit, becoming the sons of God according to faith occurs at a later time. Hebrews12:9--"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" For me, making a statement in that likeness, ie--that we are not the literal offspring of God if we become the sons of God-- is the same as saying that becoming the sons of God denies that we have earthly fathers also, seeing that is an event preceding the adoption unto sons of God also. If we are sons of God--how can we be the sons of mankind also? We are literal offspring according to the spirit--not the combination of the flesh and spirit--which is another state of progression outside of the presence of the Father--and requires the development of a thing called faith--the seemingly last mountain to climb. That is where we become sons of God, in accordance with life eternal, and the physical being. 1) Intelligence into spirit 2) Spirit in mortal flesh 3) Mortal flesh into immortal, resurrected bodies 4) Exalted bodies

The LDS worship Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer of the world. As to substance--how does flesh and blood differ from our own substance: Luke24:39--"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

A dork would not have given a great answer such as that.

True, but still sons of God. Even sons of God, as believers, are not the same as one another. But they are all sons of God, and heirs and joint heirs with Christ, as sons of God. True--Christ is unique in many ways, in being our God, Savior, and Redeemer-- but not being a Son of God. All those who believe are given that title, as the scriptures show. Again--Christ is unique, as the "Only Begotten" Son--in the flesh. First--could you show me the explanation or wording of "co-equal" or "co-eternal" within the scriptures? I am suggesting that statements that we are not the sons of God--only Christ is, a false statement, when not qualified. The scriptures affirm that all who believe are given the power to become the sons of God. What the scriptures do state is this: St John17:21-22--"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" How do you relate that to co-equal?

OK--but even if it was translated as "one and only" Son--that does not solve the problem, for this simple reason: St John1:12--"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" Obviously--if there are indeed other sons of God--then Christ is not the one and only. The only answer, for me--is that is a direct reference to the flesh--where Jesus CHrist is the One and Only Son to ever be born to this earth that had a Heavenly Father and an earthly mother. In that--Jesus Christ is unique, as a Son--the "one and only". Christ did not claim unique status, as far as His spirit is concerned: St John20:17--"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." I agree--in the flesh--there is no other that has been born according to that pattern. But all spirits are Fathered by the same Father. I see no such explanation within the Biblical text. But I do see this: St John17:21-22--"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" And this is how they are created, according to the Bible, as to the spirit: Hebrews12:9--"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

How does that statement compare with the scriptures: St John1:12--"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

What example of Christ, in principle--do you find alien to all of mankind? And it is not my comments I am equating with the example of Christ, but the example of Christ typing that of mankind, in principle.

Why do you believe that the example of Christ is out of context of the preexistence of mankind--especially seeing that Christ was listed inside of that parameter by the Bible itself? If Christ was the way, truth, and light of the world--how is His example not reflective of mankind in general? How is that out of context? How can the example of Christ be so? In what way? If PC considers it out of context--why don't you allow him to answer for himself? Are all conversations only through vicarious spokepersons---and only in accordance with your perspective?

Who do you identify as "we"? My statements reflected the Biblical doctrines concerning Christ's preexistence and subsequent inhabitation of the physical body. What do you find objectionable to that?

I don't believe that the example of Christ is "cheap". If He was the Way, truth, and light of the world--then His example is significant--in all points of principle. If Christ was a preexistent spirit, and went into a body produced of mortal woman--then what is to say that is not an example of truth revealed? What would prevent the truth of other preexistent spirits entering physical bodies?

And, if we can believe the scriptures--God the Father is also the very God of Jesus also.

One need only to resort to the Bible to find Christ the man, born of mortal woman, and His immortal existence as man following His death--and His preexistence prior to the twain. The preexistence of man is a fact, according to the Bible, regardless of LDS beliefs, which agree with the Bible. What is your evidence that flesh and bone is a different substance than mankind in general?

The "Only Begotten" Son--yes. Since we are all spirit children of God the Father--then that designation of the Son, as the "Only Begotten"--- takes on a unique meaning which could only be found in the flesh. Hebrews12:9--"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

How can God be totally separate from His creations--and they be His offspring: Acts17:29--"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." The word used here in Acts17:29 is "genos": Strong's #1085: genos (pronounced ghen'-os) genos 1) kindred 1a) offspring 1b) family 1c) stock, tribe, nation 1c1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people Read more: Strongs's #1085: genos :: Greek/Hebrew Definitions :: Bible Tools It is also the word which the English "genes" or "genetics" were derived from.

1 Timothy2:5--"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Could anyone explain how the "homoousios" God----the same substance God--can divide the God between the physical body of Christ and the non physical nature of God the Father? Homoousios means same substance. How can they be different substances and "homoousios" at the same time?