exaltation

[john doe]

ceeboo's boss: you can PM me or Pam if you like, or any of the mods for that matter. We will welcome him back in a couple weeks. He should have received a PM explaining it, just as he has in the past.

Edited February 26, 2009 by john doe

[Connie]

Read this thread for what i found in the Feb. 1982 Ensign on the subject: http://www.lds.net/forums/share/17806-lorenzo-snow-couplet.html

[john doe]

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!

John, those are great questions. I think in the interests of not getting them lost in the talk from this thread you should start a new thread where it can be discussed.

[JohnnyRudick]

Read this thread for what i found in the Feb. 1982 Ensign on the subject: http://www.lds.net/forums/share/17806-lorenzo-snow-couplet.html

Thanks a lot for that;-)

And for those who are hung up on the word "mere" . . .

"The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.)"

I find that word no where in there.

I find the inference of that word no where in there.

"like", "as" does not mean "mere".

Jesus was not a "mere" man. Yet He was a man "like" us.

And He lived "as" we did on this earth so that He could become acquainted with sorrow and grief and relate to each of us.

Bro. Rudick

[Connie]

Good eye, Johnny! I was hoping someone would pick up on that so i wouldn't have to point it out. :)

[beefche]

Because, the Scriptures say GOD has always been as he is now. This is one of the few teachings in Scripture that is unambiguous.

Does this scripture also pertain to Jesus? That He is the same, yesterday, and forever? I'm sorry, I'm not a scriptorian (however that spelled), so if you are referring to another scriptures I would like to know which one.

I view Jesus as the same--He was God before and He is God now. He also lived on earth and had a body. Since Jesus is equal to God, I worship them both.

I'm not purposely trying to be obstinate. I just truly don't understand why Jesus can be accepted as a man who lived on earth and be God, but the Father cannot be accepted. All things are possible with God and His ways are not my ways. I am not able to understand all that He knows--so how it was accomplished is beyond me. But I can accept it.

[JohnnyRudick]

Does this scripture also pertain to Jesus? That He is the same, yesterday, and forever? I'm sorry, I'm not a scriptorian (however that spelled), so if you are referring to another scriptures I would like to know which one.

I view Jesus as the same--He was God before and He is God now. He also lived on earth and had a body. Since Jesus is equal to God, I worship them both.

I'm not purposely trying to be obstinate. I just truly don't understand why Jesus can be accepted as a man who lived on earth and be God, but the Father cannot be accepted. All things are possible with God and His ways are not my ways. I am not able to understand all that He knows--so how it was accomplished is beyond me. But I can accept it.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste:-(

Mine is. . .

Well, I believe I had an answer for that I just wish I could remember:confused:

I know I wasn't asked but I will try to give it some thought and some prayer.

And if I remember what it was I was trying to remember I will get back with it;-)

Bro. Rudick

[marshac]

Every time someone replies to this thread, I get a nice little email notification... that also gets sent to my phone. It has been buzzing in my pocket all day today in class. Next time I throw a beehive into a room, i'll be sure to turn my phone off..... or at least position the phone over some sore muscles that could use the massage.

Seriously though, thanks for the good discussion here- it's what i'm looking for after all. Real honest beliefs from people have shown me that there is great diversity of faith within the LDS tradition- it's encouraging to know that everyone is not a robot in a white shirt with a black nametag, and that people struggle with some of the same things i'm looking at too. Mormonstories.org helped me a ton... i'm sorry it's gone.

JohnBirchSociety- I agree with you. As someone who likes to explore everything, I have been studying what the church believes (I don't want to have some bomb droped in my lap and later be like "we're supposed to believe what??" after i'm already comitted), and it's a bit frustrating that so many of the beliefs aren't in one site or text. In fact, the sales pitch the elders give really is disingenuous when you consider that they leave you a book of mormon and ask that you pray about it.... neglecting to tell you that the majority of the church doctrine is not in that book. Fortunatly (or unfortunatly sometimes) it's not my modus operandi to simply accept what others say... I have to investigate for myself. Thanks all who have replied so far!

[Palerider]

this web site will help alot of people.....it will get you to thinking....

Answers About Mormons and Mormon Belief (LDS FAQ - Latter-day Saints)