desirexnoel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm not offended, but you do seem to be trying to offend. Why?She has been saying the whole time she is only looking for answers... She was kind of getting them until everyone decided it doesn't matter and they aren't going to talk about it anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 john doe, can you tell me honestly how I seem to you to be "trying to offend"? That would imply I'm making an effort to to so. If you're going to make that claim, could you at least tell me how you're getting that impression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 A Christian should always believe that Heavenly Father created man. What is never taught is what process he used. Evolution is one possible theory. But, until Heavenly Father chooses to make that known to us or until we attain perfect knowledge, Evolution will simply be a theory with the potential to be flawed. Heavenly Father's process will not be flawed."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens" -- Joseph Smith (spoken with authority)If God is a man.. how could he create His race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirexnoel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens" -- Joseph Smith (spoken with authority)If God is a man.. how could he create Himself?That goes into God has a father, which is debated even in the LDS community. Those who don't generally look outside the chapel believe that God did have a father himself, but this belief isn't widely accepted so much anymore... Again, just with those who don't look outside LDS approved material are more likely to believe this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthiechan Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) I took a Philosophy class called Religious Pluralism in the United States. We Mormons are classified by religious philosophers as henotheistic. I believe it is important to understand how we are perceived by others even if you disagree with it. Regarding the Thirteen Articles of Faith, in my mind they are canon because I see them as being a part of the Pearl of Great Price. Ditto with the first vision and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. I believe that God's mortality and our mortality were different, and that God the Father is a resurrected being. What I do not subscribe to is the idea that God worships his own God, and then God's God worships his God and so on and so forth. Until clarifying revelation states otherwise I believe that God the Father was the first intelligence to do something with himself, saw the awesomeness of it and encouraged the rest of us to join him. Christ was considered a god before he attained his physical body and his resurrected state. If this were not so he would not have been given authority to act in the name of the Father when creating our Earth. Therefore, why couldn't God the Father retain his god-ship before giving himself a body? God the Father is omniscient because he has all knowledge. No one else has all knowledge, that's what makes him so different from us. Not even Christ has all knowledge, as Christ does not even know the hour in which God the Father will command Him to return to Earth. The only idea perpetuated by modern prophets is that God the Father had a mortal life. Speculating that God worships his God is simply speculation and is not taught. Edit: I do believe that The Family: A Proclamation to the World is considered canon. Edited August 21, 2009 by ruthiechan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 john doe, can you tell me honestly how I seem to you to be "trying to offend"? That would imply I'm making an effort to to so. If you're going to make that claim, could you at least tell me how you're getting that impression? Lattelady, can you tell me honestly how I seem to you to be offended all the time? That would imply that I'm making an effort to be offended. If you're going to make that claim, could you at least tell me how you're getting that impression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirexnoel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Lattelady, can you tell me honestly how I seem to you to be offended all the time? That would imply that I'm making an effort to be offended. If you're going to make that claim, could you at least tell me how you're getting that impression?She didn't say you were giving off any impression. She was asking how you got the impression that she was trying to offend anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 She said in post #245 that I seem to be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirexnoel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Isn't the fact that neither of you are offended or trying to offend enough to get back on topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Oh come on dear, this topic has been over for pages. The last 15 at least have been about beating a dead horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desirexnoel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthiechan Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I tried to get us back on topic somewhat but my post has been ignored thus far. Maybe all interesting went on vacation with Snow. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 john doe, I want to respectfully ask you why you are mocking me. I know that contention is not of the Holy Spirit, I never said that you were offended all the time--even you know that my statement was "you seem to be offended." If you're not, just let me know courteously that you're not offended and we'll move on. Your comments and your mocking are seemingly out of place; 3 Nephi 11:29 "Verily I say unto you, he that hath a spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." I want you to know I would never mock another Brother or Sister the way you're mocking me. Alma 5:30-31 "...I say unto you, is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions? Woe unto such a one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Lattelady, In post #249 I responded to your claim that I (and others) seem to be offended. I responded that I'm not. Would you like me say say it again? Lattelady, In post #245, you said that I and others seem to be offended. I responded that I am not offended. Would you like me to say it again? Lattelady, I have stated before, and 3 times now in this post alone that I am not offended. I can't speak for all people here, but I am not offended. To the board, I am not, let me repeat, not offended by Lattelady. Carry on. Let's see if we can hit 300 posts on this thread by the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 That goes into God has a father, which is debated even in the LDS community. Those who don't generally look outside the chapel believe that God did have a father himself, but this belief isn't widely accepted so much anymore... Again, just with those who don't look outside LDS approved material are more likely to believe this.It is widely accepted (or it should be). 1) We are of the race as God (literal offspring of Heavenly Father/Mother)2) It follows that God would be the same race as his father and mother (literal offspring)I don't think that's much of a stretch at all."To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before."That should pretty much put the nail in this henotheism vs monotheism coffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 This has to be one of the strangest interactions I've encountered thusfar... Only once, John Doe, did I mention that you and some others seem to get offended by certain labels. Only once. You said it seemed like I was TRYING to offend. I ASKED you how it seemed that way to you. Then you proceeded to mock me. As a moderator, and one who agreed to follow the rules of the forum, you had no reason to mock. You insist that you're not offended. So, you've chosen to mock me...why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 bmy, that last quote that you used in your post, where is it from? It starts, "To inherit the same power..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmy- Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) bmy, that last quote that you used in your post, where is it from? It starts, "To inherit the same power..."It's a quote from Joseph Smith given during a 'talk'. given by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the April 7, 1844, conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Illinois. Some twenty thousand Saints were assembled.You can read the entire thing here LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon and LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon (part II) Edited August 21, 2009 by bmy- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lattelady Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) bmy, this King Follett Sermon that you've posted, I've seen arguments about it not being canonized. Beyond that question, is this sermon by Joseph Smith widely accepted by the majority of Members? I'm not asking if it's accepted as canonized, but if it's accepted as true. Edited August 21, 2009 by lattelady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maureen Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 But, does the LDS church consider the King Follett Sermon scripture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unityinduality Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) · Hidden Hidden Dang people...LDS are technically polytheistic, but in a non-Hindu type of way. They believe there are many Gods but they only worship and have dealings with the One that created this Earth. Each God has His own sphere of creation and they don't interfere with each others "stuff".Good Answer!By the way I like your golden plates Avatar. Edited August 21, 2009 by unityinduality Link to comment
lattelady Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I was wondering if it was accepted as true. It's not part of the scriptures, I know, because it was a sermon. But it was preached by the founder of the Church and a Prophet. Is the doctrine/teaching taught within accepted as true by the majority of members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 ruthiechan, I do not agree that our Father in Heaven was the first of such beings throughout all time and eternity. I believe there are an infinite number of earths, Gods, and man. God is trying to perpetuate His species in the same manner it was taught to Him, in the same manner it has always been accomplished. Forever is a long time to try to comprehend. But, if God just now decided to create man, what was He doing for an eternity? Logic suggests since God has always been here, meaning the race, then man has always been here. Either that, or we are not children of Heavenly Parents. He showed up here to create this heaven and earth. I can't believe it was the first time it was ever done throughout all eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unityinduality Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 polytheist or monotheist. I think some people are using these labels as if they are derogatory. It is true that LDS doctrine says there are many gods. So if you are considering the entire universe then yes you could in a very small instance say LDS doctrine is polytheist. But, if you are talking about our sphere of influence, our earth, there is only one God. God is a title like Bishop. There is only one Bishop for you. There is only one God for you. In the overall sense of how LDS members worship, they are monotheists. Ask any LDS member. I don't mind being called polytheist, or zen, or tao or catholic or LDS or whatever. If you say my belief is somewhat zen, and I am not zen, I will not be upset with that or even argue with you. I like to say I am every religion and I am none. Every religion has a portion of the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 · Hidden Hidden polytheist or monotheist. I think some people are using these labels as if they are derogatory.It is true that LDS doctrine says there are many gods. So if you are considering the entire universe then yes you could in a very small instance say LDS doctrine is polytheist.But, if you are talking about our sphere of influence, our earth, there is only one God. God is a title like Bishop. There is only one Bishop for you. There is only one God for you.In the overall sense of how LDS members worship, they are monotheists.Ask any LDS member.I don't mind being called polytheist, or zen, or tao or catholic or LDS or whatever. If you say my belief is somewhat zen, and I am not zen, I will not be upset with that or even argue with you.I like to say I am every religion and I am none. Every religion has a portion of the truth.Hmm.... I like how your brain works. Looking forward to reading more of you. Link to comment
Recommended Posts