Guest Godless Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 No. A large problem with that analogy is that you're comparing the relationship between two theist religions to the relationship between a (poly)theist and a non-theist religion. On that merit alone, I wouldn't presume to compare the two relationships. Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Thank you, Godless. Not trying to upset you here, but (edit: some) LDS believe (what Joseph Smith taught and lectured though not canonized) in that "God never had the power to create Himself out of nothing," meaning He had Parents, Grandparents, etc. and also meaning that more than one God exists. LDS also believe that no one can reach the highest exaltation level alone, so Temple marraige and fidelity are required, for all - across the board, and indirectly implied, through all who have gone before us, including God Himself. No beginning and no end, bro. Edited July 14, 2016 by nuclearfuels Quote
Guest Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: He had Parents, Grandparents, etc. and also meaning that more than one God exists This is not canonized LDS doctrine. Some LDS people believe this to be. Also, Godless was a member of the Church for many years, so he's aware of our theology. Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 " God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/05/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng Quote
anatess2 Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: Thank you, Godless. Not trying to upset you here, but LDS believe in that "God never had the power to create Himself out of nothing," meaning He had Parents, Grandparents, etc. and also meaning that more than one God exists. LDS also believe that no one can reach the highest exaltation level alone, so Temple marraige and fidelity are required, for all - across the board, and indirectly implied, through all who have gone before us, including God Himself. No beginning and no end, bro. Uhm... this is not what LDS believe. The LDS believe in ONE GOD. It is on the first page of the Book of Mormon even... There are 3 PERSONS in that one Godhead. Only 3. No parents or grandparents of the Heavenly Father in that Godhead. Yes, we believe God did not create Himself from nothing nor did He create our spirits (consciousness) from nothing. The LDS believe our spirits are eternal as He is eternal. Whether He CAN create anything from nothing we don't know - it's irrelevant to our faith because He chose not to. Whether He HAS parents or grandparents we don't know - it's irrelevant to our faith because our Plan of Salvation is centered on Christ who is one with The Father with the help of the Holy Ghost. Nobody else has power over our salvation. Edited July 14, 2016 by anatess2 MrShorty and Jane_Doe 2 Quote
Jane_Doe Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) @nuclearfuels @nuclearfuels You ask a lot of questions here, which is good. But may I suggest that some questions are more profitable than others. For example, studying the Godhead and as examining revelation and what is/isn't cannon could be more profitable than the relationship between Hinduism and Buddism. Edited July 14, 2016 by Jane_Doe tesuji 1 Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 My questions are...off / amiss? Quote
anatess2 Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: My questions are...off / amiss? I'm not sure. I don't quite understand what your question is. Buddhism is fundamentally very different from Hinduism even as Siddharta was a Hindu. Now, if Godless would create his atheist religion, then the Godless religion to Christianity is like Buddhism is to Hinduism. Edited July 14, 2016 by anatess2 Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 Yes, and Mormonism is very different from traditional Christianity. Quote
Guest Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) I don't want to speak for Jane, but I think she is saying that your time and energy could be better spent learning pure doctrine, than chasing peripheral things and philosophy. Or maybe that's what I'm saying. Gene R. Cook wrote a great article, pointed to teachers in the church, but I think it applies to us here in that we need to be careful in representing our Church in public places (including this forum) to be sure we are teaching pure doctrine. Here is the article. One piece: Quote The teacher of righteousness will teach from the holy scriptures and will teach that which is taught and confirmed by the Holy Ghost. (See D&C 52:9.) He will not “teach for doctrines the commandments of men.” (JS—H 1:19.) He will not mingle the history and opinions of men with the scriptures nor spend religious instruction time teaching speculation or the philosophies of the world, thereby giving Satan’s views exposure. He will not teach “doctrines” upon which the Lord’s prophet has not spoken. (See D&C 28:2–3.) He knows that the scriptures lead one to faith on the Lord and unto repentance, which bring a change of heart. (See Hel. 15:7;Alma 37:8.) The teacher will teach in simplicity, according to the true needs of the people, basic gospel doctrines like faith, repentance, and prayer, which all men—all men—can apply. (See D&C 19:31; Alma 26:22.) He will not look beyond the mark by exaggerating, by teaching in the fringe areas, by expanding on the scriptures, or by teaching exotic extremes in any principle, like excessively lengthy prayers, false doctrines about the Savior or about Adam, or extremes in diet, or politics, or investments. He will remember that Satan works in the extremes. He knows of the exactness of the Lord’s doctrine, but also of “temperance in all things.” (D&C 12:8.) Edited July 14, 2016 by Eowyn Quote
anatess2 Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: Yes, and Mormonism is very different from traditional Christianity. No, it isn't. It is fundamentally the same. Take your issue with God, for example. Trinity versus the Godhead is a disagreement on INTERPRETATION of scripture. Trinitarian interprets ONE GOD as a physical substance oneness... Mormons interprets ONE GOD as a oneness of WILL. Both believe in the same 3 persons in that One God both believe the same fundamental principles of the characteristics of this God - that it is God's mission to bring to pass the eternal life of Man through the Atonement of Christ. On the other hand - Hindus believe in Gods, Buddhists don't believe in any God. You can't be more different than that. Edited July 14, 2016 by anatess2 Quote
tesuji Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said: Agree or disagree? I disagree. It's like asking if apple are to oranges what melons are to strawberries (insert any 4 fruits here) Mormonism is a type of Christianity, though, so maybe it's not exactly 4 random fruits. Although some Christians would not include Mormonism at all because they usually say you have to believe in some creed or medieval parameters (e.g. Nicene Creed) to qualify as Christian. Whereas Mormons would say, well we believe in the Bible, that Jesus was the Son of God and our Saviour, as described in the Bible - isn't that Christian? What is your point in asking this question? Edited July 14, 2016 by tesuji Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 Hinduism and Buddhism: had no founders, believe in reincarnation and eternal progression, continuing open cannon of scriptures / revelations, fasting, meditation, offering/sacrifice to deities, Mormonism is not fundamentally the same as apostatized Christianity, hence the prosecution, additional scriptures, Prophets, Apostles, continuing revelation, Temples, missionaries, Priesthood, the Holy Ghost (the actual, real one not a belief in one), Quote
Guest Godless Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: Yes, and Mormonism is very different from traditional Christianity. I don't necessarily disagree, but why bring up shaky, uncanonized "doctrine" right off the bat to try to illustrate your point? If they really are very different, then I would assume you have some basic doctrinal arguments to make rather than resorting to highly theoretical concepts of God. And I still don't see basis for the Mormonism/Christianity vs. Buddhism/Hinduism comparison. Last I checked, there weren't any Buddhists going around claiming to be Hindus, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Quote
tesuji Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 18 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: My questions are...off / amiss? Nothing wrong with asking questions, but you need to ask detailed questions if you want detailed answers. Quote
tesuji Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Godless said: Last I checked, there weren't any Buddhists going around claiming to be Hindus, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I might be wrong, but I think a Hindu could possibly believe everything Buddhists do? So Buddhism could be a subset of Hinduism, if a Hindu wanted it to be? Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 Forums are places for conversation, not limited to doctrine only. Opinions are welcome, even opinions others dont agree with, which is kind of the point of having a conversation. If this post is upsetting / disturbing, there are many more that anyone can post on at any time. fo·rum ˈfôrəm/ noun noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora 1. a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. "it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research" synonyms: meeting, assembly, gathering, rally, conference, seminar, convention, symposium, colloquium, caucus; More informalget-together; formalcolloquy "forums were held for staff to air grievances" setting, place, scene, context, stage, framework, backdrop; medium, means, apparatus, auspices "a forum for discussion" an Internet site where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings; a message board. 2. North American a court or tribunal. 3. (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business. synonyms: public meeting place, marketplace, agora "the Roman forum" Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Uhm... this is not what LDS believe. The LDS believe in ONE GOD. It is on the first page of the Book of Mormon even... There are 3 PERSONS in that one Godhead. Only 3. No parents or grandparents of the Heavenly Father in that Godhead. Yes, we believe God did not create Himself from nothing nor did He create our spirits (consciousness) from nothing. The LDS believe our spirits are eternal as He is eternal. Whether He CAN create anything from nothing we don't know - it's irrelevant to our faith because He chose not to. Whether He HAS parents or grandparents we don't know - it's irrelevant to our faith because our Plan of Salvation is centered on Christ who is one with The Father with the help of the Holy Ghost. Nobody else has power over our salvation. 19 minutes ago, Eowyn said: I don't want to speak for Jane, but I think she is saying that your time and energy could be better spent learning pure doctrine, than chasing peripheral things and philosophy. Or maybe that's what I'm saying. Gene R. Cook wrote a great article, pointed to teachers in the church, but I think we need to be careful in representing our Church in public places (including this forum) to be sure we are teaching pure doctrine. Here is the article. One piece: Wow! This is funny. I seemed to have touched a nerve, unintentionally. Not that I'm against being a flamer, but come on, y'all. I wasn't even trying. If this forum's goal is conversion and not supplementing / pondering our faith and the plan of salvation, just let me know and I'll ask about things like faith and repentance. And as long as we're pointing out articles, I guess lectures from Joseph Smith, the non-canonized ones on LDS.org shouldn't be included? I'll note that for my next post. And...as an fyi, if you believe the LDS beliefs, you believe the non-canonized parts as well, as well as all direct adn indirect implications of such. it's really not tricky to grasp, unless we're delving into relativism where eacah topic means the opposit of its definiton because the current "popular opinion" demands such. The moral posturing by respondents here, advocating learning pure doctrine, assumes erroneously, this discussion will not illuminate more pure doctrine; as a reminder, LDS believe that the gospel truth in its fulness was taught to Adam and Eve and thier children, then bits and pieces were taken as their children moved away. Such bits and pieces contained portions of the truth which were lost over the centuries. Non-canonized Edited July 14, 2016 by nuclearfuels Quote
Guest Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 6 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: Forums are places for conversation, not limited to doctrine only. Except when you make a statement starting with something like "LDS believe...". Then you do have some responsibility to state what Mormons actually believe, not what some think. Unless you're trying to misrepresent Mormonism, which certainly happens on the Internet, but will give you a very short shelf life here. Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 The King Follett Sermon - Ensign Apr. 1971 - ensign https://www.lds.org/.../the-king-follett... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints The King Follett Sermon, one of the classics of Church literature, was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the April 7, 1844, conference of the Church in ... King Follett Sermon - The Joseph Smith Papers josephsmithpapers.org/.../accounts-of-the-king-follett-sermo... The Joseph Smith Papers Accounts of the “King Follett Sermon”. Joseph Smith gave an address on 7 April 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois, at a general conference of the church. Because a ... King Follett discourse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Follett_discourse Wikipedia The King Follett discourse, or King Follett sermon, was an address delivered in Nauvoo, Illinois by Joseph Smith, president and founder of the Latter Day Saint ... Mormon Literature Sampler: The King Follett Discourse mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm Brigham Young University I have been requested to speak by friends and relatives of Brother Follett, who was crushed to death in a well; and inasmuch as there are a great many in this ... [PDF]King Follett Discourse - Learning about Latter-day Saints www.ldslearning.org/lds-king-follett-discourse-a-newly-amalgamated-text-byu.pdf The King Follett Discourse: A Newly. Amalgamated Text. Stan Larson. The King Follett Discourse of 7 April 1844, perhaps the most signifi- cant sermon delivered ... downplaying the King Follett Discourse - FairMormon en.fairmormon.org/...and.../Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse Mar 24, 2015 - This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. LDS: King Follett Sermon - WOW! WOW! WOW! - Catholic Answers Forums forums.catholic.com › Forums › Non-Catholic Religions Aug 17, 2008 - 15 posts - 11 authors This sermon was given by Joseph Smith in memory of an LDS Elder named King Follett. It is taken directly from the LDS webpage, it is a classic ... April 7, 1844 - BOAP: The Book of Abraham Project www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1844/7Apr44.html The following important edefying & interesting discourse was deliverd by ... on the subject of the Dead--relative to the death of elder King Follett who was ... The King Follet Sermon: Evaluating Joseph Smith's Hebrew Exegesis ... www.thetwocities.com/.../the-king-follet-sermon-evaluating-joseph-smiths-hebrew-ex... Jun 17, 2015 - On April 7, 1844, just before his death in the following month, Joseph Smith delivered a sermon commonly referred to as “The King Follet ... The King Follett Discourse by Joseph Smith, Jr. - YouTube ▶ 39:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfalMc4fXX8 Nov 5, 2012 - Uploaded by FULL audio books for everyone Short Nonfiction Collection Vol. 019 by Various A collection of short nonfiction works in the public domain. The ... Quote
nuclearfuels Posted July 14, 2016 Author Report Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) Mormonism is to Christianity what Buddhism is to Hinduism? Opinion only. Agree or disagree? Edited July 14, 2016 by nuclearfuels Quote
Guest Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 Yes, the King Follet papers are on LDS.org. That doesn't make them canonized doctrine. Spamming the board with links to those papers doesn't make them doctrine. I don't have anything else to say on that matter. The forum rules are at the top of the forum. You also agreed to them when you signed up, so I assume you read them. Opinions are fine, as long as you follow the guidelines in those rules. I took exception with "LDS believe..." I'm not trying to fight you. Just keeping in mind that many more read these forums than post, and part of my responsibility as a moderator is making sure that the Church is being represented here accurately. Quote
anatess2 Posted July 14, 2016 Report Posted July 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: Wow! This is funny. I seemed to have touched a nerve, unintentionally. You quoted me on this post. Just to clarify... you didn't touch my nerve. Although your question made me scratch my head. tesuji 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.