WANDERER Posted February 16, 2008 Author Posted February 16, 2008 · Hidden Hidden I didn't realise I was hoping for them to just show up one day at the door....talk about being lame. Thankyou Dale, I got the first paragraph, that makes sense. The rest is a bit confusing as I didn't think about what the implications of how you viewed the trinity would be. "Trying to prove the LDS wrong"...it's the fluttering of moth wings drawn to a light.
Dale Posted February 17, 2008 Report Posted February 17, 2008 I did not mean to confuse you. I am still trying to understand LDS theology. I am still trying to learn to explain it. I do not accept Lorenzo Snow's couplet as true doctrine. I do not see the Father as ever being once a man. At most i am open to calling the person's of the Godhead God's. I consider non-ultimate being's god's only in a figurative way. To me such god's can never become "God's." I see man as only progessing toward's a very limited progression. Dealing with Anti-Restoration flak can be uncomfortable. I am so familiar with the trivia i am usually able to stand up for myself. Quote
WANDERER Posted February 17, 2008 Author Posted February 17, 2008 · Hidden Hidden Dale I appreciate that you have explained your understandings to me given the constraints and the fact that I don't really know a lot : ) It gives me something to work with and search into as opposed to being 'clueless' LOL.
rameumptom Posted February 17, 2008 Report Posted February 17, 2008 Dale, There are many LDS that believe KFD and Snow's couplet were referencing Jesus as the God referred to. Pres Hinckley has stated we just don't really have much info on the topic to really say anything beyond what has been stated. IOW, Jesus was God that became man, and we can become as Jesus is now. Most early Christians believed this, such as Paul, who stated we are "co-heirs with Christ", and John who wrote that we would sit down in God's throne and reign with him. This is my view of what it means to become as God is. In reality, we know very little about the Father in that much of what is written is speculation based upon just a couple of teachings from Joseph Smith. Still, I do not believe those teachings are required at this time for our exaltation, otherwise God would have taught it more fully to us. I keep an open mind, in that I know Joseph was teaching something wonderful, but did not get the chance to expound much on it, whether it referred to both the Father and the Son, or just the Son. 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.