Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

Teancum18

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    113

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Teancum18

  1. Why people are shocked I believe in the Church

    in Introduce Yourself

    Posted

    Well, you do need more than that if you're going to follow this:

    But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

    So, what's your reason? Why do you believe?

    LM

    The answer is simple: Duty. Something can't be real if it's not your strongest sense of duty that you feel.

  2. Discussion Regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    It makes sense that you have one god that is more important than the others, but just the fact that there are three gods there, and probably countless gods before them, (ie our grandfather in heaven, our great grandfather in heaven) and I suppose that the mother in heaven is also a god?

    Well, Christ did say in the New Testament that we are Gods. And He was quoting Himself from the Old Testament.

  4. Why people are shocked I believe in the Church

    in Introduce Yourself

    Posted · Edited by Teancum18

    I have actually been told several times that people can't believe I believe the church to be true. haha... on my mission, I was known as Elder [last name], the first to Heaven or the first to Heck.

    Anyway, here's why:

    1) I am a cynic by nature

    2) I doubt everything and believe very little of what I'm told. I actually don't believe in most people outside of my parents and the General Authorities.

    3) Everyone in my life admits that they really don't know how deep my malice runs. Nor do they want to.

    4) I've been told that my blood is cold as ice

    5) I like to tear people's beliefs down; not because that's truly what I want- it's not. But, rather because I want to see what others' beliefs are made of.

    Some of you are probably thinking, "Geez... I can only imagine the spiritual experience he must have had to believe in the Church."

    Truthfully, there has never been much of one. I've just always known. Never needed more than that. :)

  5. Question about unworthiness and taking the sacrament

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Teancum18

    This is what I have been counseled. Always take the Sacrament unless specifically told not to by a Bishop, Branch President, or Stake President.

    No, I didn't miss the point, I can read thank you very much.

    Most members I am sure make it a point to try and make it on time. The point I am making is what gives that former Bishop the right to lock the doors and not let anyone in, when he thinks the members are at fault because they happen to be a minute or two late.

    Does he own the chapel? Does he have authorization to do such a thing?

    I don't believe any bishop would do this. This is either a rumor, or a misinterpretation of what really happened. And on the very jacked up case that it did, if it did, I guarantee you that Bishop was reprimanded or removed quickly.

  6. Discussion Regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    Perhaps. In my opinion, it's still monotheistic for two major reasons: 1) We worship God the Father as the God of our world. Jesus Christ is the Savior, but still did the will of the Father, therefore worshiping the Father in Christ. Christ Himself says that He gives all the glory unto the Father. The Holy Ghost just bears record of the Father. 2) The god head was decreed by Heavenly Father. So we are only doing what He has commanded us to do. It wasn't Christ or the Holy Ghost that established or declared the god head, but only the Father. So we are still doing what only He has commanded us to you.

    Does that make sense?

  7. Discussion Regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    Do Mormons consider themselves monotheistic or polytheistic?

    Monotheistic in that we worship one God, the Eternal Father; His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

    Polytheistic in that we believe that there are other Gods, just as Christ said so Himself in the New Testament, and Paul taught in his epistles.

    For all intents and purposes, we are polytheistic when it comes to our beliefs. However, we are very monotheistic when it comes to our worship.

  8. Discussion Regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Teancum18

    This is fantastic! I'm loving this! Thank you everyone. I actually feel like I am back at the Council of Nicea (hopefully everyone gets the insinuation there).

    The thing is, that 'purpose' does not in itself constitute or produce 'godliness' and 'sovereignity'. The 'Godhead' concept(one rather Mormon) can be taken to mean various things. Either its meaning is that of a 'structure'(of organization of roles), or is that of a joint status (of recognized power), or is that of an actuality of excercise of power (both joining potentiality and actuality; a power shared), or a nature or substantia (ouosia*; this the mainstream notion), or a relation that engenders power and is fueled by agape(Ostler's notion), or a status aqcuired on the basis of sharing one same characteristic or substance: that of divinity itself(cappadocian fathers).

    Actually, it's very clearly defined in numerous accounts.

    Do they share love, divinity, power, status, relation, nature? Mormons believe (not all the same) they share everything except nature(and hence, are still individual substances), but even while sharing that belief, mormon theology and 'doctrinal fashions' have undergone serious changes. For, even in the present(lets not even go much back!), for many mormons, even power is not completely or equally shared, or status. There is a tension within mormon theology. By one side we have the original Smith-Pratts tradition, that takes (typical 1800's) Christ to be fully God, and fully authoritarian(equal rights and sovereignity with Elohim), fueled by such texts such as the words and epiphany of Christ the Creator of Men(no mention of an Elohim there...) in Ether. And some revealing hymns at church that show him as Ruler-alongside-Father. Or those texts of 3 Nephi which clearly show Christ commanding the disciples to pray and does not stop them from praying to Him(not to the Father), whereas he would pray to the father.'Father' and 'Son' being merely titles suggesting difference and filial relationship rather than power/knowledge differences. On the other side we have the tradition of late-Smith-Young, which (and prevailed) takes the Father to be 'The' Head of the Godhead (beat that irony! a 'Head' within a god-Head) and the most reverence-owed-to Being. This mounted on the texts of most severe biblical monarchism, specially book-of-mormon references to the old testament, and hymns that show Christ as a messenger of lesser divinity or at least, supervised by a Father. One mormon theologian which insisted on this was McConkie. And he was succesful.

    This is precisely why Joseph Smith needed to be approached by both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. In the early 1800's, the religious growth in the new America was abundant and overwhelming. In all of His infinite wisdom, Heavenly Father had to appear to Joseph Smith with His beloved son on His right-hand side.

    Now bear in mind, back then, no one had even conceived the notion of the two being separate beings. I would be inclined to believe that if Joseph Smith wanted to make that story up, he would have done it according to the popular belief of the time. The account would have gone as follows: "Joseph, I am God; hear me roar!"

    So for Joseph Smith to give the account he did is truly one aspect that signifcantly adds to the validity of the story. Could Joseph Smith had made the whole thing up and conceived the story from his own imagination? Possibly. At the age of 14 with a third grade education? Highly unlikely (especially considering the fact that children back in those days were discouraged to think for themselves and were punished greatly when they did). And even if he did come up with all of that on his own, would he have gone through tarring and feathering, beatings, incarceration, and ultimately death; all for a fantasy he made up? Absolutely not!

    Fortunately for Joseph, he wasn't the first to have this experience. May I remind you all of Stephen seeing Jesus on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-57); the voice that John the Baptisit heard when he doused Chris in the river Jordan, "Behold my beloved Son..." (Matthew 3:16-17); Paul's epistle to Timothy regarding the mediation between God and man, and how another man was needed, he being Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). Above all, why would blasphemy against the Holy Ghost be the only unforgivable sin, but not blasphemy against God or Christ if they were the same person? (Matthew 12:31-32)

    All scriptures in the Bible that argue God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are the same being are subject to interpretation. However, actual eye-witness accounts of visually seeing two different beings is not subjective or open to interpretation. They are exactly what they are: eye-witnesses.

    Don't forget John 8:16-18.

    Even today, in most wards there are radically diferent members who group silently into two sides: those taking the Father to be the only true God, while Christ is but a gifted and now-reveared-by-us child of supreme power soon-to-inherit- everything, and those others who take Christ as an epiphany of the Father himself, taking christ as the example of how heavenly 'generation' differs from that terrestrial in that the relation between fathers and sons can be homologized and united in such a way that such difference makes no sense, for both share equally all glory and reverence. This, of course, a vital matter for many who insist that(contrary to early church practice...) Christ cannot be praised ('for he cannot also be prayed to') when obvious instances of praising equally appear in hymns, or be taken as He-who-listens-to-the-prayer-and-answers-it for only the Father listens and the Son is commanded to act(biblical notion).

    The proper problem arises from the notion of Christ as commanded* by the Father. This language(old-world metaphors for certain relations otherwise impossible to represent) is but obscure to many.

    Some very interesting points were posed here. It actually proves that Christ cannot be the same as God the Father. How can a being be prayed to if He is refered to by one title, but not by another. New rule for Teancum18! Everyone on this site may only talk to me if, and ONLY IF, they refer to me as Teancum18. If you refer to me by my real name, I won't answer or even read what you right. You see, I have an identity complex. I'm not sure if I'm one person or three. So to clarify the matter for the time being, you must refer to me as Teancum18 if you wish to talk to me. :D

    This however, does not become any more clear at the Temple endowments and 'teachings'. It only gets even more complicated. When having my endowments at NY, I remember I talked to Richard Bushman (I had read two of his books on Smith) after getting out of my first session. I asked him concerning the possible 'making-sense-out-of' of some scenes i had seen there that contradicted(or suspiciously added) traditional or cannonical light. Even him, an acclaimed scholar on these matters, agreed with me, that the exact thing we were discussing(which out of respect i wont say here -many regard it as 'holy'), was but metaphor and non-doctrinal. Its purpose pointed elsewhere.

    I'm sorry, but I don't believe this story actually happened. I don't like the way I felt when I read this part, and the feeling holds true now as I reflect on it. I'm very sorry, I don't mean to accuse you, but I must be honest; I just don't get a good feeling about it.

    So the way I see it, there is no way to really* and seriosuly* defend a 'One-Official-Ever-Concived-Revealed-Believed by leaders-textual' interpretation of the mormon Godhead. But that is not a weakness of mormon thought. It is, precisely, its strenght. It's downside, however, is its 'non-sided' and uneasyness at teaching; for such ambivalence (though fruitful, compared to Main-stream-Christianity's fixed dogmas) produces development but evaporates great apologetics for the actual beliefs of the 'Whole' of the mormon spectre. If there exists such a 'whole'.

    The mormon notion of the Godhead beats others by much. But philosophically speaking, is of no use if nobody ever makes it a polished and not-so-obscure idea. Other notions of the christian god, do have polished and ready-to-use arguments and studies on them, but lack the movility and profund historical and ethical value of the 'obscure' and 'pagan' regarded belief of the mormons.

    You are absolutely right. That's why there are over 50k missionaries in the world. In regard to the publications out there regarding the Trinity, many of them don't really talk about the Trinity, but rather poor, inadequate ways in which it was conceived. (I almost didn't say that after all the ways WiseMagic12312 was verbally ravaged for mentioning it, but I felt I had to.)

    I hope you don't feel attacked, Sergg. I am actually trying to make sense of your doctoral-level writing by attempting to carry a conversation with it; whether for or against. I hope you can see that.

    Justice, throughout the history of humanity, the God or gods worshipped have sometimes procreated (especially polytheistic religions). However, monotheism has generally posited that God is perfect, and therefore outside of time. As such, he is neither birthed, nor would he give birth. I'm not sure it's simpler to say that God progresses and gives birth...but I suppose the concept is one we can more easily relate to.

    Wait, wasn't Christ conceived in the womb of Mary and given birth to? How can traditional monotheistic beliefs hold true to the notion of a God that was not birthed? Wait! Before you respond with, "That was just the body he had on this Earth," let me say this. Acts 1:11 testifies that the same "Christ shall come again in like manner as ye have seen him go." So if He is in the same temporal body at His second coming, that He was given at the time of birth, wouldn't that constitute a being that is made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39), meaning that he was given birth to?

    Sergg,

    Wow! You totally lost me. The nature of God as taught by God Himself through personal revelation is just not that complicated. I have never been in a ward like the one you describe. And what in the world is a "proper problem"?

    applepansy

    I second that notion.

    ...and not just relate to easier, but it's who we are.

    How would a 1 month old baby attempt to explain who its parents are? In many ways I think that's what we're trying to do here.

    It's enough for it to know who it's parents are, and that it must rely on them for life. As it gets older and can understand more, the parent will teach it more.

    God has only revealed that He is our Father in Heaven, that He sent His Only Begotten Son in the flesh into the world to redeem us, and that we need to follow His Son and repent when we don't. I'm sure there is much more, but we can't even get these simple things right.

    There is no way the god of the trinity can be our parent, or our father. We cannot be his offspring. Unless you feel He meant that He is a father like an artist is to a painting, or a sculptor is to a sculture? Then, he will only love us until he makes something better? Surely He is capable of making something that will obey Him. He has done it with everything else but man.

    The question may still be asked of God, "Who is man that thou art mindful of him?"

    He created this world for us; He gave us dominion over it... just like a parent would do. He must be a glorified, perfected man who is trying to perfect His children! Why else would He bother with such disobedience? Why else would He devise a plan to save man that includes sending His Only Begotten Son to suffer an eternal suffering?

    To me, in the trinitarian view of god we are but an ant farm. We are not like him; we can never be like him; we do not have any potential other than what is granted, and that makes him not a parent or father. That makes us just like the elephant, horse, and kangaroo... just a creation.

    Yes? No?

    Exactly! Since I am created in God's image, I am multple people in one! That's precisely why everyone on these forums are no longer allowed to speak to me unless they call me by Teancum18, and no other name. I don't mean to be rude, I just don't want to create any confusion. :eek:

    I really like where all this is going. I wasn't hopeful at first about this thread based on the first couple of posts; for all intents and purposes, those people were right. However, I'm glad it still took off.

    I would like to see more points of the LDS God Head challenged by LDS people and non-LDS people.

  14. Discussion Regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Teancum18

    PrisonChaplin said something in the welcome threads that really got me thinking about starting a brainstorming discussion about the God Head (I'm just going to refer to it as that since I'm LDS). But for all intents and purposes, however other members from different faiths refer to it is still precisely what I want to discuss here. This is what PC said.

    IMHO, the Trinity, the LDS Godhead, the modalism of Oneness Pentecostals or "Jesus Only-ism," and even the Subordinationism (Jesus is a god, but not the God) of the Jehovah's Witnesses are all easy to understand on a surface level. All of them can become complicated when explaining the beliefs to critics.

    Now, I'm sure this goes without any necessity to mention because PC is an all-time favorite on lds.net/forums, but I will still say it out of respect: I am not quoting him to put him on the spot or attack him. On the contrary, he poses a really good point and I want to discuss it.

    I'm still not entirely sure where I want to go with this thread, but I definitely want it to be one that discuses the complexity of the God Head (or Trinity, ect as others will refer to it). Scriptures, doctrine, personal opinions- all are fair game as contributions that may lead to this discussion (LDS people, please remember Alma 12:9)

    I definitely want questions asked, ideas challenged, new ideas posed; all in an attempt to find common ground between all faiths as to the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

    One last thing, if you read this thread and think it's stupid, please don't just ignore it. Work with it. Help me find ways to make this a good discussion. There are some very intelligent people on this forum site, and I want to see what all of us putting our heads together can accomplish in regards to finding a common-ground belief of the God Head.

    :::EDIT::: Thank you to the person who moved this thread for me.

  18. The World Will End In 2012

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Teancum18
    Added quote

    Did the Mayan's predict their own demise? If they can predict the end of the world in 2012 they should be able to predict their own end.

    haha exactly!!! How can they predict the end of the world and not their own demise? Or maybe they predicted the year 2012 would be THEIR demise, and not that of the whole world. If that was the case, they were obviously wrong.

    Truthfully, I think the Mayan calender ends at 2012 because they were too lazy to continue it from there. Or they died out before they could.

    Microsoft made all the calenders on its computers built in the 1980's and 1990's end on Sept. 7, 2000. That wasn't because anyone thought a meteor was going to crush our planet and end the world. It was just because Microsoft knew they'd have knew computers out by then. Maybe the Mayans thought something similar... or they just didn't care and were too lazy.

    I think the second coming is no less 200 years away. Maybe even more.

  19. Who tempted Satan into bad ways.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    If Satan can be tempted without there being a tempter, then why do we need a Satan? And if people are tempted by power, prestige, vanity etc anyway, then what exactly is Satan doing?

    That's exactly what I am getting at!!! There had to be a Satan from the very beginning... If there is an author of righteousness and of evil, then who is the original author of evil?? Who came before Lucifer?? Just questions I am posing. I realize the scriptures provide some of the answer to this, but I am trying to dig deeper and further back than our eternal round.

  21. Who tempted Satan into bad ways.

    in General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Teancum18

    Hi guys and girls.

    Just a thought, but with Satan being such a bad spirit, where did the temptation into such bad ways come from.

    I myself have no answers on this, maybe its to deep but i have this in my head and wondered if anyone else had any views on said topic.

    Mods if this is to much please feel free to remove.

    I have wondered about this a lot the past three years. Roommates and I have been in heated arguments regarding the topic. Not heated towards each other, but heated because we'd get frustrated that no matter how many ideas we could come up with together, we could not pinpoint an answer.

    Nobody tempted him. He has agency too. He chose the wrong path himself.

    Well if you think about it it wasn't only Satan that when down the wrong path. 1/3 of our spirit brothers and sisters went down the wrong path. That's a pretty big percentage. But even in the Pre-mortal life there still had to be the option of evil. If there was no option of evil then we could only choose good and we would have had no free agency. So evil was possible, it just took Satan's pride to break away.

    This is the way I imagine it. Lucifer(pre-mortal Satan) admired our Father in Heaven. He knows that our potential is to become like Him. He loves our Heavenly Father but his attitude has a slight mixture of pride in it, maye a bit of jelousy. But not enough of either to be sinning.

    A council in Heaven is called. Heavenly Father asks for someone to be the Saviour. Jehovah stands and accepts. Lucifer thinks that he can impress God by presenting a plan where all His children can be saved. Obviously the exact mentatlity of Lucifer isn't known. He thinks that an adequate reward would be to be granted all of God's power. God refuses his plan, but because of Lucifer's choice/attitude/etc. and his pride, which increases, he doesn't back down.

    It's a very tragic, human story. It doesn't require a temptor just the right combination of attitude, choice, mentality, etc. Also we don't know what was exactly said at the council in Heaven. Since God was asking for someone to be a Saviour it was obviosuly explained that we would fall. It would also have been explained that the cause of the fall would have been somebody tempting Adama and Eve. Then that someone would continue to tempt humanity throughout history.

    Just some thoughts.

    The idea that nobody tempted Lucifer (he wasn't known as Satan at the time), is one that cannot go unconsidered. Unfortunately, this doesn't suffice for me. If it is the correct answer, sweet; but I don't think it's the fullest answer.

    Yep. I believe he was led astray by his own pride, jealous, ego, vanity, etc.

    When I do consider the very strong possibility that nobody tempted Lucifer, this is among the explanations I consider for how he did lead himself astray.

    In my honest opinion, the temptation of power and glory was what he sought after. He wanted to not become like our Heavenly Father, but wanted to be Our Heavenly Father and the rejection he received at the premortal council was what drove him.

    The temptation of power and prestige. Vanity.

    This is getting really close to what I believe really happened; lust for power, vanity, and self-grandiosity.

    Now we get to what I've been building up with all these quotes. I believe that Lucifer tempted himself to walk away, however, I still believe that there was an author of evil who came prior to the council in Heaven that determined the plan for our world, and perhaps others.

    I don't know how to support this without going into details that can only be discussed in certain places. So let me say it like this. When Christ was asked in the New Testament why He did the things He did, He responded, "Everything I have done, I've seen my Father do." Speculation suggests that He was insinuating that Heavenly Father was a Savior for a world before ours. So that would mean that it was prior to the mission of Christ, therefore suggesting that these events happened prior to the fall of Lucifer. So that must mean that there was a Satan before Lucifer, right?? Maybe that's not what the notion proves; nevertheless, it makes sense.

    Regardless, I do believe that there was a tempter or influencing power of evil origin--existing prior to the eternal round that makes up our existence--that played a part in Lucifer's fall; certainly helping the dichotomy that existed within Lucifer's pride and lust for power.

    Just my two cents worth!

    T18