JohnBirchSociety
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JohnBirchSociety
-
-
I don't understand other Christians who say that we shouldn't rely on our feelings as testimony.
This is a serious question for those Christians who believe that. How do you know that Jesus is your personal Savior? How do you know that the Bible is true? When you pray and receive answers, how do you know them to be answers?
I don't want to sound like I'm bashing on Christians...I truly don't understand if one can't rely on his/her feelings on the matter, then how does one have faith in something that can't be seen?
I know through faith and reason.
I have faith that Jesus is the Son of GOD.
Reason shows me that the Bible is the most historically accurate and substantiated writing in human history. It has proven to be utterly reliable in all respects, therefore, those items of a spiritual nature that it reports spring from verifiably real people and places.
Faith and reason.
I use the same for the Book of Mormon, with one difference at this point. As of yet, no artifact or writing from Mesoamerica substantiates any specific and unique claim in the Book of Mormon. That being said, the Book of Mormon contains such unique things that consistent with it being a translation of an ancient Hebriac text that I have reason to believe the physical nature of its' claims as well as the spiritual.
-
EXCELLENT post Pam. Thank you.
I would add to this somewhat. Anti-Mormons typically claim that they embrace "Biblical Christianity."
So how do "Biblical Christians" prove that the Bible is true, especially to the non-believers? They tell them to pray to God to know if it is real, that's how. And how will God answer them? Feelings.
Their entire thread of logic is completely hypocritical.
The LDS Antagonists I've dealt with for the past 25+ years have been a lot better prepared than just ridiculing "feelings".
And lately they have synthesized their argument to its' base point about the Book of Mormon.
It goes like this:
The Book of Mormon describes physical people, places and things in regards to the Mesoamerica era. Things like geography, peoples, culture, tools, warfare, etc. Those things are observable realities, not subject to "spiritual" confirmation or not. For instance, no matter how you "feel" about it, George Washington actually existed. Your feelings on the matter are of no importance to the determination of that reality. So, taking the physically demonstrable claims of the Book of Mormon and testing them against what we do physically, really know about Mesoamerica, we find that the claims of the Book of Mormon find no place in Mesoamerican history. In fact, no artifact or writing has ever been found to substantiate any specific and unique Book of Mormon claim about Mesoamerican history.
Now, this being said, I find that their biggest problem is that no evidence to the contrary has been found. There is a huge lack of evidence in a positive sense. It is true that no artifact or writing has ever been found to substantiate the unique and specific claims of the Book of Mormon. However, we can say the same about many of the foundational claims of the Bible, yet we both, LDS and LDS Antagonists believe in it.
So I think we need to grow up a bit in our viewing of the LDS Antagonist and realize that they do bring up valid questions. To be sure, there are just anti-mormon idiots who use falsehood, etc. But increasingly I've found them to be the ignorant minority, rather than the rule.
Hope this helps?
-
Be it remembered that the front page contained these words:
"to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, THE ETERNAL GOD, manifesting Himself unto all nations."
This is and always has been the work and purpose of Mormonism.
-a-train
I think we've done very poorly in describing to the world that Jesus Christ is the ETERNAL GOD (as opposed to just be a "god"). In fact, I don't think I ever heard a General Conference talk that proclaimed it and it is absent from "Preach My Gospel" and the previous 6 Discussion methodology.
Sad!
-
Really?
So you must be personally close to all major advocates and politicians supporting universal health care? Surely you are privy to their most personal thoughts on the subject to the degree where you can make the determination they don't really care about people, only controlling them?
I'm assuming you are of course all of these things, because if you weren't, that would be a pretty big judgement for a Christian...
But why stop with government sponsored health care? Is the most basic of human needs food? Shouldn't we, in the spirit of liberalism, have free food for all? That way we could control obesity (just ask the people who lived under Stalin about food control by government, they were not overweight, 'course, most of 'em starved to death), which is a major contributor to ill health.
And what about the darn sun-light? It causes cancer. The government should do something about it!
On and on. Where does it end? How can it rationally end? How can we call for "free" health-care and not "free" food, or housing, for all? And if all are getting it for "free" who's going to pay for it?
Government has consistently shown itself the be the poorest of distribution mechanisms. The private sector is almost, without exception, better suited.
No, what we need is not more "free" or more "universal" anything. We need less government intervention. We need less government "assistence" (when have they really ever assisted anyone?)...
Or, as the phrase goes, "Less Government, More Individual Responsibility, and with GOD's help, A Better World".
-
I agree with many of your comments Traveler. Holding individuals responsible for the use of their insurance helps to keep costs down.
I worked in the medical insurance field for 6 years. There were many companies that were beginning to see the logic in this and offered some incentives to their employees.
There was one company that offered a reduced rate in their monthly premium if they went through some required testing. For example...women were required to have an annual pap test and show proof. Unless of course they had gone through a hysterectomy) Men over a certain age a prostate screening. Women over a certain age a mammography. Preventative care helped reduce the cost of major care required.
However, that being said..I was appalled at the plans that only allowed a $250 annual maximum for well child care. We all know newborns, toddlers etc require well child check ups as well as the associated immunizations to go along with it. Yet these same plans would pay for gastric bypass.
I'm not saying that there are those who would not greatly be helped by gastric bypass but...come on....we also know how important well child checkups are as well.
I think there is some education that needs to be made not only among employers but among the employees themselves when involved in group plans.
I can almost agree with you.
Immunizations are probably the greatest hoax in regards to health in all of human history. And what is so very sad about the hoax is that the victims nearly 100% Children.
-
That's exactly right. President Obama is in a very strong position to correct the problem. But thus far, his spending has been focused on enlarging the government and hoping for economic stimulus through infrastructure expansion, The crux of the economic downturn is bad debt and the housing market. Elphaba posted an excellent video detailing the credit crisis and it was spot on. The attention and focus of the spending should have been laser like focused on dealing with those toxic assets that have the credit markets clogged. Instead we get a huge increase in government spending that simply does not address the problem at all. If he and his team of economic advisers would put forth a plan to deal with the mortgage obligations, the market would react immediately. Think back to Bush and Quail and the savings and load debacle.......
The real crux of this problem began with the abandonment of sound money as demand by the United States Constitution.
Absent a return to sound money (gold or silver coin or notes backed 1:1 by them, issued by the Treasury, no FEDERAL RESERVE), the problem will NEVER be resolved.
There are laws of economics at play here. They are being violated. Now we are beginning to see the fruits of our folly.
I blame my Great-grandparents (circa 1880-1930) for this mess. They are the ones who abandoned our Constitution. They are the ones who allowed the "secret combination" to murder and get gain. And now we are left to mop up their mess! Disgusting.
Simply put, no sound money, and we are doomed, no matter who is President.
-
one of the biggest issues we have now is our money is over inflated.. our dollar is worth less in the global market then it ever has..
Socialism will only make that worse
As far as the economy goes.. well I am pet groomer by trade... some may say a frivolous profession.. I have been a SAHM for 2 years but my colleagues have seen very little drop in clients.. and some cant keep up with their clients and are turning them away. I am currently making my way back into the grooming world.. and the opportunities are amazing.. I thought I would have a much harder time establishing clientele based on the doom and gloom media.. but I have several offers to choose from.. that ought to tell ya something..
Well, to start at the beginning, we might want to understand what money IS.
Federal Reserve Notes are currency, but they are not money.
It is very telling to note that our divinely inspired founders mandated sound money in the United States Constitution.
Sad it is that we not only have abandoned that document, but we cannot even expound upon the nature of money. In effect, as a people, we are "barking up the wrong tree".
Absent a return to constitutionally mandated REAL money, none of this mess we find ourselves in will be resolved, no matter how many Federal Reserve Notes we spend / print.
-
You speak cow just fine. I was just thinking maybe you're more LDS than you think you are!
Can you accept that God the Father could (noticed I bolded rather than capped
)have been like Jesus in the fact that Jesus lived on earth, had a body, became a Savior? I guess that's the part I don't understand. Why can people accept Jesus as One who lived on earth, had a body, lived a life, but not the Father?
Because, the Scriptures say GOD has always been as he is now. This is one of the few teachings in Scripture that is unambiguous.
-
Let's see, today is a work day, and it has been only an hour since you posted the link (from an anti-Mormon website BTW). Surprisingly, I have better things to do today than sit here waiting for you to post. And the rest of my week and this weekend are going to be very busy for me as well, so I may not be here very much. But thanks for baiting me.
You want my response? Yes, I believe that we are literally sons and daughters of God, that is why we call Him our Father in heaven. The King Follett Discourse, while it probably does contain a lot of truth in it, is not part of our canonized scripture. That means that we as LDS are not bound to it or by it. Jesus Himself declared that He was only doing what He saw His Father do. What does that mean? I don't know, I can only speculate.
That being said, it stands to reason to me that a child naturally grows up to be somewhat like their parent. That does not mean that I believe that I will ever stop worshipping God or obeying His commandments and become my own God, large 'G'. But I personally believe that if I am obedient, eventually it is possible that God may ask me to participate in His work. After all, that is why we are here on earth, it is not, to help God in His work? If that means having a small part in the organization of some corner of the universe to fulfill His purposes, then I believe that I would do so happily. Is that hugely different than what general Christianity believes that angels will be doing in the afterlife? Don't Catholics believe in angels?
Good post. I've a question though:
1) The King Follett Discourse (in its' entirety) is not cannonized or viewed as binding doctrine. However, when parts of it are quoted in authorative manuals used to teach the official position of the Church, then can we safely say those portions are "doctrine"?
2) Though I would HUGELY LOVE to have the Church be "Sola Scriptura", it isn't. We have authoratative teaching manuals that are indeed "binding" in that they present the official position of the Church on many matters. Isn't it a bit of a cop-out to say, "It's not in the Canon?"
Thanks!
-
Ceebs, if I may be so bold and ask, if this is true, why is it disturbing? If the Catholic Church released a statement that said essentially the same thing, would it rock your faith? I'm not trying to be contentious...I want to understand why this disturbs so many people.
It greatly disturbs me and "so many people" because the Scriptures clearly, unambiguously declare that GOD has always been as he is now.
-
Don't know if this has been put up yet, but hopefully there will be some interested.
I'm very interested, and part of it. Good post.
I'm going to make a blunt prediction about it:
To the degree the idea is successful or has a positive impact against the global Marxist conspiracy (yes, that's what we face); Mr. Beck will have great opposition. And, if there is REAL impact, he'll find himself of the air very, very quickly...
-
Is anyone familiar with the second anointing......does it really exist or is it just Mormon lore?
Yes, it is an ordinance by invitation of the Prophet.
It is part of having one's calling and election made sure.
-
I've stated, and restated, my position as clearly as I can.
You can't pick and choose which doctrines you will believe and which ones you won't.
To continue on from here is pointless.
I wish you well.
Tom
Thank you for the well-wishing, I've the same sentiment for you.
It is distressing to think that I'm appearing to "pick-n-choose" doctrine.
I'm not.
Perhaps an overly-silly example would suffice?
Suppose GOD said in scripture "There is one GOD" (no exceptions, no "loop-holes", completely unambiguous).
Now suppose Prophet X came along and said "GOD has a GOD".
I'd go with the "There is one GOD" and reject the "GOD has a GOD" premise.
This is what I'm doing here. In essence, the total context of scripture is saying something clearly different than what some of the LDS leaders have taught. Thus, I'm left with no choice, I must go with the previous, clear, unambiguous scripture rather than more recent "revelations", regardless of how uncomfortable that position makes me. After all, I do believe that Joseph Smith, Jr., was / is a Prophet of GOD.
-
JBS......I am a bit confused. In a recent post on a thread about Excommunication or Having your name removed, you posted that you were in the process of having your name removed?
You still refer to yourself as LDS.....change of heart? JBS quote: "I'm in the process of having my name removed from the records of the Church. Legally, as soon as notice is received of my intent, I am no longer a Church member. The process by which the Church administratively removes a name from its' roster is of no importance. Once the Church receives notice, then that person is no longer a member and that person is not subject to any Church discipline. If the Church attempts discipline after receipt of a letter of resignation then they can easily be sued.
Church Headquarters should receive my letter (with delivery confirmation) sometime this week. I can't wait!"
Good question. I've not received confirmation, so I remain LDS (if only by name).
-
Hi JBS, :)
Thanks for the reply.
As to not " stir things up ", I will simply say that to accept SOME of what JS taught and NOT ALL ( Or to pick and choose ) seems rather odd ( IMHO :)).
I do appreciate your contributions.
Peace,
Ceeboo
And thank you.
I don't mean to seem to be "picking and choosing" what I agree with. Rather, what I've done my whole adult life is compare what is taught by our leaders with previously established, clear, unambiguous scripture. In my opinion the only logical way to proceed is to grant the clear, unambiguous scripture that came first, primary consideration. In other words, if a more recent declaration contradicts previously revealed truth, I'll put my word behind the previously declared truth, rather than the more recent declaration (regardless of the source of that declaration). This is the only logical means to have any sense of foundational truth, or even a use for written scripture. I mean, if it can be changed in fundamental ways, then there are no fundamental truths. How can I be certain the teachings of today that are portrayed as "fundamental" won't be changed in a generation or two (as was the case with polygamy / people of color and the priesthood)?
But I ramble. Thanks again for your input.
-
"We LDS" ???
If you claim to be LDS, you do not understand your own religion.
We are co-eternal with God:
You say "read the scriptures" -- well, I have. Our D&C says:
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
We were not created or made, neither indeed can it be!!
Same goes for God! He has always existed!
Consider the following from the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell, an apostle of the Lord:
"God has no distracting hobbies off somewhere in the universe. We are at the very center of His concerns and purposes. What a sharp contrast to those who believe that man lives in an “unconscious universe” (Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” in Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays [1917], 50), a “universe … without a master” (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, trans. Justin O’Brien [1955], 123).
Revelations likewise came about our longevity as God’s spirit children, since “man was also in the beginning with God”—a declaration accompanied by even further glimmers about man’s eternal nature (see D&C 93:29). These enunciations with their profound implications are major, challenging, for instance, the teaching that man was created in an instant “out of nothing.”
A further reality of our being with God “in the beginning” means that you have been you for a long time. Hence the Apostle John correctly wrote that “[God] first loved us” (see 1 Jn. 4:19). Likewise, amid the mortal turbulence, we learn who other mortals really are—our spiritual brothers and sisters, not functions, rivals, or enemies. Moreover, we should have a special sanctity and regard for human life.
“Stunners” all, these three revelations and translations are especially responsive to the deepest human yearnings and puzzlements. They restructure our understanding of the nature of God, of the universe, and likewise of our personal identity and of life’s meaning! What could be more personal than these brief but encompassing declarations?"
taken from:
LDS.org - Liahona Article - How Choice a Seer!
Tom
Ah, context. Gotta love it.
But first, an aside. I'm LDS, you're LDS. Let's not engage in "I know better than you know 'bout LDS doctrine". You very well may know a great deal more than me, and the opposite may be true. The only real means of determining that (which is not why I'm here, by the way), is through a demonstration of fact (scripture in this case).
Yes, as the scriptures attest, we were present before the creation of our Earth in the "beginning". Taking the entire context of scripture we see that GOD created all things (besides himself), including time.
I excuse Elder Maxwell for what he says because he is building upon what was taught before him by those he looked to as being infallible on such matters (Joseph Smith, Jr., in particular). That being said, I still stand upon the established scripture that existed before Joseph Smith was even born. That scripture (Biblical) has stood clear and unambiguous for thousands of years. It says exactly what I've paraphased here (to save time).
GOD is the creator of all things, he is self-existent and eternal. He is the only eternal being. All else was created by him.
-
Hi All :)
A very interesting thread ( Thanks to many for the deep thought and perspectives )
Mr. JohnBirchSociety, ( Notice the respect offered " Mr. " ):)
Although I would agree in large measure with much of what you have contributed on this thread, I am a little confused as to you having the stance you have while being LDS.
This makes me wonder how many of my LDS friends do not believe what your prophets have taught.
At any rate, I do appreciate the lively thread and just wanted to offer my non LDS confusion to the LDS confusion
:lol:. Peace,
Ceeboo
No confusion at all.
We LDS tend to portray ourselves as being in complete and perfect agreement with everything Joseph Smith, Jr., et. al., have declared as "revelations".
This is not the case. Many LDS are silent on these issues, preferring to not cause a stir. Others leave the faith and become immersed in the foulness of "anti-mormon" rhetoric.
Actually, I feel a bit blessed on this matter. I've no problem maintaining that Joseph Smith, Jr., was the Prophet of the Restoration, despite any errors in teaching he may have espoused. It doesn't trouble me at all.
What is troubling is the inability or unwillingness of some LDS to consider the arguments against some of the things he taught (such as his teaching of the co-eternal nature of man).
For me, revelation builds upon revelation. Where there is clear, unambiguous teaching, subsequent "revelation" cannot violate or attempt to change that teaching.
Such is the case with the nature of the Eternal GOD, and man, his creation. There's no "wiggle-room" on this issue. It was established thousands of years before Joseph Smith was even born.
GOD is eternal and self-existent. Everything else was created by him.
-
Only to one who thinks finite.
If there ever was a "time" when man did not exist, tell me why did God decided, after an entire eternity, to finally "create" him?
What was God's paradigm shift; what did He learn that made Him think to create man? Did He always plan to create man, just wanted to wait for an eternity to do it?
Surely the God you believe in didn't "learn" something that made Him decide to create man.
No, it can't be so. Man has always existed. Don't get hung up on God "creating" man on this earth "in the beginning."
Moses 1:
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.
41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.
He has always done this.
It's a difficult thing, maybe impossible, to comprehend eternity. But, I can understand it enough to see that either man has always existed, or he doesn't exist at all. Since man exists, then the race of man has always existed. Open your mind, your heart, and your eyes. God did not will man, or anything else into existence. You are His child, just as He calls Moses, and He is about His business of trying to perfect you.
Since GOD created time, he existed before time did (wow, that'll spin the brain a bit).
Of course how can we express this correct notion using temporal language? Only poorly so, unfortunately.
Nonetheless, GOD did create time. Therefore, he is not restrained by any logical arguments about time, such as the one you make.
GOD has always know all things, simultaneously. He does not learn, knowing all things. He is perfect in all respects. He created all things. He has existed before even "time", because he created "time".
Hope that helps?
-
JohnBirchSociety-
I am disheartened by your vehement and condescending manner in which you've treated your fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I will take up the gauntlet in their defense, as I number them among my friends. That is not to say they cannot (or will not) defend themselves, but I do not watch my friends be attacked in such an unscrupulous manner and sit idly by.
If you are LDS, and you believe in Prophets, and no living Prophet has come forward to declare the canonized doctrine in this matter, how can you claim so dramatically the 'Scriptures [don't] agree with Joseph Smith's assertions'? Are you greater than he? For that matter, are you greater than the prophets whose works Joseph studied, and the Holy Ghost that led Joseph Smith to believe what he did?
You may disagree, but it is dishonest to claim the scriptures disagree with the living prophets when you have no authority to do so.
A note on the exchange beforehand- your position and philosophy has more in common (in fact, is completely in line) with creedal Christianity than faithful Mormonism. Do you believe that Joseph Smith restored the Lord's true Church? If so, do you believe the world was in a state of apostasy beforehand?
Since you want to play logical games, I'll play one with you. Strictly speaking, that verse can only support a position that God does not measure time, and not support the idea that he exists 'outside' of time. Furthermore, from a strictly logical standpoint Abraham 3:4 would contradict that statement ('And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob.') Also, the references to there being different days in which God created the Earth in Genesis would seem to logically contradict the first part of the verse.
So, let's go beyond the mere words and look at context. The context of Alma 40:8 is the subject of resurrection. More specifically, we find the key phrase 'and time only is measured unto men' at the end of a verse talking about the time appointed for men to rise (or 'live' as in breathing, eating, walking around in our mortal state, etc.). If we study the concept of 'time' as it applies to this subject, we can see that it speaks of 'time' in the sense of the 'time' that 'all shall come forth from the dead' (v. 4), and Alma discusses whether there will be 'more than one time appointed' that man shall rise from the dead (v. 8). Clearly, we can see that the 'time' spoken of in this context is not the concept of 'time' as we understand it in the context of days, months, seconds, etc. Or even in the concept of 'eternity'.
However, if one was attempting to prove a creedal, Hellenistic Christianity philosophy from the Book of Mormon, one would point to this verse and hope the context isn't understood. Your use of the phrase 'first cause' reminds me of Trinitarian apologetic works, and creedal philosophy.
If I could 'encourage you to do one thing in this life', it would be to stop insulting those who don't agree with you. It is extremely caustic, immature, and unworthy of a disciple of Christ.
This is the beginning of the philosophy of a closed canon.
You might wish to research the "created" phraseology in Genesis in 'the original tongue' and find that it has more in line with a potter's molding of a pot than the idea of 'creation' the doctrine of ex nihilo would have us believe.
A son may be his father's physical child, but look nothing like him. Indeed, we are God's spiritual children but in our current state we do not resemble Him- which is what we need to become to find happiness. Therefore, we need to bring our actions more in line with how He would have us live.
Furthermore, we are not Christ's children until we become His through the Atonement He wrought for us. That is a relationship that we must create in this life, and is not dependent on being the same divine species. Christ spiritually 'begets' us because it is through Him that we approach the Father.
Brilliant! The scriptures also clearly state that we should love others as ourselves. If you have not shown us a simple example of that, must we believe your brand of uninspired scriptural exegesis is true?
Furthermore, God did create us- just not in the sense that the doctrine of ex nihilo suggests.
In closing, please show more respect to your fellow posters, JohnBirchSociety. It helps keep everyone happy.
Thanks for your response.
1) I'm not greater than anyone.
2) Prophet's have been wrong on a multitude of issues. These things are even recorded in scripture.
3) New revelations must agree with the clear, unambiguous, revelations of the past, else we have no sure foundation to judge the validity of any revelation, past or present.
A hypothetical to demonstrate the point:
Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bone. This is attested to by the NT in a clear, unambiguous manner.
Now suppose a modern prophet declared that a revelation changed this. That he wasn't resurrected in a physical body. The prophet, in this instance would be wrong.
I think the scriptures clearly, unambiguously, declare that GOD is the creator of all things / beings, and that he has always existed as GOD. Therefore, even if the Prophet Joseph Smith says otherwise, I cannot accept that assertion as being valid. I hope I'm not being to obtuse on this matter.
4) I think we need to be very careful about approaching any idea of a closed cannon, on this you are absolutely correct! On the inverse, I think we need to see that it is illogical to even have a cannon if the fundamental, foundational truth claims in it can be changed from one generation to another. I'm not talking about adding things that were not previously known, but rather, changing that which was previously declared in a clear, unambiguous manner as being a foundational truth.
If I cannot read the scriptures and see those things as foundationally / eternally true, without potential of complete change in the future by some claimed "revelation" then I cannot really have any faith in ANY previous claim as being foundational and true.
5) Stating fact is not insulting, whether from me or you.
6) The doctrine of "first cause" is not a trinitarian doctrine. I don't accept the premise of "ex nihilo" because, simply, GOD has always existed. Therefore that which was created came from him and not from nothing.
7) Again, stating fact is not insulting. Saying someone is wrong is not an insult. Attacking the character of an individual would be an insult. I've NEVER engaged in such sophomoric nonsense. These matters are to vitally important to be sidetracked with character assasinations.
-
I'll point out where your logic is flawed.
You said, Since:
God created time for man
He existed always
Why must that be true? As long as He existed before He created time, which I believe, it does not prove He had to exist forever to create time. God has created time many, many times. For each earth where He sent His children to dwell, He created a space where they can learn good and evil and repent (be glad to quote scriptures for you). God certainly did exist before He created an earth and heaven where we can dwell as mortal outside His immediate presence.
I believe this scripture is true. But, because time is only measured to man, it does not prove that God has existed forever. After this earth passes away, and we are all resurrected and immortal, time will have no meaning to us as well. That will not mean that we existed forever.
You keep saying that there must be a first cause. But, you haven't answered why? Why is the fact that the race of man has existed forever an impossibility? Show me scriptures that says, "There was nothing but God, then God brought man into existence from nothing."
You won't find it. It didn't happen that way.
The family of man has always existed. The problem is mortal man cannot comprehend such things without being enlightened by the spirit. God is our Father in Heaven. We are His offspring, just as it says in the Bible. Why would he go through this much trouble for anything other than His children?
What will we be when we are perfected and dwell in everlasting burnings with God?
Heirs of all that the Father has?
What does that make us?
Sons!
Where was there ever a son that couldn't be like his father?
This is going to take some serious pondering and prayer for you to understand.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
First, outside of this discussion, I think we should avoid say, "This is going to take some serious pondering and prayer for you to understand". And I mean that whether it were to come from me or you. The reason for that is that you and I have NO IDEA how much the other has studied and prayed about the matter. You very well may have a better knowledge than I or visa versa. I think we need to just let the facts speak for themselves.
Now back to our previously scheduled program...
1) GOD must have always existed because the scriptures say so. He is the Alpha and Omega. His without beginning or end. The scriptures say so. That's good enough for me.
On top of what the scriptures say, it is a scientific proof that there is / must be a first cause beyond the boundaries of "time". Of course we are all limited in our ability to even describe such things given that our language is temporally constructive.
2) Since GOD is the "first cause" and he created us (not ex nihilo, because he existed already, thus "from nothing, something" does not apply in the ultimate sense), he existed prior to our existence, in fact prior to time, which he has created for man. We are ontologically different than he because we are a creation, he is not.
3) There cannot be an eternity of "past" in "time" looking back from this moment in "time". If that were the case, all things that could possibly have occurred in "time" would have already transpired because there would be an eternity of "time" for them to happen. THUS, "time" has a beginning. And, as the scriptures attest, it does, GOD created it. Again, we are limited in the description of these concepts by our temporally constructive language(s).
4) You ask for a scripture that says the following, "There was nothing but God, then God brought man into existence from nothing", here's one:
"aIn the bbeginning was the Word, and the cWord was with God, and the dWord was eGod. 2 The same was in the abeginning with God.
3 All things were amade by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:1-3)
5) I've never disagreed with the claim that when exalted we will have rights to all that GOD has.
-
Originally Posted by JohnBirchSociety
Wow, I cannot believe that you've said we are the same "species" as GOD.
Would it be any better if Jesus said it?
John 10:
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
John 1:
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
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:
Think of the prodigal son story. A son took his inheritance and left home, kind of like man did when they fell and chose sin. He realized his choice was wrong and wanted to be numbered among his father's children again, in fact, he just wanted to be a servant in his father's house. But, his father restored his sonship and made him an heir once again.
We are children of God, but we are lost and fallen by choice. Our Father in Heaven has provided a way whereby we can restore that relationship.
John 20:
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.
No mistaking the relationship.
Maybe we are the same family?
Maybe we really are children like the scriptures say?
1) You might wish to research the "Ye are gods" in the original tongue to see that "gods" in question are fundamentally different than "GOD".
2) If we are the Children of GOD in a "species" sense, rather than a general creative sense (he created us) then why do the scriptures speak of us "becoming" his sons (and daughters by extension)? If we are already in that status by the fact of us being the same "species" as GOD?
3) The Scriptures clearly state that GOD created man. In fact, the scriptures are so clear on it, that I'd fill this disscussion forums server with listing of them if needed.
-
If you hold to a Trinitarian view of the Godhead -- nothing I say will make sense to you. So it does not surprise me that you feel this way.
Christians have never held a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. That was an invention of the Council of Nicea, 300 years after Christ prayed to the Father to "forgive them, for they know not what they do."
These 2 talks by Elder Holland state our position quite well. You are free to disagree. Just as I am free to disagree with your views, as well:
The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent
and:
I would encourage you to really study these talks.
Tom
If I could encourage you to do one thing in this life, it would be to put away the "talks" and pick up our Bible, Book of Mormon, and D&C/PofGP, and see that GOD is eternal. See that GOD created time. See that GOD created man. See that GOD created all things / beings (other than GOD who is self-existent and without creator).
I think many times we LDS get a bit backwards in our approach. We take our "talks" and transpose them upon Scripture (Standard Works). This leads us to incorrect conclusions...
Just my two cents...
-
Only to one who thinks finite.
If there ever was a "time" when man did not exist, tell me why did God decided, after an entire eternity, to finally "create" him?
What was God's paradigm shift; what did He learn that made Him think to create man? Did He always plan to create man, just wanted to wait for an eternity to do it?
Surely the God you believe in didn't "learn" something that made Him decide to create man.
No, it can't be so. Man has always existed. Don't get hung up on God "creating" man on this earth "in the beginning."
Moses 1:
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.
36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.
38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.
39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.
41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.
He has always done this.
It's a difficult thing, maybe impossible, to comprehend eternity. But, I can understand it enough to see that either man has always existed, or he doesn't exist at all. Since man exists, then the race of man has always existed. Open your mind, your heart, and your eyes. God did not will man, or anything else into existence. You are His child, just as He calls Moses, and He is about His business of trying to perfect you.
Since GOD created time for man, he existed always, outside the bounds of time, which he created. Therefore, your argument has no merit.
Alma 40:8 "Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men."
There must be a first cause. GOD is that cause. He is the only being that is self-existent. All other beings / things were created by him.
-
Not according to Joseph Smith.....and our relationship to God is one of Father and child.
Unfortunately for us, the totality of Scripture does not agree with Joseph Smith's assertion.
Feelings vs absolute proof
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
If your feelings contradict observable reality, I'd recommend you follow what is real, rather than feelings.
We are given brains for a reason. To think.
There should be a balance, faith doesn't trump reason, or visa versa, unless one component is 100% correct (irrefutable, rational, real).