CrimsonKairos

I notice that rather than try to harmonize contradicting statements by Pres. Young you've resorted to sarcasm and mockery. Nice. Here's an excerpt from a letter that Elder McConkie wrote to Eugene England, a BYU professor who happened to be teaching false doctrine about God's omniscience and the Adam/God theory. McConkie says: In that same devotional speech I said: "There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our God, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that his is the one we worship." I, of course, indicated the utter absurdity of this doctrine and said it was totally false. Since then I have received violent reactions from Ogden Kraut and other cultists in which they have expounded upon the views of Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren relative to Adam. They have plain and clear quotations saying all of the things about Adam which I say are false. The quotations are in our literature and form the basis of a worship system followed by many of the cultists who have been excommunicated from the Church. I also received, of course, your material in which you quote from Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren saying that God is progressing in knowledge. [...] Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment. If what I am about to say should be taken out of context and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an entirely erroneous impression and would not properly present the facts. As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God. He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation led by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has gone on to eternal exaltation. Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and the rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord. Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works. Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works. I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation. Believe what you will, Luke. It's okay to admit you're wrong, just as it's okay for a prophet's opinions and theories to be wrong. What's not okay is to promote teachings that contradict the standard works. The Adam/God theory blatantly contradicts the standard works.

Luke, did you not read my thread on why the Adam/God theory is false? Pres. Young certainly did preach some things that contradict the standard works (mostly the D&C). Then again, at times he contradicted himself and taught the correct view of God the Father (i.e. that He is not Adam). Does that make him a false prophet? Of course not. Why would it? Isn't he allowed to have his own opinions? He never taught the Church to pray to Adam. What he did do was openly discuss his theories, a few of which turned out to be incorrect. The difference between the Adam/God theory and the King Follett Sermon is that the latter didn't contradict the standard works, while the former did. View the standard works with distaste if you wish, however, I doubt you've plumbed its depths and gleaned all there is to glean from its "nursery rhymes."

Might wanna' consult a doctor about that, lol. Hahahahaha, just kidding. :)

Let's establish context to determine what the "kingdoms" are that the parable in verses 51-61 talks about. D&C 88 v. 36 "All kingdoms have a law given;" vv. 42-43 "And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;" "And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets." vv. 45-47 "The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God." "Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?" "Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power." v.51 "Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field." Verse 36 says all kingdoms have a law given. Verses 42-43 say that all things have a law given to them, and defines "all things" as the heavens and the earth which include "all the planets." Syllogism time: 1. All kingdoms have a law given to them; 2. The heavens and the planets have laws given to them; therefore... 3. The heavens and planets are considered "kingdoms." Verses 45-47 establish beyond dispute the fact that the heavens and planets are "kingdoms." How? Verse 45 lists the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars. Then verse 46 asks what to liken "these kingdoms" to. Then verse 47 seals the deal by saying that "all these are kingdoms." Finally, verse 51 answers the question posed in verse 46. The Lord likens "these kingdoms" (which include the heavens and planets) to a field with twelve servants sent out to dig (v. 51). Verses 52-57 explain that the lord of the field told each servant he would visit the first servant for one hour, and then move on to visit the next servant for an hour, until he had visited all twelve servants. v. 58: "And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—" What do the twelve men in the parable represent? Verse 61 is almost an exact copy of verse 58 except in place of the word "man" it says "kingdom," as here: v. 61: "Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms, and the inhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made." This verse teaches several significant things. First, it mentions that "these kingdoms" have inhabitants. This would suggest that among the "kingdoms" which are the heavens and the planets, there are planets with their own inhabitants, distinct from our planet and its inhabitants. Second, it says that the Lord will visit each of these "kingdoms" separately for a specific period of time, just like the lord of the field in the parable visited each servant separately for one hour. Conclusion? I believe that just as Jesus visited the Nephites after his resurrection, he will personally visit all other "kingdoms" and their inhabitants, according to the pattern in the parable. Gives new meaning to, "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and them also I must visit..." the_jason: You said: "Heavenly Father said he created this world in the same manner as other worlds prior. If those worlds were just like this world then they would have had to have a Savior just as we did. I'm sure it was not the same as our Savior. They would have had their own." I disagree. I think the symbolism in the parable I just discussed includes the following: The field = God's kingdom as a whole, His "stewardship" if you will; Twelve servants = The various "kingdoms" or planets (whether twelve or twelve million) with their inhabitants. I believe Heavenly Father administers salvation to His spiritual progeny alone. Since the inhabitants of the other planets or "kingdoms" are within God's "field" or stewardship, it follows that those inhabitants are among His spirit children. As such, these other inhabitants--as God's children--would still be covered by Christ's atonement. God didn't gather everyone together premortally and say, "Okay, for planet x I propose Jesus serve as its Savior. Planet y...hmmm...it should have a different savior...any recommendations?" Jesus is the Savior of all of God's spiritual children, past, present and yet to be born. There is no need for a different savior for each "kingdom" or planet. Christ's atonement is infinite and eternal, encompassing the heavens and the planets with all their inhabitants. To God alone the glory!

The most important thing to know is this: If you're born again, do you have two bellybuttons? B)

The desire was to have a chain of sealings linking all generations together.

Congrats on the impending sealing, bro! B)

Hahahahahahah, ah Ben, classic.

We're saved by grace, and we access Christ's grace through faith and obedience.

In many ceremonies, the phrase "Until death do you part," is replaced with, "So long as you both shall live?" Meaning is the same: The grave annuls your marriage. I've heard lots of Christians claim there will be no marriages in heaven (mostly as a knee-jerk reaction to the LDS belief of eternal marriage). They use one or two key NT scriptures to prove their point, yet deep down I wonder if they really believe what they're saying?

Again, consult D&C 88:51-61 for a parable applicable to your question. Christ was born once, lived as a mortal once, died for the sins of all of God's children once (regardless of what planet they live on), and was resurrected once. He is not forever being born to a virgin on every planet under God's dominion.

I think the purpose of Deut. 6:4 and other similar verses was to impress upon the Israelites that they were to worship only one God. Remember, they'd spent over 400 years in Egypt, a nation with one of the richest and most complex array of gods under the sun. Jehovah/Elohim's point in Deut. 6:4? "Whether ye need food, strength, forgiveness, guidance, knowledge, etc... ye are to worship and pray to me alone. There is no Savior beside me." That's what I maintain as an LDS member. We are to worship and pray to God the Father and none other.

Thanks for the reply, Dr. T. At least I'm not alone then, lol. B) Seriously, I think the Trinity just muddles up an understanding of God's nature with philosophical phraseology and self-contradictions. I'm confident we could exchange scriptures all day that support our understanding of the Godhead, but I guess what gets me is that the Trinity doesn't make sense. Every non-LDS Christian friend I've ever talked to about it, and questioned about what it really means, has ended with something similar to what I quoted you as saying above. At least you didn't use the, "It's part of the beauty of the mystery of God," cop-out which I hate. Anyone else care to explain (not necessarily scripturally) how three persons can honestly be viewed as one being? I wish people could drop one or the other of that compound "mystery" and say either that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are really the same person, or else there are three persons and hence three Gods. NOTE: It occurred to me that if the Trinity really is what it claims to be...three people in one being...and if the somewhat popular view is true that Jesus was married...then Mary Magdalene would be committing polyandry (whereas LDS are always condemned for polygyny) since marrying Jesus means marrying the One God, and there are three persons in that One Being. So according to Trinitarians, if Jesus married, he involved Mary in a polygamous relationship.

Dang Ben, you only had to pay $500? That's a freakin' sweet deal!

Funny you should mention that, Ben. Before my dad's accident, he was the Stake Exec. Sec. so our Stake President visits us from time to time to see how my dad's doing. We had the President over for Easter, and during the conversation over dinner dress standards came up. He said that just recently the Young Women's President in one of the stake's wards came to Church with a low-cut top that was way inappropriate and it was all he could do to stop from telling her to go home and change. Ah, gotta' love the daughters of Zion (he said sarcastically).

So Dr. T, maybe you can help me out with the Trinity thing. When you say there are three persons, distinct from each other, and separate, that make up One God, what do you mean by the word "God?" For example, if I were to say that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one Eternal God, I'd be speaking metaphorically and could easily substitute the word "council" in place of "God" like so: Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one Eternal Council. So what do you mean by the word "God?" How can three persons, separate from each other, honestly be regarded as a single being (without introducing metaphor)? I am, of course, just interested in your opinion.

Not if you go by what Paul taught in Hebrews 9:25-26... "Nor yet that [Christ] should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; "For then must [Christ] often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Actually, it'd be U-blar Ognak. Christ is a proper noun native to this planet. Seriously, sure, he could be known by any name conceivable really. Just depends on the language spoken by those who worship him. In our case, it all goes back to the Hebrew (which I love). Hebrew Greek Latin English ---------------------------------------------------------- Yeshwah Iesous Jesu Jesus/Joshua Mashiakh Christos Christi Messiah/Christ So since the words "Messiah" and "Christ" both come from the same Hebrew word "Mashiakh," we could as accurately call the Savior "Jesus Messiah" instead of "Jesus Christ." B)

Again, excellent post a-train. I've used the same arguments before, but they don't seem to even put a dent in the Trinity belief various members of this board hold. Anyway, I enjoyed your post. And yes, xhenli, the First Vision really is indispensable if understanding God's nature is the goal.

I think you're missing the context of much of those verses. For instance, LDS believe Jesus Christ is a God, along with our Father in Heaven. But those scriptures that state that Jesus is the eternal God are not saying Heavenly Father is not a God also. The purpose of such a verse is to highlight the godhood of our Savior. The rest are similar in context and intent. Thanks for your genuine interest and research though.

Jesus Christ's atonement is infinite and eternal because it offers mercy to all of God's children (infinite), all of the time (eternal).

Palerider, you crack me up! Bwahahahahahaha, Mwahahahahahahaha, Gwahahahahahahah!!!

Well said, a-train.

The LDS theology and implicit claim is pretty intimidating: If you're not LDS, your church is incomplete even though it be a good organization and believe many truths. No one likes to be told they are wrong, or that something they respect is incomplete. I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. I DO blame people for lying about our beliefs and ordinances. God will put some interesting questions to such people someday about whether their conduct was Christ-like.

I'm not the only one paying $39.95/month to use this site, right? You all accepted the same EULA I did, right? Right?

I'm continually surprised too, but there are die-hard Adam/God theorists who cling to the falsehood despite all the scriptural proof. I just felt like silencing them once and for all. I tire of fairy-tales being peddled as truth.