The question LDS can't answer.
TQQTs
TQQTs
DIRTBAG555
>
>TQQTs
No
Scott
Euripedes Tushreds
Inventor of the HEPA filtration vacuum cleaner bag
TQQTs
>>
>>TQQTs
>
>No
>
>Scott
Tell me more Scott. Do you beleive that God was once like you?
TQQTs
Greg
I would say that you need to understand -=exactly=- what it is that you are
asking.
-=God=- per say, has never sinned.
-Greg
TQQTs
OK.. I think I understand now. Let me ask again...
Do you personally beleive that "-=God=- per say" was once like you?
Mr4banjo
kdkuren dndd dnojef whfpeh ndihwef w nidsif ow eow wo wow03hcnpqwqpnmd
jkdshjdodnfoje jdlkdkdnbdkw lw lw w wo wh y32y2093iergwhdh90igpdjuqg8eywoin
vywe98
Nathan Weyerman
> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>
> TQQTs
Everything posted on this question then will be pure speculation and not
doctrinal.
When you say God do you mean the office that the current personage(s)
hold(s) or the personage(s) that currently holds the office of God?
In the case of the first, no.
In the case of the latter, no. Did Christ ever sin? no. Was he like us
(i.e. mortal)? yes, to a degree.
Did Christ do everything that the Father did? yes.
You can go with this where you like, however, I am not responsible for
any one else's opinion.
--
<html>
<font face="Morpheus" size=6><b><u><div align="center">
The Weyerman Clan<br>
</font><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman" size=3><a
href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4635">http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4635</a></font></b></u></html>
Greg
>
>Do you personally beleive that "-=God=- per say" was once like you?
"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." So in a nut shell,
yes.
However, the question you ask above is quite different from your original
question.
"Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?" is not the same
question as "Do you personally beleive that "-=God=- per say" was once like
you?"
Jesus was like me; He ate food, slept, felt pain, love, saddness,
compassion, etc.. he was born, grew to manhood. But He did not sin. So your
questions are not equal. This is why I said that you need to understand
exactly what it is you are asking.
And before you go typing in your response to this with a bunch of your own
interpretation of the Bible, answer my challange to evangelicals and
anti-mormons which I've posted several times on this NG -with no
response-.... then I'll listen to your argument.
-Greg
tim...@my-dejanews.com
Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
juice to fermented grape juice?
Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
in the sacrament.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
TQQTs
> Nagash (Dimmu Borgir)
> Dani (Cradle Of Filth)
> Garm (Ulver)
> Hellhammer (most Norwegian bands)
> all of Slayer
'cept Bostaph. No matter how shitty DiM was, the drumming was great!
> Quorthon
> Satyr
all of Arcturus
> --
> /}
> // brett @ ausmetal.net
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
- nevermind
"Somniferous whisperings of scarlet fields
Sleep calling me and my dreams and wondrous
My reality abandoned (I traverse afar)
Not a care if I never wake"
- Everwake, by Anathema
Steve O'Neil
>Tell me more Scott. Do you beleive that God was once like you?
Once mortal? Yes. Once a sinner? No.
Jesus was mortal but never sinned. No reason why we should assume that
God ever sinned. So much for your unanswerable question.
(I love answering the ones that can't be answered. Had a real flood of
them this week)
Stephen O'Neil
TQQTs
>TQQTs wrote:
>
>> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>>
>> TQQTs
>
>Everything posted on this question then will be pure speculation and not
>doctrinal.
Agreed. Let's not concern ourselves with doctrine. I'm asking for your
personal testimony on this. Call it speculation if you wish.... or call it
faith.
>
>When you say God do you mean the office that the current personage(s)
>hold(s) or the personage(s) that currently holds the office of God?
>In the case of the first, no.
>In the case of the latter, no. Did Christ ever sin? no.
I think that covers most of the bases Nathan. What I get is that you beleive
that God(s), either in personage or office never sinned.
> Was he like us
>(i.e. mortal)? yes, to a degree.
>Did Christ do everything that the Father did? yes.
What I am getting here is that you personally beleive that God was once sort of
like man, to some degree, but not really truly like him. Is this accurate? If
not, please tell me so.
If it is accurate, then please explain for me why you beleive that you and I,
not being like God, can hope to achieve godhood.
>You can go with this where you like, however, I am not responsible for
>any one else's opinion.
Nor should you be. I agree. As for where this thread goes.. I'm following you.
TQQTs
TQQTs
TQQTs said:
>>OK.. I think I understand now. Let me ask again...
>>
>>Do you personally beleive that "-=God=- per say" was once like you?
>
>"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." So in a nut shell,
>yes.
>
>However, the question you ask above is quite different from your original
>question.
>
Yes it is. It's a follow-up question to clarify your answer to the first
question.
>"Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?" is not the same
>question as "Do you personally beleive that "-=God=- per say" was once like
>you?"
Agreed
>
>Jesus was like me; He ate food, slept, felt pain, love, saddness,
>compassion, etc.. he was born, grew to manhood. But He did not sin.
And so, never having sinned, Jesus was not like you. Right?
So your
>questions are not equal. This is why I said that you need to understand
>exactly what it is you are asking.
I'll try as hard as I can to understand what I am asking. I trust that you will
try just as hard to understand the answers you give.
>
>And before you go typing in your response to this with a bunch of your own
>interpretation of the Bible
I don't plan to quote the Bible. I'm just interested in what you personally
beleive and why. You're more than entitled to your beliefs.
, answer my challange to evangelicals and
>anti-mormons which I've posted several times on this NG -with no
>response-....
I looked for your name in the archives to see if I could retrieve your
challenge and re-post it for you, but I didn't find it. Probably becasue I am a
real amateur when it comes to computer stuff. Maybe if you repeat your
challenge, some evangelical or anti-mormon will respond this time.
> then I'll listen to your argument.
>
>-Greg
What argument? I'm listening to you.
TQQTs
TQQTs
>
>>Tell me more Scott. Do you beleive that God was once like you?
>
>Once mortal? Yes. Once a sinner? No.
>Jesus was mortal but never sinned.
Then you mean that Jesus was sorta like you, but not exactly. Correct?
>No reason why we should assume that
>God ever sinned.
No there is not. Not that I can think of. The only reason anyone might make
that assumption would be if they believed that God was once like us.
And just as there is no reason to assume that God ever sinned... do you think
there is a reason to assume that men...sinners...can ever become Like God?
So much for your unanswerable question.
>(I love answering the ones that can't be answered. Had a real flood of
>them this week)
Well Stephan, the first question was the easy one. It's the second one that
I'm interested in hearing your answer to.
TQQTs
Greg
>>compassion, etc.. he was born, grew to manhood. But He did not sin.
>
>And so, never having sinned, Jesus was not like you. Right?
You over simplify. My mother was not named Mary either and I wasn't born in
Bethlehem. However, Jesus was like me in that we are made in the image of
God and we share, in some degree, all the basic human feelings.
>>And before you go typing in your response to this with a bunch of your own
>>interpretation of the Bible
>
>I don't plan to quote the Bible. I'm just interested in what you
personally
>beleive and why. You're more than entitled to your beliefs.
That's fine. It was just that your question seemed loaded. Kind of like, "I
have a question and when someone dares to answer, I'll pounce on them with
all my pre-written refutations."
>I looked for your name in the archives to see if I could retrieve your
>challenge and re-post it for you, but I didn't find it. Probably becasue I
am a
>real amateur when it comes to computer stuff. Maybe if you repeat your
>challenge, some evangelical or anti-mormon will respond this time.
I'll repost it.
>> then I'll listen to your argument.
>>
>>-Greg
>
>What argument? I'm listening to you.
My bad. Sorry. :-)
>TQQTs
Like I said, the nature of you questioned lead me to the assumption that you
were about throw out alot of Biblical quotes and argue against my beliefs. I
just thought I would pre-empt your first strike by setting the ground rules
on which I would discuss your points. :-)
But..... since argument is not your plan.... we can discuss anything you'd
like.
-Greg
dar...@my-dejanews.com
NO!!! God has never sinned! We believe that the God the Father was once a
Man, but not a sinful Man. He was a God-Man like Jesus was on this earth.
Jesus never sinned, but He was tempted. Had Jesus sinned, He would have
ceased to be a God-Man. The same is true for the Father. I answered your
question. Darrick Evenson
In article <19981123100203...@ng-fd2.aol.com>,
tq...@aol.com (TQQTs) wrote:
> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>
> TQQTs
Greg
think
>there is a reason to assume that men...sinners...can ever become Like God?
My 1 year old daughter is small and clumbsy, but I have every reason to
assume she will grow up to be a strong and graceful young women.
Why else does He call us His children, if He doesn't expect us to grow to be
like Him?
God promised a kingdom to those who follow His commandments and endure to
the end.. .....angels don't have kingdoms.
>TQQTs
-Greg
Greg
>juice to fermented grape juice?
>
>Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
>in the sacrament.
err... what does the "Bible" have to do with the sacrament?
-Greg
mrsg...@webtv.net
Once mortal? Yes. Once a sinner? No.
Jesus was mortal but never sinned.
************* Was Jesus not half-divine, which would, conversely, make
him half-mortal? Would being half-divine give him an advantage in the
perfection department?
Steve:
No reason why we should assume that God ever sinned.
************ So God served his earthly probation, like Jesus, as a
half-divine, half-mortal entity? If so, do fullly mortal beings, like
yourself, supposedly, have a chance to become Gods? (Your personal
answer, not GBH's media special version).
Mrs. Garcia
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it." Aristotle
Matthew L Reed
mortality, and IF he did sin, those sins were forgiven and remembered no
more, so it would be accurate to say that no, God has never sinned.
Bear in mind that this is a subject that little is revealed on. We are
told that we can become like Him, ie gods that can procreate and bring
to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We aren't told much
about where He came from, how He got to where He is, etc. There are a
lot of unknowns here that we aren't told and we don't really need to
know.
-Matthew-
TQQTs
>
TQQTs:
>>And just as there is no reason to assume that God ever sinned... do you
>think
>>there is a reason to assume that men...sinners...can ever become Like God?
>
>
>My 1 year old daughter is small and clumbsy, but I have every reason to
>assume she will grow up to be a strong and graceful young women.
Congratulations. I trust she will grow strong and graceful too. Along the way,
I expect she will make mistakes and act against your will at times. You will
correct her with love, as all parents should. As you do, you may remember when
YOU were a child and broke your parents rules, and you'll realize that this is
something you and your daughter have in common. You are both subject to sin.
>
>Why else does He call us His children, if He doesn't expect us to grow to be
>like Him?
That's an excellent question. Perfection is a high mark to jump to. Jesus did
it, but God must know that the rest of us will never be perfect.
Another question pops to mind too. If Jesus is our elder brother and Satan is
too, then do you suppose God expects Satan to grow to be like God as well?
Surely God would expect the same for ALL His children, wouldn't he?
>
>God promised a kingdom to those who follow His commandments and endure to
>the end.. .....angels don't have kingdoms.
Owning a kingdom does not make one God, or even A god, does it?
Kingdoms belong to kings.
But you've not answered my question. You've said that you personally beleive
that God never sinned. I've asked you if you personally beleive that we
sinners can ever be like God if God himself was never a sinner. Your responses
indicates that you do beleive that.
So I am asking you why you beleive these two mutually exclusive ideas at the
same time. You don't have to prove it... just tell me how you reconcile it in
your own mind.
Thanks
TQQTs
TQQTs
>
>>>Jesus was like me; He ate food, slept, felt pain, love, saddness,
>>>compassion, etc.. he was born, grew to manhood. But He did not sin.
>>
>>And so, never having sinned, Jesus was not like you. Right?
>
>
>You over simplify. My mother was not named Mary either and I wasn't born in
>Bethlehem. However, Jesus was like me in that we are made in the image of
>God and we share, in some degree, all the basic human feelings.
Lust? Greed? Envy? Are these things contained in the nature of God? Certainly
man's nature contains many good qualities, but it contains some very ungodly
human feelings as well. Did God ever possess these feelings? Maybe so. I know
that He has said he is a jealous God... maybe that could be contstrued to mean
that God indeed has negative attributes. If He did, then there is every
possibility that God was once, like us, a sinner... don't you think?
>
>>>And before you go typing in your response to this with a bunch of your own
>>>interpretation of the Bible
>>
>>I don't plan to quote the Bible. I'm just interested in what you
>personally
>>beleive and why. You're more than entitled to your beliefs.
>
>
>That's fine. It was just that your question seemed loaded. Kind of like, "I
>have a question and when someone dares to answer, I'll pounce on them with
>all my pre-written refutations."
Loaded? Who, me? lol. But you must know that I'm gearing up to ask you to
account for your beliefs. I look forward to hearing you explain how someone
who is imperfect can hope to become a god. Yhis is not a cake that we can both
eat and have. If God was like us, then He was a sinner. If he was always
perfect, then He was not like us. If we want to argue that we can become like
God, we need to figure out out we, who are NOT perfect can make a god's claim
of perfection... eternally.
>
>>I looked for your name in the archives to see if I could retrieve your
>>challenge and re-post it for you, but I didn't find it. Probably becasue I
>am a
>>real amateur when it comes to computer stuff. Maybe if you repeat your
>>challenge, some evangelical or anti-mormon will respond this time.
>
>
>I'll repost it.
>
>>> then I'll listen to your argument.
>>>
>>>-Greg
>>
>>What argument? I'm listening to you.
>
>
>My bad. Sorry. :-)
>
>>TQQTs
>
>
>Like I said, the nature of you questioned lead me to the assumption that you
>were about throw out alot of Biblical quotes and argue against my beliefs. I
>just thought I would pre-empt your first strike by setting the ground rules
>on which I would discuss your points. :-)
>
>But..... since argument is not your plan.... we can discuss anything you'd
>like.
>
>-Greg
Cool... thanks
TQQTs
>
TQQTs
>
>Dear TQQTs
>
> NO!!! God has never sinned! We believe that the God the Father was once a
>Man, but not a sinful Man. He was a God-Man like Jesus was on this earth.
>Jesus never sinned, but He was tempted. Had Jesus sinned, He would have
>ceased to be a God-Man. The same is true for the Father. I answered your
>question. Darrick Evenson
>
Indeed you did, Darrick. Thank you. But tell me, do you beleive that God was
once like us?
TQQTs
Kerry Shirts
TQQTs <tq...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981123200032...@ng118.aol.com>...
I would say yes. Jesus is God, and he surely was like us, that is a
physical man while on earth. And the real beauty of the true Gospel of
Christ is that we can also in turn become like him. He bridges the gap
between fallen man and the Heavenly Father. Now THAT is THE Good News, or
the Gospel of Salvation from the Fall.
Kerry A. Shirts
Kerry Shirts
TQQTs <tq...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981123190939...@ng121.aol.com>...
> ><Gr...@dontspamme.net>
> >
>
> TQQTs:
> >>And just as there is no reason to assume that God ever sinned... do you
> >think
> >>there is a reason to assume that men...sinners...can ever become Like
God?
Sure. Through accepting Christ's atonement and repenting of our sins, we
sure can become "joint heirs" with Christ. That is scriptural teaching and
we accept it.
Kerry A. Shirts
TQQTs
Yes Kerry, but unless you repent before you sin, there will a a microsecond
when you are not perfect. Do you beleive that a god can exist who is not or
was not eternally perfect? If so, then don't you agree that God may have
sinned while HE was a man?
See? This goes around and around. If you can be a sinner and still get to be
a god, then God can be a (former) sinner too. If God can't be a (former)
sinner, then, as a god in embryo, neither can you.
As your elder brother, Jesus was made of the same stuff as you, yet He needed
to be perfect in order to take his place as a god. Is this not true?
Now please, don't tell me that God forgets your sins after you repent and it's
as if it never happened. until you have read D&C 82:7, in which God says that
if you sin again, your former sins return. Apparantly, your sins are forgiven,
but not forgotten. They are part of your history, which can come back to haunt
you.
TQQTs
TQQTs
Jesus was a man like us in every way? Kerry..was Jesus a sinner like us? If
not, then he was not like us, was he? There's a fundamental difference. To
say Jesus was like us is to call Him a sinner.
TQQTs
TQQTs
>Date: 11/23/98 9:45 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <365A2BE9...@no.spam.csi.com>
>
>I suppose one could say that IF God was once a man like us, living in
>mortality, and IF he did sin, those sins were forgiven and remembered no
>more, so it would be accurate to say that no, God has never sinned.
Not quite. D&C 82:7 tells us that God will not lay the sin to our charge. But
if we sin again, the former sins return. Forgiven but not forgotten.
>Bear in mind that this is a subject that little is revealed on. We are
>told that we can become like Him, ie gods that can procreate and bring
>to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We aren't told much
>about where He came from, how He got to where He is, etc. There are a
>lot of unknowns here that we aren't told and we don't really need to
>know.
>
>-Matthew-
>
Dude... read Abraham chapter three. It reveals that God found himself among
eternal intellilgences. He was the smartest intelligence, so he figured he was
God.
There's lots revealed about God. It's just that it can get to be pretty
contradictory.
TQQTs
toborn...@hotmail.com
tim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
> juice to fermented grape juice?
Wrong assumption. It never changed. "Wine" as used in the bible, has
always meant fermented (alcoholic) grape juice. The phrase "new wine",
in the bible was the freshly squeezed juice of the grape.
> Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
> in the sacrament.
They did for many years. It was wine (fermented) that they made themselves.
From a old post of mine:
________________________________________________________________________
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
: Let us not forget that Jesus' days generally had neither bottles (with
: pressurized caps) nor refrigeration to preserve wine from spoiling,
: although both the above methods were applied in small degree. A major
: method of preserving wine was to dehydrate it by boiling it down into a
: syrup. It was later drunk by adding water and mixing to taste.
: The ancients (and presumably the Jews) were capable of preserving both
: unfermented and fermented grape juice.
This is pure bullpucky. "The ancients" as you say, were *incapable* of
preventing fermentation, because they did not have refrigeration and the
naturally occuring yeast on the skin of all grapes commenced
fermentation as soon as the grapes were crushed. The only thing required
to prevent wine from spoiling (turning to vinegar) is to prevent
bacteria and oxygen from entering the container, and they knew exactly
how to do this with clean tanned animal skins. And they did not boil the
wine and reduce it to a syrup, this would have obviously boiled off all
the alcohol. Get a clue, they weren't stupid. Remember, people like the
effects of alcohol. You're telling me that an inn keeper in Jesus's day
offered alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine in his establishment?...yeah
right. One sip and anyone could tell the difference! Yes, they did
dilute the wine with water at times, but probably just to make more
money from it. They knew that the alcohol content had to be above a
certain percentage to kill the e-coli bacteria (purely empirically,
since they didn't know what bacteria was back then) that was present in
nearly all the water in Jesus's day. Remember Paul said (paraphraseing)
"not water, but a little wine for they stomach's sake".
Go read the parable of the wine skins. Jesus knew EXACTLY how to make
alcoholic wine and that's all that was made back then. One does not need
pressurized vessels to make wine (that's for champagne). The proper
fermentation of wine requires anaerobic conditions (no oxygen).
Remember, Jesus said you can't put new wine (freshly crushed grape
juice) into old bottles (goats skins that were sewn into an air tight
bag), or else they will burst. Thats because the fermentation process
produces alcohol and carbon dioxide, which the later stretches the bag
and hence can only be used once. They tied off the top of the bag
tightly, but allowed excess pressure to bleed off, which made the bag
positively ventilated and prevent bacteria and oxygen from entering. As
long as glucose is available the yeast will continue to produce alcohol
until the concentration reaches about 12 to 15 percent, and then the
yeast goes into a dormant state, same process as today.
Its interesting to note that the genetic code in yeast responsible for
formulating the enzymes that ultimately extract energy from glucose by
cleaving it apart, is EXACLTY the same as that in the muscle cells of
all humans, execpt for the last of this 13 step enzymatic process.
Although it is not the most efficient method (both yeast and muscle
cells prefer an aerobic process) of extracting energy from glucose it is
the only process available when your muscles (if you're out of shape)
and yeast are deprived of oxygen. That last enzymatic step in muscle
cells cleaves the last molecule into 2 latic acid molecules (thats where you
get the sore muscles from), where as in yeast it's end product is ethanol.
It appears that evolution (for obvious reasons) favored those who did
not get slowly intoxicated when running away from a sabre toothed tiger!
Bottom line: Get over it people. Jesus drank plenty of alcohol,
enough to get the title of "wine bibber".
Pete
Greg
Alfie wrote in message <365AAEAF...@webspan.net>...
>Greg wrote:
>>
>> >Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
>> >juice to fermented grape juice?
>> >
>> >in the sacrament.
>>
>>
>> -Greg
>
>
>was...always will be. Make no mistake about it, Jesus along with the
>apostles and everyone else drank WINE...not grape juice despite what the
>fundies and Mormons say.!!! And the Bible has EVERYTHING to do with the
>sacrament. The Last Supper, Bread and Wine.....the
>Eucharist....remember?
You still haven't answered my question... what does the Bible have to do
with the sacrament?
When Jesus taught the sacrament, there was no Bible. The Bible was put
together centuries later by Catholic priests. The Bible has no authority.
The Bible is a collection of writings and those writings taught many great
things to the people at that time. Whe can also learn many good things from
those writings. However, the Bible is not a talisman that can be evoked like
some witches book of spells.
In other words, the Bible has nothing to do with the sacrament, it is a
record of the event taking place 2000 years ago. Jesus on the other hand,
has every thing to do with the sacrament -it's His event. And if He wishes
to change how it's done, that's His right.
Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret
unto his servants the prophets.
You seem to think you can take His authority from Him by evoking the power
of your Bible. You are mistaken.
>The Mormons have water because they are strange.
Oh well... that explains it.
>Alfie
-Greg "2 Nephi 29"
Greg
>>assume she will grow up to be a strong and graceful young women.
>
>Congratulations. I trust she will grow strong and graceful too. Along the
way,
>I expect she will make mistakes and act against your will at times. You
will
WHAT?!!! HOW DARE YOU SIR!! MY DAUGHTER MAKE A MISTAKE??? (Slaps TQQT with a
gauntlet and throws it on the ground!)... Now of course her mother has a
different perspective.. LOL!
And NO! I don't spoil her... well.... almost never.... err.... ok
sometimes.....OH FORGET IT!
>>Why else does He call us His children, if He doesn't expect us to grow to
be
>>like Him?
>
>That's an excellent question. Perfection is a high mark to jump to. Jesus
did
>it, but God must know that the rest of us will never be perfect.
That's an assumption on your part. Most of us in this life will not attain
perfection -but it is achievable- There are many examples of people that
have done it. However, we rely on the attonement of Christ to make up for
our short comings along the way until we become perfect.
>Another question pops to mind too. If Jesus is our elder brother and Satan
is
>too, then do you suppose God expects Satan to grow to be like God as well?
>Surely God would expect the same for ALL His children, wouldn't he?
In the begining Lucifer was a great being -a son of the morning. But he made
his choices and rebeled against Father. -What's worse is that he lead away a
third of the host of heaven- that's alot of people. Lucifer had the same
opportunities that we had....
When Lucifer rebeled, he threw away his right to be apart of the Plan of
Salvation -which included the blessings that come from being born into
mortality and proving that you will be obediant even when you can't see
Father watching you.
Remember, Lucifer was not always Satan. He became Satan by choosing that
path. Therefore Father had the same hopes for Lucifer as He has for each of
us. However, when Lucifer became Satan -the father of lies- Father in Heavan
cast him out, he also cast out chances for eternal progression and all that
goes with it. So no, God doesn't have the same expectations of "Satan" as He
does for us.
>>God promised a kingdom to those who follow His commandments and endure to
>>the end.. .....angels don't have kingdoms.
>
>Owning a kingdom does not make one God, or even A god, does it?
>Kingdoms belong to kings.
Yes it does. A king of what? What is God, king over? You need to know
exactly what is a god. A god is a perfected man. Perfect love, compasion,
order, body, justice, and all knowledge -all that is good.
A god is not Roman, Greek, or fundementatist christian mythology,.
God is king over worlds without number. And He has said that all that He has
will be ours.
That's right from the Bible. However people seem to think, and wrongly so,
that saying that someone can become a god is some how disrespectful of God
the Father.
It couldn't be farther from the truth... God makes gods. That is the
greatest blessing that He bestows on the righteous. It will ADD to His
glory, not take from it. Joint heirs with Christ is the promise to those
that are obediant and righteous in all things -or become such.
>But you've not answered my question. You've said that you personally
beleive
>that God never sinned. I've asked you if you personally beleive that we
>sinners can ever be like God if God himself was never a sinner. Your
responses
>indicates that you do beleive that.
God has never sinned. We can become like God when we are perfected. Why else
did Christ pay for the sins of the faithful? So we could be forgiven of our
sins and make it possible to be sinnless. Forgiven also means forgotten -as
it never happened. Therefore, through Jesus Christ I can become sinnless as
God. As I progress spiritually, I become more like God even in this life. I
can learn compassion, truthfulness, obediance to the commandments, etc...
These are Godly attributes and we can perfect them in this life.
>So I am asking you why you beleive these two mutually exclusive ideas at
the
>same time. You don't have to prove it... just tell me how you reconcile it
in
>your own mind.
Personally I don't see that reconciliation is necessary the two ideas are
harmonious as long as the attonement of Jesus Christ is in the equation.
>Thanks
>
>TQQTs
No Problem.
-Greg
Greg
be
>a god, then God can be a (former) sinner too. If God can't be a (former)
>sinner, then, as a god in embryo, neither can you.
>
>As your elder brother, Jesus was made of the same stuff as you, yet He
needed
>to be perfect in order to take his place as a god. Is this not true?
Not in the context which you are speaking. Yes, perfection is required to
attain godhood. However, Jesus had to be perfect in this life for another
reason. Jesus had to be perfect in order to pay the price for sin. A
sinnless, guiltless, and without spot was required for the sacrifice.
>Now please, don't tell me that God forgets your sins after you repent and
it's
>as if it never happened. until you have read D&C 82:7, in which God says
that
>if you sin again, your former sins return. Apparantly, your sins are
forgiven,
>but not forgotten. They are part of your history, which can come back to
haunt
>you.
Not if you don't sin again. -They are forgotten. Else how can you be judged
sinnless if they are hanging over your head? You're bordering on nit picking
here... :)
>TQQTs
-Greg
tim...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
> juice to fermented grape juice?
>
> Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake
of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus."
Did God change his mind?
Nathan Weyerman
> >From: Nathan Weyerman
>
> >TQQTs wrote:
> >
> >> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
> >>
> >> TQQTs
> >
> >Everything posted on this question then will be pure speculation and not
> >doctrinal.
>
> Agreed. Let's not concern ourselves with doctrine. I'm asking for your
> personal testimony on this. Call it speculation if you wish.... or call it
> faith.
>
> >
> >When you say God do you mean the office that the current personage(s)
> >hold(s) or the personage(s) that currently holds the office of God?
> >In the case of the first, no.
> >In the case of the latter, no. Did Christ ever sin? no.
>
> I think that covers most of the bases Nathan. What I get is that you beleive
> that God(s), either in personage or office never sinned.
The God we worship never sinned because it states in the scriptures that Christ did
everything he saw the Father do, therefore, in this case, God was perfect the same
way Christ was. The office of God has always been filled by personages who have
been perfected (choosing never to sin), but not all will have never sinned
previously to filling that office.
> > Was he like us
> >(i.e. mortal)? yes, to a degree.
> >Did Christ do everything that the Father did? yes.
>
> What I am getting here is that you personally beleive that God was once sort of
> like man, to some degree, but not really truly like him. Is this accurate? If
> not, please tell me so.
yes
> If it is accurate, then please explain for me why you beleive that you and I,
> not being like God, can hope to achieve godhood.
It is written in the scriptures (spoken by the prophets) that we can become
perfected through Christ. And thus being perfected am without sin and therefore
can fill a role of being sinless.
> >You can go with this where you like, however, I am not responsible for
> >any one else's opinion.
>
> Nor should you be. I agree. As for where this thread goes.. I'm following you.
> TQQTs
--
<html>
<font face="Morpheus" size=6><b><u><div align="center">
The Weyerman Clan<br>
</font><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman" size=3><a
href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4635">http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4635</a></font></b></u></html>
Greg
>>You over simplify. My mother was not named Mary either and I wasn't born
in
>>Bethlehem. However, Jesus was like me in that we are made in the image of
>>God and we share, in some degree, all the basic human feelings.
>
>Lust? Greed? Envy? Are these things contained in the nature of God?
Certainly
>man's nature contains many good qualities, but it contains some very
ungodly
>human feelings as well. Did God ever possess these feelings? Maybe so. I
know
>that He has said he is a jealous God... maybe that could be contstrued to
mean
>that God indeed has negative attributes. If He did, then there is every
>possibility that God was once, like us, a sinner... don't you think?
In the nature of -=God=-, no. :-)
I don't know about God the Father's mortal life. Jesus said that He[Jesus]
wasn't doing anything He hadn't seen His Father do. You can draw your own
conclusion on that statement. However, I do know that Jesus was tempted by
the devil on those emotions and Jesus chose not to give into them.
Did He ever possess these feelings? I don't know. He doesn't now. If He did
then part of Him would be ungodly... that's not possible.
I can only say for sure what He's promised me in relation to my perfection.
And that is that if I repent continually, strive to do good continually, and
keep the commandments -I will be judged as sinless through the blood of
Jesus Christ. -I'm banking on that. And as I continue to progress, I will
get better and better, line upon line, until I become perfect in all my
godly attributes and become a joint heir with Christ.
-Greg
Absalom
>Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
I believe he sinned.
--
Absalom, Father of Peace
Sacred Scriptures for Mormons
http://www.absalom.com/mormon/
Absalom
> NO!!! God has never sinned! We believe that the God the Father was once a
>Man, but not a sinful Man. He was a God-Man like Jesus was on this earth.
>Jesus never sinned,
I further believe that Jesus sinned.
Steve O'Neil
>
>
>Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
>juice to fermented grape juice?
Never did. There's no reason to assume that what was described in the
Bible was anything other than fermented wine.
>Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
>in the sacrament.
Simply because that was a revelation given for those of us in our
time. At other times, God's people have been permitted to drink in
moderation. Different instructions for different people living in
different circumstances. Now that's how I understand it. I can't give
a definite answer since only God can answer that.
Stephen O'Neil
Absalom
>The Last Supper, Bread and Wine.....the
>Eucharist....remember?
>The Mormons have water because they are strange.
Actually, we serve water today in token of the watering
down of the gospel that was taught by Joseph Smith
and his contemporaries.
We serve a tiny morsel of bread in token of eating
the crumbs from the table of gospel understanding
that was enjoyed by the early Mormons.
TQQTs
>>>You over simplify. My mother was not named Mary either and I wasn't born
>in
>>>Bethlehem. However, Jesus was like me in that we are made in the image of
>>>God and we share, in some degree, all the basic human feelings.
>>
>Certainly
>>man's nature contains many good qualities, but it contains some very
>ungodly
>>human feelings as well. Did God ever possess these feelings? Maybe so. I
>know
>>that He has said he is a jealous God... maybe that could be contstrued to
>mean
>>that God indeed has negative attributes. If He did, then there is every
>>possibility that God was once, like us, a sinner... don't you think?
>
>
>In the nature of -=God=-, no. :-)
It's funny that I can't get you to make an unqualified statement about this.
You're close...you say that in the nature of God, he never sinned. What does
that mean? Do you beleive he ever sinned or not? Is there a point where He
was not God? Did He sin then, before He was God?
>
>I don't know about God the Father's mortal life. Jesus said that He[Jesus]
>wasn't doing anything He hadn't seen His Father do. You can draw your own
>conclusion on that statement.
Based on that, it seems reasonable that Jesus never saw His Father sin.
However, I do know that Jesus was tempted by
>the devil on those emotions and Jesus chose not to give into them.
Two things:
*Do you beleive Jesus HAD those emotions and chose not to act on them, or do
you beleive that Jesus lacked thoughts or emotions that we consider negative?
For instance... do you think Jesus ever had sexual fantasies? I'm guessing
that he did not, since he is said to have told us that we can sin in our
hearts. Also, He still had both eyes... so I would think His eyes never
offended him.
*On the other hand, Jesus demonstrated anger when He cleared out the temple.
It's possible that he was not angry when he did that; He was simply doing an
unpleasant job which needed doing. But if He WAS subject to anger, then I see
no reason to beleive that He wasn't also subject to lust, greed, or envy.
Further, if Jesus did only that which he saw his Father do, then it would seem
that Jesus had seen His Father act in anger. If Jesus was subject to human
emotions, then His Father was subject to human emotions. If God is subject to
human emotions, then He is not the ruler of everything. He becomes just a guy
who is higher on the ladder than the rest of us.
>
>Did He ever possess these feelings? I don't know. He doesn't now. If He did
>then part of Him would be ungodly... that's not possible.
No one really knows, I should think. But what do you beleive? What's your
opinion on this?
>I can only say for sure what He's promised me in relation to my perfection.
>And that is that if I repent continually, strive to do good continually, and
>keep the commandments -I will be judged as sinless through the blood of
>Jesus Christ
Not quite. You have to forsake your sins as well.
D&C 82:7 And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to
your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall
the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.
Even so, this will not get you your salvation in the fullest gospel sense of
the word. For that, you must recieve the new and everlasting covenant and keep
those covenants until the end of your mortal days.
. -I'm banking on that. And as I continue to progress, I will
>get better and better, line upon line, until I become perfect in all my
>godly attributes and become a joint heir with Christ.
What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean you will rule with Christ in HIS
kingdom, or will you get one of your own?
In any case, your time is limited. You have a superhuman efort to make, and not
much time to do it in.
"Yes, I said, but we are commanded to be supermen. Said the Lord, 'Be ye
therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.' (Matt.
5:48). We are gods in embryo, and the Lord demands perfection of us." (Spencer
W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 286)
1 Nephi 15:33
Wherefore, if they should die in their wickedness they must
be cast off also, as to the things which are spiritual, which are
pertaining to righteousness; wherefore, they must be brought to
stand before God, to be judged of their works; and if their works
have been filthiness they must needs be filthy; and if they be
filthy it must needs be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of
God; if so, the kingdom of God must be filthy also.
1 Nephi 15:34
But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy,
and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God;
wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for
that which is filthy.
It's a tall order, isn't it? Perfection now.
Lookin' forward to hearing from you Greg.
TQQTs
TQQTs
TQQTs said:
>>See? This goes around and around. If you can be a sinner and still get to
>be
>>a god, then God can be a (former) sinner too. If God can't be a (former)
>>sinner, then, as a god in embryo, neither can you.
>>
>>As your elder brother, Jesus was made of the same stuff as you, yet He
>needed
>>to be perfect in order to take his place as a god. Is this not true?
>
>
>Not in the context which you are speaking. Yes, perfection is required to
>attain godhood. However, Jesus had to be perfect in this life for another
>reason. Jesus had to be perfect in order to pay the price for sin. A
>sinnless, guiltless, and without spot was required for the sacrifice.
OK. whew! We are agreed that Jesus was sinless and perfect. That He, of
necessity never sinned. He was NOT like us.
>
>>Now please, don't tell me that God forgets your sins after you repent and
>it's
>>as if it never happened. until you have read D&C 82:7, in which God says
>that
>>if you sin again, your former sins return. Apparantly, your sins are
>forgiven,
>>but not forgotten. They are part of your history, which can come back to
>haunt
>>you.
>
>
>Not if you don't sin again. -They are forgotten. Else how can you be judged
>sinnless if they are hanging over your head? You're bordering on nit picking
>here... :)
Yeah, I know. But I don't understand how a sin can be forgotten, but not
really forgotten. If you tell a little fib and then feel sorry for it. If you
confess, make restitution and pray for forgiveness, and then years later you
mess up and tell another little fib... are you lying for the first time, or the
second time?
But it gets nit-pickier if we take the Bible at its word:
(JAMES 2:10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one
point, he is guilty of all.
It would seem that if you tell a lie and repent, that you can't have a lustful
thought, or the lie comes back too. Am I right here?
TQQTs
TQQTs
*snip*
Greg Said:
>>>Why else does He call us His children, if He doesn't expect us to grow to
>be
>>>like Him?
>>
>>That's an excellent question. Perfection is a high mark to jump to. Jesus
>did
>>it, but God must know that the rest of us will never be perfect.
>
>
>That's an assumption on your part. Most of us in this life will not attain
>perfection -but it is achievable- There are many examples of people that
>have done it. However, we rely on the attonement of Christ to make up for
>our short comings along the way until we become perfect.
A basic difference: Christ WAS perfect... men try to BECOME perfect. I know
that Joseph Smith said before he died that he was void of all offense against
God or words to that effect. So he may be held out as one who became perfect,
but He was unlike Christ in the fact that he had imperfections and (arguably)
overcame them.
We must be using different concepts of perfection. You are, perhaps thinking
that perfection is something that can be attained starting from a begginning of
imperfection. Like a bruised apple becoming unblemished.
I'm looking at perfection as a state that begins from perfection. Like an
unbruised apple that stays unblemished.
Now, I'm not sayng we are fruits. I only mean that we can't be completely like
Jesus (or His Father) becasue we start from a blemished state... and we are
always subject to more blemishes, which we look to Christ to heal.
Jesus started out unblemished and stayed that way. You expl;ained to me that
this was necessary. You get no argument from me, except that I still fail to
see how man is like God (either one).
>
>>Another question pops to mind too. If Jesus is our elder brother and Satan
>is
>>too, then do you suppose God expects Satan to grow to be like God as well?
>>Surely God would expect the same for ALL His children, wouldn't he?
>
>
>In the begining Lucifer was a great being -a son of the morning. But he made
>his choices and rebeled against Father. -What's worse is that he lead away a
>third of the host of heaven- that's alot of people. Lucifer had the same
>opportunities that we had....
>
>When Lucifer rebeled, he threw away his right to be apart of the Plan of
>Salvation -which included the blessings that come from being born into
>mortality and proving that you will be obediant even when you can't see
>Father watching you.
>
>Remember, Lucifer was not always Satan. He became Satan by choosing that
>path. Therefore Father had the same hopes for Lucifer as He has for each of
>us. However, when Lucifer became Satan -the father of lies- Father in Heavan
>cast him out, he also cast out chances for eternal progression and all that
>goes with it. So no, God doesn't have the same expectations of "Satan" as He
>does for us.
I'm going to give you that one. It's a good explanation of how Lucifer did not
keep his estate. I've got a zillion questions about that, but it would lead us
away from the question of how man as a sinner could be like God.
>
>>>God promised a kingdom to those who follow His commandments and endure to
>>>the end.. .....angels don't have kingdoms.
>>
>>Owning a kingdom does not make one God, or even A god, does it?
>>Kingdoms belong to kings.
>
>
>Yes it does. A king of what? What is God, king over?
Outstanding question. God is king over everything, or else He is king over
less than everything. I think the traditional view is that God is king over
everything. There's nothing that isn't under God's rule. To be king of less
than everything would indicate that God is less than God, wouldn't it?
You need to know
>exactly what is a god. A god is a perfected man.
A perfected sinner?
Perfect love, compasion,
>order, body, justice, and all knowledge -all that is good.
>
>A god is not Roman, Greek, or fundementatist christian mythology,.
>
>God is king over worlds without number. And He has said that all that He has
>will be ours.
>That's right from the Bible. However people seem to think, and wrongly so,
>that saying that someone can become a god is some how disrespectful of God
>the Father.
Maybe I'm catching on. You are saying that you attain to become a god... not
equal to God, but less than God. You're saying that in exaltation, you will be
a little god.
In that eventuality, who will the inhabitants of your worlds worship as the one
true God?
>
>It couldn't be farther from the truth... God makes gods. That is the
>greatest blessing that He bestows on the righteous. It will ADD to His
>glory, not take from it.
Sort of like a McDonalds Franchise
Joint heirs with Christ is the promise to those
>that are obediant and righteous in all things -or become such.
I asked about this in one of our previous posts. I'm thinking you are saying
you get your own worlds or kingdoms and become equal to Christ.... If so, that
doesn't fit with what you just told me. Will you become a demi-god, or an all
powerful, all wise, eternal God over all creation?
>
>>But you've not answered my question. You've said that you personally
>beleive
>>that God never sinned. I've asked you if you personally beleive that we
>>sinners can ever be like God if God himself was never a sinner. Your
>responses
>>indicates that you do beleive that.
>
>
>God has never sinned. We can become like God when we are perfected.
Greg.... God never sinned... we did. God did not ATTAIN perfection.. he IS
perfection. Here.. look at it this way... did God (or Jesus) need someone to
atone for his sins? Was he subject to death, or did he have power over death?
See, we are subject to death. We need to lean on Him for salvation, in any
sense of the word. Why? Becasue we are different from God or Jesus.
Why else
>did Christ pay for the sins of the faithful?
Becasue they needed him. They were subject to death and could not do it alone.
So we could be forgiven of our
>sins and make it possible to be sinnless. Forgiven also means forgotten -as
>it never happened. Therefore, through Jesus Christ I can become sinnless as
>God. As I progress spiritually, I become more like God even in this life. I
>can learn compassion, truthfulness, obediance to the commandments, etc...
>These are Godly attributes and we can perfect them in this life.
Why will you stand before the judgement bar?
>
>>So I am asking you why you beleive these two mutually exclusive ideas at
>the
>>same time. You don't have to prove it... just tell me how you reconcile it
>in
>>your own mind.
>
>
>Personally I don't see that reconciliation is necessary the two ideas are
>harmonious as long as the attonement of Jesus Christ is in the equation.
Greg.. do you, or do you expect ever to have the power to atone for my sins?
Why not? Could it be becasue you are not like God? If you become like God..
will you have the power to atone for my sins? What if we get together and I
give yosome time to repent. At the very instant of your forgiveness, do you
think you could do me a favor and atone for my sins? You know.. quick, before
you sin again?
If your answer is no, then I again submit that you and I are fundamentally
different from either Jesus or His Father.... and we will always be
fundamentally different.
TQQTs
gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us
toborn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <73ca0o$1ak$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> tim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
> > juice to fermented grape juice?
>
> Wrong assumption. It never changed. "Wine" as used in the bible, has
> always meant fermented (alcoholic) grape juice. The phrase "new wine",
> in the bible was the freshly squeezed juice of the grape.
>
> > Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
> > in the sacrament.
>
> They did for many years. It was wine (fermented) that they made themselves.
>
> From a old post of mine:
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> gee...@ci.long-beach.ca.us wrote:
> : Let us not forget that Jesus' days generally had neither bottles (with
> : pressurized caps) nor refrigeration to preserve wine from spoiling,
> : although both the above methods were applied in small degree. A major
> : method of preserving wine was to dehydrate it by boiling it down into a
> : syrup. It was later drunk by adding water and mixing to taste.
>
> : The ancients (and presumably the Jews) were capable of preserving both
> : unfermented and fermented grape juice.
Good Heavens! Talk about resurrecting the dead! This post of mine was done
a year ago if recollection serves. Check my original posts (2 or 3 of them)
where I reference a website from some orthodox Christian minister
(professor?) who posted lengthy treatises on "wine in Jesus' times" and how
it could not have been fermented wine.
If you think the "ancients were incapable of preventing fermentation," you
don't know how to boil grape juice. You don't think boiling kills
fermentation (+ evaporates all alcohol)?
> This is pure bullpucky. "The ancients" as you say, were *incapable* of
> preventing fermentation, because they did not have refrigeration and the
> naturally occuring yeast on the skin of all grapes commenced
> fermentation as soon as the grapes were crushed. The only thing required
> to prevent wine from spoiling (turning to vinegar) is to prevent
> bacteria and oxygen from entering the container, and they knew exactly
> how to do this with clean tanned animal skins. And they did not boil the
> wine and reduce it to a syrup, this would have obviously boiled off all
> the alcohol.
See my reference to another's website, above.
>Get a clue, they weren't stupid. Remember, people like the
> effects of alcohol.
Yes. My minister's reference, above, made the point that to get drunk in
those days one had to really try to get drunk, for it was a difficult task to
accomplish on the wine as it then existed.
>You're telling me that an inn keeper in Jesus's day
> offered alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine in his establishment?...yeah
> right. One sip and anyone could tell the difference! Yes, they did
> dilute the wine with water at times, but probably just to make more
> money from it. They knew that the alcohol content had to be above a
> certain percentage to kill the e-coli bacteria (purely empirically,
> since they didn't know what bacteria was back then) that was present in
> nearly all the water in Jesus's day. Remember Paul said (paraphraseing)
> "not water, but a little wine for they stomach's sake".
Alcohol for medicinal purposes is quite different, isn't it, from alcohol for
drinking purposes?
> Go read the parable of the wine skins. Jesus knew EXACTLY how to make
> alcoholic wine and that's all that was made back then. One does not need
> pressurized vessels to make wine (that's for champagne). The proper
> fermentation of wine requires anaerobic conditions (no oxygen).
> Remember, Jesus said you can't put new wine (freshly crushed grape
> juice) into old bottles (goats skins that were sewn into an air tight
> bag), or else they will burst. Thats because the fermentation process
> produces alcohol and carbon dioxide, which the later stretches the bag
> and hence can only be used once. They tied off the top of the bag
> tightly, but allowed excess pressure to bleed off, which made the bag
> positively ventilated and prevent bacteria and oxygen from entering. As
> long as glucose is available the yeast will continue to produce alcohol
> until the concentration reaches about 12 to 15 percent, and then the
> yeast goes into a dormant state, same process as today.
>
> Its interesting to note that the genetic code in yeast responsible for
> formulating the enzymes that ultimately extract energy from glucose by
> cleaving it apart, is EXACLTY the same as that in the muscle cells of
> all humans, execpt for the last of this 13 step enzymatic process.
I suppose the same could be said for cow dung. I'm not finding you very
persuasive!
> Although it is not the most efficient method (both yeast and muscle
> cells prefer an aerobic process) of extracting energy from glucose it is
> the only process available when your muscles (if you're out of shape)
> and yeast are deprived of oxygen. That last enzymatic step in muscle
> cells cleaves the last molecule into 2 latic acid molecules (thats where you
> get the sore muscles from), where as in yeast it's end product is ethanol.
> It appears that evolution (for obvious reasons) favored those who did
> not get slowly intoxicated when running away from a sabre toothed tiger!
>
> Bottom line: Get over it people. Jesus drank plenty of alcohol,
> enough to get the title of "wine bibber".
>
> Pete
Peter, the inebriate:
Actually, we don't know what kind of wine Jesus drank, how much, nor if Jesus
drank wine at all. He MADE it on one occasion, but was "associated" in the
minds of His townsfolk and local gossips with winebibbers and party-goers.
Just because public gossip or reputation "blamed" Jesus for such conduct
doesn't mean He actually did it. It appears to be more "guilt by
association."
Mt 11:19
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and
they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a
winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.
But wisdom is justified of her children.
Lu 7:34
The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and
ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a
winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
Authorized Version (King James)
This error seems similar to the error of mistaking Joseph Smith for a
"glasslooker" and/or money-digger.
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
tim...@my-dejanews.com
> >>
> >> >Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
> >> >juice to fermented grape juice?
> >> >
> >> >in the sacrament.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >
> >
> >errr "Do this in remembrance of me"...???? And wine is wine...always
> >was...always will be. Make no mistake about it, Jesus along with the
> >apostles and everyone else drank WINE...not grape juice despite what the
> >fundies and Mormons say.!!! And the Bible has EVERYTHING to do with the
> >Eucharist....remember?
>
> You still haven't answered my question... what does the Bible have to do
> with the sacrament?
> When Jesus taught the sacrament, there was no Bible. The Bible was put
> together centuries later by Catholic priests. The Bible has no authority.
> The Bible is a collection of writings and those writings taught many great
> things to the people at that time. Whe can also learn many good things from
> those writings. However, the Bible is not a talisman that can be evoked like
> some witches book of spells.
>
> In other words, the Bible has nothing to do with the sacrament, it is a
> record of the event taking place 2000 years ago. Jesus on the other hand,
> has every thing to do with the sacrament -it's His event. And if He wishes
> to change how it's done, that's His right.
>
> Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret
> unto his servants the prophets.
>
> You seem to think you can take His authority from Him by evoking the power
> of your Bible. You are mistaken.
> First off, the Bible was written within the first 79 years of Christ
not centuries. If the Bible is the inspired word of God then
it does not change. It is our instruction book on how to live
and fellowship as a community of believers. You seem to think you
can follow one man's belief on how to live and what someone else
says is the truth. I guess you don't believe in the Word of God (Bible)
If God changed His mind on what is truth, then He is a liar.
My God doesn't change the truth. Where as, your truth seems to be
relative. There needs to be some kind of absolute or you really
can't know any truth.
If the Bible says to drink the fruit of the vine, either wine or
grape juice, then why do you drink water?
Greg
>>mean
>>>that God indeed has negative attributes. If He did, then there is every
>>>possibility that God was once, like us, a sinner... don't you think?
>>
>>
>>In the nature of -=God=-, no. :-)
>
>It's funny that I can't get you to make an unqualified statement about
this.
As man is God once was, therefore your question has many entry points.
Remember that when you say "God", I think of several things that can be
called "God"; God the Father, God the organization(Father, Son, Holy Ghost),
God the Son...
You need to make your context clear. Are you specifically asking about God
the Father and His mortal life?
That's the clarity that I need you acheive if you're looking a specific
answer from me. Because if you just say God, I'm think of the glorified
perfect beings that make up the God head.
>You're close...you say that in the nature of God, he never sinned. What
does
>that mean? Do you beleive he ever sinned or not? Is there a point where
He
>was not God? Did He sin then, before He was God?
.
That means that God, a perfect being, in His current state as never sinned.
Do I believe God the Father during the time of His progression to the point
He is currently at ever sinned; I have no information that allows me to
formulate an opinion. I just don't know. -However, to me it's irrelevant.
What if He had, -repented as we do and continued to progress to a perfect
person, or He was like Jesus and never sinned.... It doesn't change
anything, He is still God. Therefore irrelevant.
>>I don't know about God the Father's mortal life. Jesus said that He[Jesus]
>>wasn't doing anything He hadn't seen His Father do. You can draw your own
>>conclusion on that statement.
>
>Based on that, it seems reasonable that Jesus never saw His Father sin.
True.
> However, I do know that Jesus was tempted by
>>the devil on those emotions and Jesus chose not to give into them.
>
>Two things:
>*Do you beleive Jesus HAD those emotions and chose not to act on them, or
do
>you beleive that Jesus lacked thoughts or emotions that we consider
negative?
The emotions you speak of as being negative, are the same as the ones we
consider positive in that they are not instinctive as with animals, we have
control over how we feel. With nearly all people, this is something that we
have to practice and learn.
Jesus had the capacity to create any emotion just as we do. But, because
Jesus was always righteous, His spirituality grew to such an extent as to
fully control His flesh.
>>Did He ever possess these feelings? I don't know. He doesn't now. If He
did
>>then part of Him would be ungodly... that's not possible.
>
>No one really knows, I should think. But what do you beleive? What's your
>opinion on this?
See above
>>I can only say for sure what He's promised me in relation to my
perfection.
>>And that is that if I repent continually, strive to do good continually,
and
>>keep the commandments -I will be judged as sinless through the blood of
>>Jesus Christ
>
>Not quite. You have to forsake your sins as well.
That's covered under "repent continually and keep the commandments". :-)
>D&C 82:7 And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin
to
>your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth
shall
>the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.
>
>Even so, this will not get you your salvation in the fullest gospel sense
of
>the word. For that, you must recieve the new and everlasting covenant and
keep
>those covenants until the end of your mortal days.
Actually, salvation is not dependant on the new and everlasting covenant.
But exaltation is.
Salvation is not Exaltation. :-)
>. -I'm banking on that. And as I continue to progress, I will
>>get better and better, line upon line, until I become perfect in all my
>>godly attributes and become a joint heir with Christ.
>
>What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean you will rule with Christ in
HIS
>kingdom, or will you get one of your own?
Sorry, I've not really considered that an issue... I still got a long way to
go on the "be ye therefore perfect" part. Whatever the specifics are, I'm
sure those that given this reward will be more than satisfied.
>In any case, your time is limited. You have a superhuman efort to make, and
not
>much time to do it in.
>
>"Yes, I said, but we are commanded to be supermen. Said the Lord, 'Be ye
>therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.'
(Matt.
>5:48). We are gods in embryo, and the Lord demands perfection of us."
(Spencer
>W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 286)
>
>1 Nephi 15:33
>Wherefore, if they should die in their wickedness they must
>be cast off also, as to the things which are spiritual, which are
>pertaining to righteousness; wherefore, they must be brought to
>stand before God, to be judged of their works; and if their works
>have been filthiness they must needs be filthy; and if they be
>filthy it must needs be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of
>God; if so, the kingdom of God must be filthy also.
>1 Nephi 15:34
>But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy,
>and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God;
>wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for
>that which is filthy.
>
>It's a tall order, isn't it? Perfection now.
You're not kidding. Good thing the Lord is patient. :-) Excellent quotes,
BTW.
>Lookin' forward to hearing from you Greg.
Well, thank you, U2.
>TQQTs
-Greg
Greg
>We must be using different concepts of perfection. You are, perhaps
thinking
>that perfection is something that can be attained starting from a
begginning of
>imperfection. Like a bruised apple becoming unblemished.
A bruised apple doesn't have anyway to heal itself of the blemishes. We have
Jesus Christ.
>I'm looking at perfection as a state that begins from perfection. Like an
>unbruised apple that stays unblemished.
And Heavenly Father has assured us that this is not the case. Was Jesus all
knowing? No, he wasn't. He learned as we do, line upon line, precept upon
precept. But does that change the fact that He is all knowing today? No of
course not. It is the same with us, if we become perfect today and remain
so, the fact that we were not perfect yesterday, will not matter. I believe
it is Ephesians 4 that says, " And He gave some prophets and apostles... for
the perfecting of the saints..." Meaning that the saints will become
perfect... not that they are.
>Now, I'm not sayng we are fruits. I only mean that we can't be completely
like
>Jesus (or His Father) becasue we start from a blemished state... and we are
>always subject to more blemishes, which we look to Christ to heal.
Well, I'm just going to go back to the basics on this one... what does the
prophet say? That through the blood of Jesus Christ we may become clean of
sin and become like Heaven Father.
>Jesus started out unblemished and stayed that way. You expl;ained to me
that
>this was necessary. You get no argument from me, except that I still fail
to
>see how man is like God (either one).
"is" vs "will become" is too way different things. We need to be resurrected
into an immortal state with perfect bodies, progress spiritually to a point
where we have over come all things.... it's quite the journey.
>I'm going to give you that one. It's a good explanation of how Lucifer did
not
>keep his estate. I've got a zillion questions about that, but it would
lead us
>away from the question of how man as a sinner could be like God.
Start another thread.. :)
>Outstanding question. God is king over everything, or else He is king over
>less than everything. I think the traditional view is that God is king
over
>everything. There's nothing that isn't under God's rule. To be king of
less
>than everything would indicate that God is less than God, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily. Let's say, hypothetically, that God the Father entrusts me
with a planet to rule over all it's functions -does that mean He no longer
owns it? Selfishness is not a Godly trait. :-)
> You need to know
>>exactly what is a god. A god is a perfected man.
>
>A perfected sinner?
That would mean that he now sins perfectly. No a perfected man, that has
been washed clean by the blood of Christ. He has been forgiven, therefore he
has no sin that would condemn him.
>Maybe I'm catching on. You are saying that you attain to become a god...
not
>equal to God, but less than God. You're saying that in exaltation, you
will be
>a little god.
hehehe... no. That's not what Heavenly Father has stated. "Be ye therefore
perfect AS your Father in Heaven". Not almost, not little... as your Father
in Heaven. Perfect is perfect.
>In that eventuality, who will the inhabitants of your worlds worship as the
one
>true God?
You need to understand why we -=worship=- God. One of the reasons is so that
in worshipping God, we learn humility and lose our selfishness. We lose our
prideful nature. If He were looking for just adoration He would simply make
all the rocks in the universe chant His name... But that's quite useless for
His purpose. In the book of Moses God says, "It is my work and my glory to
bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Worship is not for
stroking God's ego, it's a teaching tool in our spiritual progression. They
will 'worship' whatever "God" Heavenly Father puts over that world and for
the same purpose. :-)
>>It couldn't be farther from the truth... God makes gods. That is the
>>greatest blessing that He bestows on the righteous. It will ADD to His
>>glory, not take from it.
>
>Sort of like a McDonalds Franchise
errr... I guess you could look at it like that. :-)
[snippage to make this shorter]
>>Personally I don't see that reconciliation is necessary the two ideas are
>>harmonious as long as the attonement of Jesus Christ is in the equation.
>
>Greg.. do you, or do you expect ever to have the power to atone for my
sins?
>Why not? Could it be becasue you are not like God? If you become like God..
>will you have the power to atone for my sins? What if we get together and
I
>give yosome time to repent. At the very instant of your forgiveness, do
you
>think you could do me a favor and atone for my sins? You know.. quick,
before
>you sin again?
>
>If your answer is no, then I again submit that you and I are fundamentally
>different from either Jesus or His Father.... and we will always be
>fundamentally different.
>
>TQQTs
And as I said before, Father has said that there will be no difference
between He and His children because of the atonement of Christ. But I do
understand the point you're making -the always pure vs the newly pure with
the sinful past. If Father would have said they would be different
forever... I would accept that of course with no murmuring on my part... if
He says they will eventually be the same... again No problem... I'll take
what He gives me. :-)
-Greg
Tyler
TQQTs wrote in message <19981123100203...@ng-fd2.aol.com>...
>Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>
Personally, I don't know. Does it matter if God ever sinned, No. Does it
matter if God currently sins, Yes.
--Tyler
Matthew L Reed
Through the Grace of Christ, our sins will be forgiven and forgotten. The final
forgiving and forgetting hasn't yet happened, but when it does the sins are
permanently forgiven and forgotten.
I've read Abraham 3, and it doesn't say what you are implying it says. God didn't
just become
God because he was the most inteligent, silly. Of course he was the most
intelligent, and he made all those that he came down amongst. What is revealed
about God isn't contradictory, but without the Holy Ghost to give us understanding,
one will not be able to comprehend these things. Ask yourself where your
understanding comes from. From the Holy Ghost, or from your own reasoning.
-Matthew-
vody...@yahoo.com
tim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> If the Bible says to drink the fruit of the vine, either wine or
> grape juice, then why do you drink water?
>
Because, it has been revealed that what is used is not important, as long as
we do it with an eye single to God's glory. I can get you the exact
refference if you would like. If it is important to stay in line with this,
then you would also use unleavened bread as well, prepared from the same
ingrediants that Christ used (wheat? flax? millet? barley? oat? who knows).
Same with the wine. Same type of grapes, same amount of aging, same type of
storage, etc. In any case, unless you subscribe to the idea of
transubstantiation (is that the correct terminology for the belief that the
bread and wine are literally Christ's blood and body?), then you already
believe that the wine is symbolic. That is the LDS stance. The emblems used
are symbolic, and what they represent is more important than the emblems
themselves.
Geoff Matthews
dar...@my-dejanews.com
(the Son) was once like us. Darrick Evenson
In article <19981123200032...@ng118.aol.com>,
tq...@aol.com (TQQTs) wrote:
> >From: dar...@my-dejanews.com
> >
>
> >Dear TQQTs
> >
> > NO!!! God has never sinned! We believe that the God the Father was once a
> >Man, but not a sinful Man. He was a God-Man like Jesus was on this earth.
> >Jesus never sinned, but He was tempted. Had Jesus sinned, He would have
> >ceased to be a God-Man. The same is true for the Father. I answered your
> >question. Darrick Evenson
> >
>
> Indeed you did, Darrick. Thank you. But tell me, do you beleive that God was
> once like us?
> TQQTs
dar...@my-dejanews.com
of Latter-day Saints, but believes the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.
Thus, his views are not considered to be Orthodox Mormon doctrine. Darrick
Evenson
In article <73eva5$ter$3...@samsara0.mindspring.com>,
abs...@pipeline.com wrote:
> tq...@aol.com (TQQTs) wrote:
>
> >Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>
> I believe he sinned.
>
> --
> Absalom, Father of Peace
> Sacred Scriptures for Mormons
> http://www.absalom.com/mormon/
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
E. Mark Ping
> "Greg" <Gr...@dontspamme.net> wrote:
>>
>> You still haven't answered my question... what does the Bible have to do
>> with the sacrament?
>> When Jesus taught the sacrament, there was no Bible. The Bible was put
>> together centuries later by Catholic priests. The Bible has no authority.
>> The Bible is a collection of writings and those writings taught many great
>> things to the people at that time. Whe can also learn many good things from
>> those writings. However, the Bible is not a talisman that can be evoked like
>> some witches book of spells.
[snip]
>First off, the Bible was written within the first 79 years of Christ not
>centuries.
Firstly, the exact dates that the books of the Bible were written were
unavailable, but I've seen estimates as late as 98 A.D.
Secondly, the books that we have in the Bible were written from several
thousand years B.C. to the first century A.D. Sounds like centuries to me.
Thirdly, the book we know as the Bible was indeed compiled out of several
books (you know, like the book of Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, etc.). This
process did indeed take centuries until it was finally agreed (more or
less) what is in the Bible.
--
| "If hard data were the filtering criterion
Mark Ping | you could fit the entire contents of the
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU | Internet on a floppy disk."
| - Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope Tells All
TQQTs
>(the Son) was once like us. Darrick Evenson
>
>
Darrick, do you mean to say that the Father at one time had human qualities and
emotions? Like lust, greed and envy? Or was He perfect from the start, having
no lustful thoughts, and so not really like us at All?
TQQTs
TQQTs
contstrued to
>>>mean
>>>>that God indeed has negative attributes. If He did, then there is every
>>>>possibility that God was once, like us, a sinner... don't you think?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's funny that I can't get you to make an unqualified statement about
>this.
>
>
>As man is God once was, therefore your question has many entry points.
>
>Remember that when you say "God", I think of several things that can be
>called "God"; God the Father, God the organization(Father, Son, Holy Ghost),
>God the Son...
>
Well, I have got God the Father in mind, but I know how LDS typically like to
sort of jump around; using either the Godhead, the Father, Jesus, or the HG, as
suits the purpose. You'll notice I have been trying to keep up with you on
this; referring to Jesus when you do and back to the Father when you do.
It can get confusing all right, but I'm not averse to it. We can talk about any
one or all of them if you like. I still hold that none of them are or were
like us.
>You need to make your context clear. Are you specifically asking about God
>the Father and His mortal life?
>That's the clarity that I need you acheive if you're looking a specific
>answer from me. Because if you just say God, I'm think of the glorified
>perfect beings that make up the God head.
>
OK.. tell you what. Unless we specify otherwise, let's agree that we are
talking about God the Father.
>>You're close...you say that in the nature of God, he never sinned. What
>does
>>that mean? Do you beleive he ever sinned or not? Is there a point where
>He
>>was not God? Did He sin then, before He was God?
>
>.
>That means that God, a perfect being, in His current state as never sinned.
>Do I believe God the Father during the time of His progression to the point
>He is currently at ever sinned; I have no information that allows me to
>formulate an opinion.
You've got informaion that He was like us. We are sinners. He was like us.
ergo, He was a sinner too.
I just don't know. -However, to me it's irrelevant.
>What if He had, -repented as we do and continued to progress to a perfect
>person, or He was like Jesus and never sinned.... It doesn't change
>anything, He is still God. Therefore irrelevant.
It would be irrelevant, except that you've said you beleive that God was once
like us. If that beleif is based on blind faith, so be it, but I think you're
more intelligent than that. I think you must have some basis for your belief.
I'm trying to get a sense of that basis.
It's alright with me if you beleive that God was a sinner. There are
implications though. If God was a man, then he wasn't God. If He sinned, He
wasn't God. He would have needed a Christ to pay for HIS sins. And so it
goes.. you know. God had a God who had a God and on and on back into the mists
of eternity. But here's the implication...Was there ever a FIRST God? If the
system is set up in such a way that we progress from men to gods, then every
god must have started out as a man. That very very first god...how did he
create himself in the form of a man?
It's the old chicken and egg thing. Sorry to be so shallow, but if I had to
choose, based on pure logic and what I've read about God, I would choose to
think that the eternal cycle had to start with a god, not a man. A chicken..
not an egg. It's a little easier to believe that a god created himself, or
that a god just always was there, not subject to time, than it is to beleive
that a man created himslef, or was always just there.
But it creates a problem for LDS thought due to the fact that if everything
starts out with a god, then man takes up a different position. Man becomes a
creation of god... forever different in a very fundamental way.
>
>>>I don't know about God the Father's mortal life. Jesus said that He[Jesus]
>>>wasn't doing anything He hadn't seen His Father do. You can draw your own
>>>conclusion on that statement.
>>
>>Based on that, it seems reasonable that Jesus never saw His Father sin.
>
>
>True.
>
>> However, I do know that Jesus was tempted by
>>>the devil on those emotions and Jesus chose not to give into them.
>>
>>Two things:
>>*Do you beleive Jesus HAD those emotions and chose not to act on them, or
>do
>>you beleive that Jesus lacked thoughts or emotions that we consider
>negative?
>
>
>The emotions you speak of as being negative, are the same as the ones we
>consider positive in that they are not instinctive as with animals, we have
>control over how we feel. With nearly all people, this is something that we
>have to practice and learn.
>
>Jesus had the capacity to create any emotion just as we do. But, because
>Jesus was always righteous, His spirituality grew to such an extent as to
>fully control His flesh.
Greg.. choose your words carefully. What I am reading here is that Jesus grew
spiritually. The only way to grow is if there is room to grow. Surely you're
not suggesting that Jesus was spiritually immature, or that He had to control
his flesh. If you are, then we have got to go back to the beginning and agree
that Jesus (and therefore God the Father) was subject to sin, and as he had to
LEARN to control his flesh, he most likely WAS a sinner.
I was thinking about this today in the car. What really happened in the desert
with Jesus and Satan?
Me? I'm subject to sin. If Satan offered me a ton of money, I'd probably ask
him for a day to think it over. I'd be tempted to take it. I'm easily tempted.
We like to say that Jesus was tempted, but I wonder if that's true. He never
hesitated a moment. I'm starting to think that Satan TRIED to tempt Jesus, but
Jesus, being God, was not subject to temptation. Satan couldn't find a crack.
I understand, but I had breakfast with McConkie. He said that salvation in its
fullest sense was exaltation. You can read about it in Mormon Doctrine. It's
interesting to follow him as he goes through three meanings of salvation,
waffling his way all the way to salvation in its fullest sense (exaltation).
>
>>. -I'm banking on that. And as I continue to progress, I will
>>>get better and better, line upon line, until I become perfect in all my
>>>godly attributes and become a joint heir with Christ.
>>
>>What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean you will rule with Christ in
>HIS
>>kingdom, or will you get one of your own?
>
>
>Sorry, I've not really considered that an issue... I still got a long way to
>go on the "be ye therefore perfect" part. Whatever the specifics are, I'm
>sure those that given this reward will be more than satisfied.
Apparantly not. Who said that salvation without exaltation is damnation? I'll
h ave to look it up, but the thought is that those who do not receive
exaltation will be unhappy indeed, for they will not be included in God's
family. Doesn't seem fair does it, that we are told that we are God's children
all this time and then find out suddenly that we are not in the family after
all? This is the fate that awaits those who go to the telestial, terrestrial
and celestial kingdoms. Only those who are exalted in the celestial kingdom
are in God's family.
Patient? Greg....please be careful, because God's not that patient. He allots
us one lifetime to get it right. So watch yourself in traffic and be safe at
work, ok?
>
>>Lookin' forward to hearing from you Greg.
>
>
>Well, thank you, U2.
>
lol You might not be like Jesus, but you got some of the qualities of Job...
like patience. You haven't got mad yet.
TQQTs
>tq...@aol.com (TQQTs) wrote:
>
>>Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>
>
> I believe he sinned.
Absalom, can you tell me why you beleive He sinned?
TQQTs
TQQTs
>of Latter-day Saints, but believes the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.
>Thus, his views are not considered to be Orthodox Mormon doctrine. Darrick
>Evenson
lol Darrick, it's hard to get a fix on what IS considered orthodox mormon
doctrine.
I'm more interested in people and their own opinions and beliefs. Absalom is
not LDS, but I still welcome his thoughts on this, just as I am in hearing your
thoughts.
TQQTs
TQQTs
>Date: 11/24/98 7:36 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <73fjc8$b7h$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
>>
>Personally, I don't know. Does it matter if God ever sinned, No. Does it
>matter if God currently sins, Yes.
>--Tyler
>
It matters a bit to me Tyler. See, if God sinned, the He was like me, just as
LDS 'opinion' holds. If God was like me, then I'm afraid there is or was no
ultimate authority in the universe. Just a long long line of men who became
gods. The concept of a Supreme Being... a being who is over absolutely
everything is shredded to bits.
If He never sinned, then He is something different from me; something far
better than me. Maybe I won't be able to be his equal, but I can look to Him
for wisdom, goodness and mercy.... oh.. and justice too.
TQQTs
Nathan Weyerman
Nathan Weyerman wrote:
> TQQTs wrote:
>
> > >From: Nathan Weyerman
> >
> > >TQQTs wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
> > >>
> > >> TQQTs
> > >
TQQTs
>> >TQQTs wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>> >>
>> >> TQQTs
>> >
>> >Everything posted on this question then will be pure speculation and not
>> >doctrinal.
>>
>> Agreed. Let's not concern ourselves with doctrine. I'm asking for your
>> personal testimony on this. Call it speculation if you wish.... or call it
>> faith.
>>
>> >
>> >When you say God do you mean the office that the current personage(s)
>> >hold(s) or the personage(s) that currently holds the office of God?
>> >In the case of the first, no.
>> >In the case of the latter, no. Did Christ ever sin? no.
>>
>> I think that covers most of the bases Nathan. What I get is that you
>beleive
>> that God(s), either in personage or office never sinned.
>
>The God we worship never sinned because it states in the scriptures that
>Christ did
>everything he saw the Father do, therefore, in this case, God was perfect the
>same
>way Christ was. The office of God has always been filled by personages who
>have
>been perfected (choosing never to sin), but not all will have never sinned
>previously to filling that office.
Then you personally reject the idea that as man is, God once was. Man is a
sinner, God never was. We are not alike.
>
>> > Was he like us
>> >(i.e. mortal)? yes, to a degree.
>> >Did Christ do everything that the Father did? yes.
>>
>> What I am getting here is that you personally beleive that God was once
>sort of
>> like man, to some degree, but not really truly like him. Is this accurate?
>If
>> not, please tell me so.
>
>yes
>
>> If it is accurate, then please explain for me why you beleive that you and
>I,
>> not being like God, can hope to achieve godhood.
>
>It is written in the scriptures (spoken by the prophets) that we can become
>perfected through Christ. And thus being perfected am without sin and
>therefore
>can fill a role of being sinless.
Greg and I have gone over this pretty thoroughly. I think we've agreed that
this is well-nigh impossible. Christ's atonement, according to LDS thought,
serves to get immortality for all men. Becoming perfect is pretty much left up
to the individual. You don't get much help from Christ. LDS perfection comes
from obeying the commandments and laws of the gospel and repenting when
appropriate.
TQQTs
>I guess this is the answer that TQQT was looking for, he hasn't said anything
>else about it.
Your post just showed up on my server this evening. I've been talking about
this a lot with Greg, and just now posted my answer to your previous post.
I'm not looking for a special answer. What I am looking for is a sense of
agreement between these two conflicting precepts:
1) God was once a man like us. To be a man is to have human emotions, human
temptations and human sins. A man who never sinned or who never had the human
emotions of lust, greed, anger or envy is not a man like us. Man, by his very
nature is subject to death. Only through the grace and sacrafice of some
higher power can man gain immunity from death.
2) As God is, man may become. For this statement to be true, God must have
been like man at some point. If God was like man, then God was a sinner. If
God was a sinner, then he was not God. If there ever was a time when God was
not God, then God is not eternal. If God is not eternal, then God is not and
can never be God.
This puzzle can only be answered through a testimony of blind faith. Either
statement has the effect of denying God's existance. There is simply no way to
rationalize either that God was at some point NOT God, or that man can ever
become equal to God. The very concept of God embraces his superiority. If He
isn't one step ahead of man,, then He ceases to be God.
Havr I missed something? How do you see it?
TQQTs
TQQTs
>I think you are reading more into the scriptures than they are saying.
>
>Through the Grace of Christ, our sins will be forgiven and forgotten. The
>final
>forgiving and forgetting hasn't yet happened, but when it does the sins are
>permanently forgiven and forgotten.
>
>I've read Abraham 3, and it doesn't say what you are implying it says. God
>didn't
>just become
>God because he was the most inteligent, silly. Of course he was the most
>intelligent, and he made all those that he came down amongst.
Please... Let's go back to Abraham 3:
:18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits,
and one shall be more intelligent that the other, yet these two spirits,
notwithstanding one is more intelligent that the other, have no beginning; they
existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are
gnolaum, or eternal.
ABR 3:19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are
two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another
more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than
they all.
In verse 18, we learn that these spirits are 'gnolaum', or eternal. They were
not created, but have always existed. In verse 19, God claims that where there
are two spirits, one of them will be more intelligent. When there are three,
one will be more intelligent than the others.
Two things jump out from these scriptures. The first is the claim that there
is something that God did not create. But it's even worse than just spirits.
If you continue in the book of Abraham, you learn that God didn't create
'anything'.. he, along with the other spirits 'organized' it. The earth,
heavens and all the rest were 'organized'. This runs counter, not only to what
'mainstream Christians' beleive, but to the teachings in the Book of Mormon as
well.
The second point these verses make is that we are not created (or whatever)
equal. From the eternal past, some of us are just more intelligent than
others. This strips the LDS belief system of any concept of justice. All
spirits don't start from the same line. The race is rigged from the start.
This is distressing to anyone who looks for justice in the overall eternal
scheme of things.
What is
>revealed
>about God isn't contradictory, but without the Holy Ghost to give us
>understanding,
>one will not be able to comprehend these things. Ask yourself where your
>understanding comes from. From the Holy Ghost, or from your own reasoning.
Are you assuming that comprehension can come only from one or the other? I
would argue that they go hand in hand.
What is the Holy Ghost? I learned that it's the small still voice in your
bosom that guides and comforts you. No one ever told me that the HG would
explain or expound doctrine. On the contrary, I learned that we are to pray
AND PONDER. It's no sin to ponder the scriptures. In fact, we have a
responsibility to do so.
As you ponder the scriptures, you naturally question and reason them out. The
Holy Ghost will tell you when you have got it right or wrong.
It takes a lot of work to question your faith. But it's rewarding. You come
to your own conclusions and recieve confirmation from the HG. It's easy to
deny the HG at first. But in spite of what you have learned, the HG will never
desert you. If you are headed down the wrong path, the HG will become ever
stronger in you. Like a stone in your shoe, it will gain your attention with
every step. Eventually, you will no longer be able to deny its promptings.
This is never more apparant than in a case where a person's faith is pointing
away from known, observed, proven facts. That condition sets the spirit in
turmoil. There is no longer any harmony between the mind and the spirit. The
HG will guide us in re-aligning our faith to conform to the facts around us,
and allow our faith to carry our knowledge outward from there.
A testimony which embraces all known facts is an unshakable testimony. Faith
which begins where known facts leave off is a faith which is sure and straight.
It's an honest faith, which is unafraid of changes or new knowledge. That's
the only kind of faith that makes any sense to me.
TQQTs
TQQTs
Greg said:
>A bruised apple doesn't have anyway to heal itself of the blemishes. We have
>Jesus Christ.
You talk about this towards the end of your post, so I am going to snip to here
and go down further.
>
>>I'm looking at perfection as a state that begins from perfection. Like an
>>unbruised apple that stays unblemished.
>
>
>And Heavenly Father has assured us that this is not the case. Was Jesus all
>knowing? No, he wasn't. He learned as we do, line upon line, precept upon
>precept.
I think this is what sometimes put Christians (don't get offended.. I use the
term only as a reference) at odds with LDS. It gets all balled up with whether
you are talking about Jesus God or Jesus Man.
Prior to his mortal birth, Jesus was all knowing and perfect, in the
'Christian' view. Then He took on flesh and subjugated himself, making himself
subject to all the limitations of man. In this instance, He had to learn just
as all men do.
Then on his ascension, He was once again God, and all knowing. Do we agree?
But does that change the fact that He is all knowing today? No of
>course not. It is the same with us, if we become perfect today and remain
>so, the fact that we were not perfect yesterday, will not matter. I believe
>it is Ephesians 4 that says, " And He gave some prophets and apostles... for
>the perfecting of the saints..." Meaning that the saints will become
>perfect... not that they are.
>
>>Now, I'm not sayng we are fruits. I only mean that we can't be completely
>like
>>Jesus (or His Father) becasue we start from a blemished state... and we are
>>always subject to more blemishes, which we look to Christ to heal.
>
>
>Well, I'm just going to go back to the basics on this one... what does the
>prophet say? That through the blood of Jesus Christ we may become clean of
>sin and become like Heaven Father.
This is a contradiction of other LDS teachings. The prophets tell us, first of
all, that the blood of Christ will cleanse us of 'most' sins. There are a
couple which don't fall under the atonement. I assume you know what I'm
talking about. If not, let me know and I'll show you.
Secondly, the atonement according to LDS opinion only gains immortality for
mankind. LDS are cleansed through a rigorous repentance. I talked about this
point in a previous post today.
>
>>Jesus started out unblemished and stayed that way. You expl;ained to me
>that
>>this was necessary. You get no argument from me, except that I still fail
>to
>>see how man is like God (either one).
>
>
>"is" vs "will become" is too way different things. We need to be resurrected
>into an immortal state with perfect bodies, progress spiritually to a point
>where we have over come all things.... it's quite the journey.
Again, Pres. Kimball has written that we must not die in our sins. We need to
reach perfection before we die. It's addressed in "The Miracle of Forgieness",
a copy of which I am dead sure you have handy.
>
>>I'm going to give you that one. It's a good explanation of how Lucifer did
>not
>>keep his estate. I've got a zillion questions about that, but it would
>lead us
>>away from the question of how man as a sinner could be like God.
>
>
>Start another thread.. :)
>
>>Outstanding question. God is king over everything, or else He is king over
>>less than everything. I think the traditional view is that God is king
>over
>>everything. There's nothing that isn't under God's rule. To be king of
>less
>>than everything would indicate that God is less than God, wouldn't it?
>
>
>Not necessarily. Let's say, hypothetically, that God the Father entrusts me
>with a planet to rule over all it's functions -does that mean He no longer
>owns it? Selfishness is not a Godly trait. :-)
>
See, I get all hung up over what it means to be a God. Among the many defining
concepts of God, we find the word 'Supreme'. If God gives you a planet, you
are a ruler of some kind, but you are subordinate to God. You are not supreme.
The inhabitants of your planet, if they worship you, are worshipping someone
less than God. If they find out, they are going to be pissed.
>> You need to know
>>>exactly what is a god. A god is a perfected man.
>>
>>A perfected sinner?
>
>
>That would mean that he now sins perfectly. No a perfected man, that has
>been washed clean by the blood of Christ. He has been forgiven, therefore he
>has no sin that would condemn him.
Aha! Forgiven for what? Cleansed from what? Could it be.... oh, I don't
know.... maybe.....sin?
I'm not even going to ask if this is the same process by which God became God.
It leads right back to the same old conflict. Besides, if LDS are only
anticipating becomeing lesser gods, then it no longer applies. It changes to a
discussion of the LDS opinion of equality with God.
>
>>Maybe I'm catching on. You are saying that you attain to become a god...
>not
>>equal to God, but less than God. You're saying that in exaltation, you
>will be
>>a little god.
>
>
>hehehe... no. That's not what Heavenly Father has stated. "Be ye therefore
>perfect AS your Father in Heaven". Not almost, not little... as your Father
>in Heaven. Perfect is perfect.
oops. Here we go! Equality with God. Supremacy is lost. No supreme being.
As an aside, let me call your attention to the above verse. It says 'BE
perfect' not 'BECOME perfect' Semantics, maybe, but a difference worth noting.
>
>>In that eventuality, who will the inhabitants of your worlds worship as the
>one
>>true God?
>
>
>You need to understand why we -=worship=- God. One of the reasons is so that
>in worshipping God, we learn humility and lose our selfishness. We lose our
>prideful nature. If He were looking for just adoration He would simply make
>all the rocks in the universe chant His name... But that's quite useless for
>His purpose. In the book of Moses God says, "It is my work and my glory to
>bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Worship is not for
>stroking God's ego, it's a teaching tool in our spiritual progression. They
>will 'worship' whatever "God" Heavenly Father puts over that world and for
>the same purpose. :-)
In essence, then, it doesn't matter who we worship. It's only a training
exercise. It's no longer necessary to seek after the one true supreme almighty
eternal God? You know... the big guy.
>
>>>It couldn't be farther from the truth... God makes gods. That is the
>>>greatest blessing that He bestows on the righteous. It will ADD to His
>>>glory, not take from it.
>>
>>Sort of like a McDonalds Franchise
>
>
>errr... I guess you could look at it like that. :-)
>
>[snippage to make this shorter]
>
>
>>>Personally I don't see that reconciliation is necessary the two ideas are
>>>harmonious as long as the attonement of Jesus Christ is in the equation.
>>
>>Greg.. do you, or do you expect ever to have the power to atone for my
>sins?
>>Why not? Could it be becasue you are not like God? If you become like God..
>>will you have the power to atone for my sins? What if we get together and
>I
>>give yosome time to repent. At the very instant of your forgiveness, do
>you
>>think you could do me a favor and atone for my sins? You know.. quick,
>before
>>you sin again?
>>
>>If your answer is no, then I again submit that you and I are fundamentally
>>different from either Jesus or His Father.... and we will always be
>>fundamentally different.
>>
>And as I said before, Father has said that there will be no difference
>between He and His children because of the atonement of Christ. But I do
>understand the point you're making -the always pure vs the newly pure with
>the sinful past. If Father would have said they would be different
>forever... I would accept that of course with no murmuring on my part... if
>He says they will eventually be the same... again No problem... I'll take
>what He gives me. :-)
Well, you see my point about always perfect and not always perfect. What more
can I say?
If you wish to persist in maintaing that God was once a man (We're talking God
the Father now), then you must admit that there was a time when God was not
God, just as you are not God right now. If you admith that God was not God at
some moment of time, then you must admith that God is not eternal. If you
admith that God is not eternal, then you must admit that God was either
mistaken or lying when He said He IS eternal. If you admit that God is capable
of either a mistake or a lie, then you must admit that God is, in fact not now
God. That's a lot of forced admissions, but I see no way out of it.
I would say it's just a matter of faith, but church leaders have taken it upon
themselves to lay all this stuff out for examination and claim it as truth. I
think that's a mistake. They have created a God of confusion.
>
TQQTs
TQQTs
>>
>> Can someone tell me when the definiton of wine changed from grape
>> juice to fermented grape juice?
>>
>> Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
>
>
>D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake
>of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus."
>
>Did God change his mind?
Folks;
Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are facts.
Here is a fact for your consideration:
Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
mrsg...@webtv.net
the sacrament, why not grape juice? D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that
the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the
remembrance of the Lord Jesus." Did God change his mind?
TQQTS:
Folks;
Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are
facts. Here is a fact for your consideration:
Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
********** That's a good guess, but the mormons can certainly afford
wine. The reason they changed to water was to "avoid the appearance of
evil," not to give their enemies in the early days any more reason to
call them hypocrites. At least that's what they used to tell me. But
on second thought, what they didn't used to tell me was that Joseph
Smith had a bar in his Nauvoo hotel. So maybe they did just cheap out.
Whatever.
Mrs. Garcia
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it." Aristotle
Clovis Lark
"glasslooker" and/or money-digger.
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
I guess JS made the same mistake when he said that he had engaged in
money digging.
FAWNSCRIBE
Because, it has been revealed that what is used is not important, as long as
we do it with an eye single to God's glory. I can get you the exact
refference if you would like. If it is important to stay in line with this,
then you would also use unleavened bread as well, prepared from the same
ingrediants that Christ used (wheat? flax? millet? barley? oat? who knows).
Same with the wine. Same type of grapes, same amount of aging, same type of
storage, etc. In any case, unless you subscribe to the idea of
transubstantiation (is that the correct terminology for the belief that the
bread and wine are literally Christ's blood and body?), then you already
believe that the wine is symbolic. That is the LDS stance. The emblems used
are symbolic, and what they represent is more important than the emblems
themselves.
Geoff Matthews
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Time for some clarification here:)
JOSEPH SMITH said it was not important not Christ.
Wine is fermented grapes.
CHRIST said "THISmeans my blood..and then used WINE not water.
Christ didnt give a recipe book to say use only grape wine or barley wine or
flax this or fermented coconuts that..he said use WINE.
The meaning is ALL important and thats a given./HOWEVER when the MASTER says a
certain thing means something and a mere man says "Nahh not important" that is
something to ask why?
If Christ USED wine....why would ANYONE want to hedge a bet and put a Prophets
words over the Masters when he said DO this in remembrance of me in a
ceremonial way.
There is QUITE a bit we dont know what Jesus said or did, but this aint one of
them.
He felt it was important enough to SPECIFY how to do this and WHAT to use.
That should be enough
Fawn
tim...@my-dejanews.com
dar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> You mean the Father? Yes, He was once like us _in the same way_ that Jesus
So in order to become a God one can not have ever sinned?
> >
> > >Dear TQQTs
> > >
> > > NO!!! God has never sinned! We believe that the God the Father was once a
> > >Man, but not a sinful Man. He was a God-Man like Jesus was on this earth.
> > >Jesus never sinned, but He was tempted. Had Jesus sinned, He would have
> > >ceased to be a God-Man. The same is true for the Father. I answered your
> > >question. Darrick Evenson
> > >
> >
> > Indeed you did, Darrick. Thank you. But tell me, do you beleive that God
was
> > once like us?
> > TQQTs
tim...@my-dejanews.com
> >He turned water into wine, right?
> >> Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
> >> in the sacrament, why not grape juice?
> >
> >D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake
> >of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus."
> >
> >Did God change his mind?
>
> Folks;
>
> Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are facts.
>
> Here is a fact for your consideration:
>
> Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
>
So either you do not believe the Bible is truth or you believe the truth
can change. My Bible states that the word of God is truth. It says when you
partake of the Lords supper to use the fruit of the vine. Why, Why , Why
would he change it to water. We still grow grapes don't we. They are not
that expensive. Did he not want you to stain your clothes if an accident
happened or what.
TQQTs
>the sacrament, why not grape juice? D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that
>the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the
>remembrance of the Lord Jesus." Did God change his mind?
>
>Folks;
>Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are
>facts. Here is a fact for your consideration:
>Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
>
>wine. The reason they changed to water was to "avoid the appearance of
>evil," not to give their enemies in the early days any more reason to
>call them hypocrites. At least that's what they used to tell me. But
>on second thought, what they didn't used to tell me was that Joseph
>Smith had a bar in his Nauvoo hotel. So maybe they did just cheap out.
>Whatever.
>
> Mrs. Garcia
>
It's just good business babe. The way to get rich and stay rich is to become a
one way door for money. I'm not up on the price of cheap wine, but you can
assume a dollar a quart and do the numbers. If only five million members take
the sacrament, and it takes a quart of wine to fill the cups for a hundered
people, then the grand total church-wide would amount to 600,000 dollars per
year turned into nothing but manure. Few corporations would want this kind of
money for free libations to turn up on their year-end statements.
As for the corporation called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
only a family who has been in need of substantial, long term assistance can
appreciate the parsimony of the church in distributing it's funds back to needy
members. Many ex-members became ex-members because of the judgement and lack of
real support (both financial and spiritual) they encountered when the chips
were down. They were disillusioned when the church failed to help them face
adversity beyond one or two months.
LDS families who have never had adversity are blissfully unaware of this
situation and will be quick to criticize anyone who claims the church is less
than helpful, but they simply have not yet been in a position of having nowhere
to turn and coming to the church for aid.
Joseph Smith's bar was an entirely different matter. He sold the booze for a
profit.
TQQTs
vody...@yahoo.com
Alfie <al...@webspan.net> wrote:
> vody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Because, it has been revealed that what is used is not important, as long as
> > we do it with an eye single to God's glory.
>
> right...just like Jesus appears in the Mormon Temples.
>
Are you here to fight or to discuss? You aren't going to be changing my
opinion, so get used to it. And I am fairly confident that I wont' be
changing yours, so why should I feel a need to try to prove you wrong?
> In any case, unless you subscribe to the idea of
> > transubstantiation (is that the correct terminology for the belief that the
> > bread and wine are literally Christ's blood and body?)
>
> It is not literal, Schmoe....it is a spiritual transformation. Get your
> facts straight.
According to every Catholic that I have spoken with on this subject, I have
been told that it is a literal transformation of the emblems into Christ's
body and blood. I know of no other church, offhand, that shares this belief.
>
> , then you already
> > believe that the wine is symbolic. That is the LDS stance. The emblems used
> > are symbolic, and what they represent is more important than the emblems
> > themselves.
>
> It is NOT symbolic either. It is truly Christ's body and blood.
This statement seems to contradict your previous statement. In any case, if
the wine were so important, why is the bible lacking the recipe for this
'vitaly important' wine? Why is the bible lacking a recipe for the bread (or
even a description) of the bread? Again, we differ on this belief.
Geoff Matthews
>
> Alfie
vody...@yahoo.com
fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
>
> Because, it has been revealed that what is used is not important, as long as
> refference if you would like. If it is important to stay in line with this,
> then you would also use unleavened bread as well, prepared from the same
> ingrediants that Christ used (wheat? flax? millet? barley? oat? who knows).
> Same with the wine. Same type of grapes, same amount of aging, same type of
> transubstantiation (is that the correct terminology for the belief that the
> believe that the wine is symbolic. That is the LDS stance. The emblems used
> are symbolic, and what they represent is more important than the emblems
> themselves.
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> JOSEPH SMITH said it was not important not Christ.
Please, Fawn, provide an EXACT quotation to support this claim. With
refferences.
> Wine is fermented grapes.
> CHRIST said "THISmeans my blood..and then used WINE not water.
Fawn, didn't we go over this a few months ago? Is there any point to going
over it again, when you blithely ignore anything I say?
> Christ didnt give a recipe book to say use only grape wine or barley wine or
> flax this or fermented coconuts that..he said use WINE.
Please give an exact quotation where Christ said to use wine. No assumptions,
but the exact wording.
> The meaning is ALL important and thats a given./HOWEVER when the MASTER says a
> certain thing means something and a mere man says "Nahh not important" that is
> something to ask why?
Fawn, I am willing to bet that you have disregarded every point I made in our
last thread on this subject. That being the case, is there any point why we
should start a new one on this? It would be like repeating a subject to a
brick (or glass) wall.
> If Christ USED wine....why would ANYONE want to hedge a bet and put a Prophets
> words over the Masters when he said DO this in remembrance of me in a
> ceremonial way.
Because He said that what was used is not important?
Fawn, have you really forgotten the LDS stance for this?
> There is QUITE a bit we dont know what Jesus said or did, but this aint one of
> them.
> He felt it was important enough to SPECIFY how to do this and WHAT to use.
> That should be enough
> Fawn
Fawn, I would like you to provide a verbatim quote (you know, a source) where
Christ says, specifically, to only use wine.
Geoff Matthews
vody...@yahoo.com
> > >> in the sacrament, why not grape juice?
>
> > >
> > >D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake
> > >of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus."
> > >
> > >Did God change his mind?
> >
> >
> > Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are
facts.
> >
> > Here is a fact for your consideration:
> >
> > Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
> >
>
> can change. My Bible states that the word of God is truth. It says when you
> partake of the Lords supper to use the fruit of the vine. Why, Why , Why
> would he change it to water. We still grow grapes don't we. They are not
> that expensive. Did he not want you to stain your clothes if an accident
> happened or what.
>
I would like to ask a question. Why did Christ use wine in the original
sacrament?
When you answer that, then we can carry on.
tim...@my-dejanews.com
tq...@aol.com (TQQTs) wrote:
> >Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water in
> >the sacrament, why not grape juice? D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that
> >the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the
> >remembrance of the Lord Jesus." Did God change his mind?
> >
> >Folks;
> >Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are
> >facts. Here is a fact for your consideration:
> >Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
> >
So if I own a whore house in Vegas where it is legel, but only for a profit
because that was my income, that would be OK with the church?
God does not give a rats rear about how much it costs for the drink
of the vine. You do not think when the poor people sacrificed there best
animal that it cost them money or what? God asked you to do something
and if you want to listen to a man and do different thats fine with me,
but you never gave a good answer as to why God supposedly changed his
mind.
By the way, about your example 100 people for 1 quart for 1 dollar
is only 1 cent per person!! If that is too much for God to ask of your
church then I feel sorry for you.
lpau...@nas.edu
dar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Please be aware that Absalom is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ
> of Latter-day Saints, but believes the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.
> Thus, his views are not considered to be Orthodox Mormon doctrine. Darrick
> Evenson
>
So what?
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Evolution does not design new organisms; rather, new organisms emerge from
the inherent genetic variation that occurs in organisms.**
lpau...@nas.edu
> So either you do not believe the Bible is truth or you believe the truth
> can change. My Bible states that the word of God is truth. It says when you
> partake of the Lords supper to use the fruit of the vine. Why, Why , Why
> would he change it to water. We still grow grapes don't we. They are not
> that expensive. Did he not want you to stain your clothes if an accident
> happened or what.
>
So you believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**In God we trust. All others must provide reproducible data.**
lpau...@nas.edu
If I might interject--I believe the RCC position is that the host and wine are
transformed into the body and blood of Christ; the host and wine that remain
physically are just accidents, as it were. The Episcopal position, I believe,
is that elements of the body and blood are in the host and wine, rather than
direct transformation.
Regards,
Lee Paulson
**Evolution does not design new organisms; rather, new organisms emerge from
the inherent genetic variation that occurs in organisms.**
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
tim...@my-dejanews.com
> > Because, it has been revealed that what is used is not important, as long as
> > we do it with an eye single to God's glory. I can get you the exact
> > refference if you would like.
>
> > storage, etc. In any case, unless you subscribe to the idea of
> > transubstantiation (is that the correct terminology for the belief that the
> > bread and wine are literally Christ's blood and body?), then you already
> > believe that the wine is symbolic. That is the LDS stance. The emblems used
> > are symbolic, and what they represent is more important than the emblems
> > themselves.
> >
> > Geoff Matthews
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Look people it's not that complicated. If it does not matter what to use,
then why not use grape juice?(fruit of the vine) Mat.26:29
You still have not given a reason as to why God would change his mind.
Also, the LDS church does not even pay for the bread the priesthood does,
so they would not pay for the grape juice either.
tim...@my-dejanews.com
vody...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <73h8kj$v68$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> tim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >He turned water into wine, right?
> >
> > > >> in the sacrament, why not grape juice?
> >
> > > >
> > > >D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that the church meet together often to
partake
> > > >of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus."
> > > >
> > > >Did God change his mind?
> > >
> > >
> > > Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are
> facts.
> > >
> > > Here is a fact for your consideration:
> > >
> > > Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
> > >
> >
> > can change. My Bible states that the word of God is truth. It says when you
> > partake of the Lords supper to use the fruit of the vine. Why, Why , Why
> > would he change it to water. We still grow grapes don't we. They are not
> > that expensive. Did he not want you to stain your clothes if an accident
> > happened or what.
> >
>
> sacrament?
> When you answer that, then we can carry on.
>
> Geoff Matthews
Who am I or Who are you to question why Christ(who is our example)
used what he did? He gives an example, why can't the church follow it?
It also does not say wine it uses fruit of the vine.
vody...@yahoo.com
The reason for that question was to know if you believe that there is
something inherently sacred about wine or not. I do not believe that there
is. HAving said that, the only reason why the LDS church uses water is that
(IMO) God has said that it is acceptable. If God said so, then it is okay.
Geoff Matthews, who would still like to know why you think Christ used wine.
vody...@yahoo.com
tim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip>
> Look people it's not that complicated. If it does not matter what to use,
> then why not use grape juice?(fruit of the vine) Mat.26:29
>
If it does not matter what we use, why not use water, as long as it is clean
and safe? Cheaper, and much more readily available (not to mention easier to
store).
> You still have not given a reason as to why God would change his mind.
Ye we have. The emblems are not what matter, it is what they symbolise. You
have answered why there are no recipes for the bread and wine in the bible.
That is, if the ingredients matter.
>
> Also, the LDS church does not even pay for the bread the priesthood does,
> so they would not pay for the grape juice either.
Someone is still paying though.
Geoff Matthews
sel...@psyber.com
> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
But THIS LDS CAN and will answer the question, as I'm sure many others can and
will:
No, God has never sinned.
Lehi
===
Government-controlled schools do today for
government what government-controlled
churches did in the middle ages. No
wonder governments love them so much.
Please visit the Separation of School and
State Alliance web site at www.sepschool.org.
TQQTs
rmle...@csupomona.edu writes:
> Subj: Re: The question LDS can't answer.
> Date: 11/25/98 8:37:16 AM Central Standard Time
> From: rmle...@csupomona.edu (Richard M. Leonard)
> To: tq...@aol.com (TQQTs)
>
> <snipped from newsgroups>
>
>
> on an aside ....
>
> Have you considered frame of reference?
>
> since you seem to like using analogies of degree...
>
> let us assume that since we, as human, are flawed.. and that Jesus
> is infinitely better than we are as he is NOT flawed.... and -=GOD=-,
> the Father, who has been around an infinite amount of time, is infinitely
> -=MORE=- than Jesus....
I'm not crazy about this assumption, as it makes Jesus infinitely less than God
(how low can you go?), and it also makes Jesus vanish, like a glass of water
into a magician's hat. (Jesus is infinately younger than God if Jesus has been
in existance less time than God). But for the sake of your letter, we can make
this assumption.
>
>
> okay... to our perceptions, at this point in time, in the above reference,
> is there any difference between Jesus and -=GOD=-? Is infinity squared
> more than infinity?
nope. Infinity is singular. There's no such thing as infinity plus one.
>
> let's change infinity to eternity => what is the difference between eternity
> and eternity squared?
Same answer. No such thing as eternity plus one day.
>
>
> from our frame of reference, -=God=- has been around for <1) eternal time
> unit,
> and within our frame of reference -=HE=- is the Alpha and Omega.... within
> our frame there are simply no other options... Within -=HIS=- reference,
> he may have exisited for more than <1> eternal unit... but OUR reference -
> our frame of reality is all that applies to us.... isn't it?
Here is where you lose me. The word eternal suddenly takes on new meaning. So
does the concept. If we want to discuss eternal units, we will need to find a
new term. The term eternal has already been taken. It means without beginning
and without end. There's no way to idealize that one eternity stops and
another one begins. It might be better to think of God as not being subject to
time at all. Then He exists independant of time, and so can be present at all
points in time at once, past present and future.
>
> when the time comes, if we are worthy and all that and end up becoming
> gods, as it were, we are infinitely more than we are now, and our
> "eternity" begins - whatever we were before being "perfected" no longer
> applies..
I've thought about this to some degree before, but I rejected it. Eternity is
hard enough to conceptualize as it is, but eternities of varying lengths,
simply void the definition. For example. Suppose "eternity" for God began
just a day ahead of my own "eternity". True, we both go forward from there,
towards a point in time which will never arrive. But for any point in time
that we share, who's eternity is one day longer than mine? God's is. I'll be
chasing him down the trail of time for the rest of eternity. I might be able
to call myself a god, have kingdoms, power and knowledge, but I will never be
able to call myself an eternal god. He's got the market cornered.
>
> substrata within layered substrata - each an infinity of eternalities,
> each so large and so vast a reach of time and space that it cannot be
> measured - yet it is only a layer in something more - that "more" is just
> a concept - just a frame of reference....
I can see where you're coming from. It reminds me of the question about how
long it takes to drive to your corner store. The answer is that you can never
get there. Since you drive a line (more or less) from your house to the store,
and every line contains an infinite number of points, you can never get past
that last point to reach the store. There's no way to refute this logic, even
though we know it's patently false. I drive to my corner store way more than I
want to, and I get there every time.
What you may be getting at might be demonstrated by taking a rubber band and
cutting it, then making a dot on it with a ball point pen. If you then stretch
the rubber band in both directions, you can see the dot expand. I suppose that
as eternity expands in both directions, you could say that a single point in
time also stretches. Since the size of the eternal rubber band is infinite,
then so is the size of the dot. This makes sense in the same way the drive to
the store makes sense.
Keep in mind that a point is infinately small. No matter how small the point
is assumed to be, it's even smaller than that. So, how large is a point in
time? How large can it become? I think that something infinately small can
never become infinately large. In fact it can't even get to be finitely small.
The only way I can reconcile myself to any of this is to consider time as a
unitless dimension. We, as humans can lay our own measured units over it, to
help map it, but those measurements are arbitrary and man-made. As eternity
stretches, the units stay the same. A minute is still a minute, an hour is
still an hour. It's just that the number of hours keeps growing to keep pace
with eternity.
>
> how does the song go...
> "like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
> never ending or beginning ...like a never ending reel"
>
> or something like that..
> (from the "Thomas Crown Affair" )
Yes. Pretty song. I'm old enough to see many of the cycles of life that I
never knew when I was young. But I don't see eternity recycling itself. The
best I can do is to consider time to be a function of humanity. Like the
proverbial tree in the forest... maybe it DOES fall silently if there is no one
there to hear it. In like manner, maybe the minutes tick away only so long as
we are there to watch them.
>
>
> Rich Leonard
>
TQQTs
Duwayne Anderson
> dar...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Please be aware that Absalom is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ
> > of Latter-day Saints, but believes the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy.
> > Thus, his views are not considered to be Orthodox Mormon doctrine. Darrick
> > Evenson
What is your opinion about Mormon apologists who defend Mormonism by
denying or objecting to the teachings of the Mormon prophets, seers,
revelators, and apostles?
Are they also in a state of apostasy?
Regards,
Duwayne Anderson
Greg
>> with the sacrament?
[Snippage]
>> First off, the Bible was written within the first 79 years of Christ
> not centuries. If the Bible is the inspired word of God then
You didn't read my post. I said the Bible was put together centuries after.
And no, all the books contained in the Bible were not written 79 years of
Christ. Please explain how you can come to this conclusion with all the
books that are before the writtings of Matthew.
And the Bible is not one book, it's made up of many books. It is a
collection of writings compiled together by Catholic priests and designated
by these same priests as to what their church would use as scripture. I
believe they chose the books based on a popular vote. And I have never read
anywhere where they claimed to have had any communication with God over the
matter.
> it does not change. It is our instruction book on how to live
> and fellowship as a community of believers. You seem to think you
Please show me where God says that the Bible is as you say...
> can follow one man's belief on how to live and what someone else
> says is the truth. I guess you don't believe in the Word of God (Bible)
Please explain how the "Song of Solomon" is the Word of God. And you are
correct, I don't believe the Bible is the "Word of God". The real "Word of
God" is Jesus Christ. John 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God."
You are correct again, I do not believe "in" the Bible. The Bible has no
power to save or anything else. I believe in Jesus Christ. -But you have
your choice to believe in anything you wish -you can believe in the
refrigerator is you want.
> If God changed His mind on what is truth, then He is a liar.
No, God has never changed His mind on what is truth. However I fail to see
how you make the jump from God not changing truth to Catholic priest some
1500 years ago deciding what is and what is not scripture and your claim of
the Bible being God's instruction manual. It's an irrational assumption that
God some how prevented men down through the ages from changing the text to
fit their beliefs. A modern example of men making changes is the King James
Version of the Bible vs The Living Bible.
> My God doesn't change the truth. Where as, your truth seems to be
> relative. There needs to be some kind of absolute or you really
> can't know any truth.
How did Peter gain his testemony of the divinity of Jesus? By personal
revelation from Father in Heaven.
What did James say to do if you lack wisdom? Did say go read your Bible? No
he didn't. He said, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that
giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a
wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." James 1:5-6
> If the Bible says to drink the fruit of the vine, either wine or
> grape juice, then why do you drink water?
The Bible doesn't say anything, it is paper and ink. The Bible has become
the golden calf of modern christianity. People are looking for this
inanimate object to speak to them and perform miracles. This is what happens
when faith is replaced by superstition and sign seeking. You cannot believe
in God unless there is some kind of visible object infront of you, in this
case you have chosen the Bible. Over time it has taken the place of God
because you can see and touch it....and as a god, you give it supernatural,
unexplainable powers like -it is the "Word of God". And it is pure, good,
cannot be changed, it is inerrant, and "it says so and so". You begin to
refer to it as speaking to you inplace of God.
-Greg
Greg
>right...just like Jesus appears in the Mormon Temples.
He does.
-Greg
Greg
>after Jesus and the apostles died, the bishops carried on the tradition
>with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. I happen to believe THIS line
>of Apostolic Succession, not that idiot's with the gold tablets and the
>ones that followed.
Ahhh... now it's starting to make sense. However, most Catholics I've known
over the years have been very respectful about my beliefs as I have been
with theirs. But you seem to be different.
But if you want to try to discuss the issue of whether or not the Catholic
church is God's church on the earth... that could interesting.
We could start with Constintine and the council of Nicea @ 325 A.D.
Move on to the crusades and the inquisitions.. up to the slaughter of some
30,000 Ana-baptist @ 16th century...to
the forced acceptance of Catholic missionaries, at gun point, into the
Tahitian Islands.
I think hearing a Catholic's perspective on how winning converts at the end
of red hot tongs in a torture chamber is in harmony with Christ would be
very eye opening.
> The sacrament is derived from the account of Jesus' Last Supper. It is
>the focal point of the Catholic Mass and technically, the bread and wine
Which is very admirable.
>undergo transubstantiation. Would you be interested in joining the real
Which makes me lose my appetite just thinking about it....
>world someday......and come to Church???
I go to Church, thank you for the offer though.
>Alfie
-Greg
Greg
>'Christian' view. Then He took on flesh and subjugated himself, making
himself
>subject to all the limitations of man. In this instance, He had to learn
just
>as all men do.
>
>Then on his ascension, He was once again God, and all knowing. Do we
agree?
Yes.
>This is a contradiction of other LDS teachings. The prophets tell us,
first of
>all, that the blood of Christ will cleanse us of 'most' sins. There are a
>couple which don't fall under the atonement. I assume you know what I'm
>talking about. If not, let me know and I'll show you.
Thank you, but I am fully aquainted with LDS doctrine. :-)
>Secondly, the atonement according to LDS opinion only gains immortality for
>mankind. LDS are cleansed through a rigorous repentance. I talked about
this
>point in a previous post today.
Sorry, that's not right. Immortality was gained by His resurrection not the
attonement. The attonement was for sin, as in "Attone for Sin". We are
commanded to repent so that the attonement will apply to us. Without the
attonement repentance is useless.
These principles are taught by the missionaries.
>>"is" vs "will become" is too way different things. We need to be
resurrected
>>into an immortal state with perfect bodies, progress spiritually to a
point
>>where we have over come all things.... it's quite the journey.
>
>Again, Pres. Kimball has written that we must not die in our sins. We need
to
>reach perfection before we die. It's addressed in "The Miracle of
Forgieness",
>a copy of which I am dead sure you have handy.
Yes, but you are misunderstanding what he's saying. Dieing in your sins
refers to having committed sins that are more serious than simply asking the
Lord for forgiveness. In our Temple recommend interview the Bishop will ask,
"Are there any sins or misdeeds in your life that have not been taken care
of." And those that have died having refused baptism and the gospel.
That statement does not refer to people who have been baptized for the
remission of sins and are repentant and actively progressing
spiritually. -This has been the subject of various conferance talks.
>See, I get all hung up over what it means to be a God. Among the many
defining
>concepts of God, we find the word 'Supreme'. If God gives you a planet,
you
Then again, look who's doing the "defining".
>are a ruler of some kind, but you are subordinate to God. You are not
supreme.
> The inhabitants of your planet, if they worship you, are worshipping
someone
>less than God. If they find out, they are going to be pissed.
How easy is it for a man to part the veil on his own and look into heave to
spy on God?
>I'm not even going to ask if this is the same process by which God became
God.
>It leads right back to the same old conflict. Besides, if LDS are only
>anticipating becomeing lesser gods, then it no longer applies. It changes
to a
>discussion of the LDS opinion of equality with God.
Good point.
>In essence, then, it doesn't matter who we worship. It's only a training
>exercise. It's no longer necessary to seek after the one true supreme
almighty
>eternal God? You know... the big guy.
Nope. Interesting point. But nope, He as said we are to worship Him as the
one true God. -Whom we cannot see... It has to do with building faith and
spirituality and truth. Seeking after something else would not be keeping
the commandments or being truthful :)
>If you wish to persist in maintaing that God was once a man (We're talking
God
>the Father now), then you must admit that there was a time when God was not
>God, just as you are not God right now. If you admith that God was not God
at
>some moment of time, then you must admith that God is not eternal. If you
>admith that God is not eternal, then you must admit that God was either
>mistaken or lying when He said He IS eternal. If you admit that God is
capable
>of either a mistake or a lie, then you must admit that God is, in fact not
now
>God. That's a lot of forced admissions, but I see no way out of it.
I will say that I currently do not have enough information to fully
understand the term "eternal" and "eternity". It has been suggested by many
people that they have various meanings in relation to the pre-earth life of
spirits, the present, and post judgement. I've heard the term, "one eternal
round" used. One eternal round would suggest a cycle of some sort. However,
I must admit I do not know.
However, the prophets have said that God was once a man, and that we can
become like Him -that this is His plan for us. If I disagreed, I would then
be calling God a lier. And I'm not about to do that. A lot of things don't
add up in our understanding of God. Like the flood for instance. Scientists
all say the flood never happened -God's prophet says that it did.... I'll
believe God's prophet over these scientific experts everytime, because in
the end I'm accountable to God, not these men.
>I would say it's just a matter of faith, but church leaders have taken it
upon
>themselves to lay all this stuff out for examination and claim it as truth.
I
>think that's a mistake. They have created a God of confusion.
I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder. Because I'm greatful for all the
information that's been given. I see it as clearing up the confusion. :-)
>TQQTs
Have a good Thanks Giving!
-Greg
Greg
>>Jesus had the capacity to create any emotion just as we do. But, because
>>Jesus was always righteous, His spirituality grew to such an extent as to
>>fully control His flesh.
>
>Greg.. choose your words carefully. What I am reading here is that Jesus
grew
>spiritually. The only way to grow is if there is room to grow. Surely
you're
>not suggesting that Jesus was spiritually immature, or that He had to
control
>his flesh. If you are, then we have got to go back to the beginning and
agree
>that Jesus (and therefore God the Father) was subject to sin, and as he had
to
>LEARN to control his flesh, he most likely WAS a sinner.
I meant exactly what I said. Jesus had to grow as each of us do. He was born
not immediately knowing what His earthly mission was, He had to learn it.
The account is very clear on this; line upon line, precept upon precept,
here a little and there a little. This is why He started Him ministry at the
age of 30. Heavenly Father has also made it clear that Jesus never did
anything contrary to His will. Therefore, Jesus never sinned.
However, I'm sure at very young age, Jesus' faith was such that He was being
directly taught by His Heavenly Father. And once that happened, Jesus no
longer had faith, but a perfect sure knowledge -faith is belief in things
unseen, -and I doubt there was anything in heaven Jesus wasn't allowed to
see.
>I was thinking about this today in the car. What really happened in the
desert
>with Jesus and Satan?
I bet is was exactly as the account described it. Simply because by this
time Jesus knew who Satan was and who He Himself was... no contest.
>Me? I'm subject to sin. If Satan offered me a ton of money, I'd probably
ask
>him for a day to think it over. I'd be tempted to take it. I'm easily
tempted.
LOL...
>We like to say that Jesus was tempted, but I wonder if that's true. He
never
>hesitated a moment. I'm starting to think that Satan TRIED to tempt Jesus,
but
>Jesus, being God, was not subject to temptation. Satan couldn't find a
crack.
Oh, Jesus could have accepted Satan's offer, most assuredly. Remember He had
to -=over come all things=-. You can't over come something that you're not
at least subject to. It was that Satan's cunning is pure foolishness when
compared to the wisdom of Heavenly Father. Father waited until Jesus had a
full knowledge of who He [Jesus] was and why He was there, who He was before
coming to earth, and who He would be after this world...before letting Satan
give it His best shot... :-)
>>Actually, salvation is not dependant on the new and everlasting covenant.
>>But exaltation is.
>>Salvation is not Exaltation. :-)
>
>I understand, but I had breakfast with McConkie. He said that salvation in
its
>fullest sense was exaltation. You can read about it in Mormon Doctrine.
It's
>interesting to follow him as he goes through three meanings of salvation,
>waffling his way all the way to salvation in its fullest sense
(exaltation).
Well.... I'm not going to go there. I understand what he was saying... Let
me put it this way, an angel is a person that has been saved from sin and
death, live in the celestial kingdom of God, with God... but are not
exalted.
But I guess some people would say that they consider true salvation to mean
going all the way to exaltation, because angels are still damned in the
literal sence. Their glory and their kingdom is at an end.
>Apparantly not. Who said that salvation without exaltation is damnation?
I'll
They were correct. But damnation in the traditional christian sence is the
hollywood version... meaning cast into a burning hell with all kinds of
monsters and whatever...
Damnation literally means to Dam something, to stop it's progression like a
river.
>h ave to look it up, but the thought is that those who do not receive
>exaltation will be unhappy indeed, for they will not be included in
God'sfamily.
Sure they will. -As long as they met all the requirements to enter the
Celstial Kingdom.
> Doesn't seem fair does it, that we are told that we are God's children
>all this time and then find out suddenly that we are not in the family
after
>all? This is the fate that awaits those who go to the telestial,
terrestrial
>and celestial kingdoms. Only those who are exalted in the celestial
kingdom
>are in God's family.
God's family includes all people within the Celestial kingdom. And guantee
there will be no saddness over your position in the Celestial kingdom.
>lol You might not be like Jesus, but you got some of the qualities of
Job...
>like patience. You haven't got mad yet.
LOL! Well, thank you. And have a good Thanks Giving!
-Greg
petros
>
> In article <73hndg$d1p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> tim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <73hfa4$5h9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > vody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > I would like to ask a question. Why did Christ use wine in the original
> > > sacrament?
> > > When you answer that, then we can carry on.
> > >
> > > Geoff Matthews
> >
> > Who am I or Who are you to question why Christ(who is our example)
> > used what he did? He gives an example, why can't the church follow it?
> > It also does not say wine it uses fruit of the vine.
>
> The reason for that question was to know if you believe that there is
> something inherently sacred about wine or not. I do not believe that there
> is. HAving said that, the only reason why the LDS church uses water is that
> (IMO) God has said that it is acceptable. If God said so, then it is okay.
>
> Geoff Matthews, who would still like to know why you think Christ used wine.
Wine (fermented or not) is symbolic of the blood of Christ. JS was
counselled in Nauvoo to avoid wine made by his enemies, for at that time
there was a chance it might have been poisoned. So the D&C (I don't have
the exact section number) says to use wine of the church's own making.
It doesn't say "use water instead." We can debate the wine vs. grape
juice issue, but no where does it state that water is acceptable.
Can you be a temple-going member and have so little sensitivity to
symbolism? Water versus wine is the difference between "messengers from
our father" and "someone to preach to us."
clifford
[[snip]]
> Would you be interested in joining the real
Depends. Is the Inquisition still in effect ?
mrsg...@webtv.net
Folks;
Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are
facts. Here is a fact for your consideration:
Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
********** That's a good guess, but the mormons can certainly afford
wine. The reason they changed to water was to "avoid the appearance of
evil," not to give their enemies in the early days any more reason to
call them hypocrites. At least that's what they used to tell me. But on
second thought, what they didn't used to tell me was that Joseph Smith
had a bar in his Nauvoo hotel. So maybe they did just cheap out.
Whatever.
Mrs. Garcia
TQQTS:
It's just good business babe.
********** Ooooh, okay, you called me babe! (You could have capitalized
it, though.) Does TQQTS stand for Tootsie Quootsie?
Tootsie said:
The way to get rich and stay rich is to become a one way door for
money. I'm not up on the price of cheap wine, but you can assume a
dollar a quart and do the numbers. If only five million members take the
sacrament, and it takes a quart of wine to fill the cups for a hundered
people, then the grand total church-wide would amount to 600,000 dollars
per year turned into nothing but manure. Few corporations would want
this kind of money for free libations to turn up on their year-end
statements.
*********** Well, back in my day, ward members took turns supplying the
bread, and I imagine that if wine had been used it would have come from
the same place, not the church coffers.
Tootsie:
Joseph Smith's bar was an entirely different matter. He sold the booze
for a profit.
TQQTs
************* Yeah, I know. My point was that it hardly avoided the
appearance of evil (a practice which I personally abhor).
Mrs. Garcia
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it." Aristotle
dar...@my-dejanews.com
Church apologists (like the Office of the First Presidency) simply use
"lies"! When asked if Brigham Young ever taught Adam-God, they'll say, "No,
of course not!" If you ask them if the Church ever taught that blacks were
the descendants of Cain and cursed, they will say, "Oh, well, that was NEVER
taught by the Church, but only by a few ignorant members without the
knowledge of the Church leaders!" Planned, deliberate, DECEPTION!!! The only
so-called Mormon Apologist I know who doesn't believe in a number of true LDS
doctrines is Van Hale, who is a "Sunstone" Mormon. I defend the Church, but
I don't use deception doing so. I tell it "like it is" and let the
consequences follow. Those Mormons who believe that the Brethren are more
spiritual than they, or can't make mistake, are living in "Fantasyland" that
will one day come back and bite them in the ass. Darrick Evenson
In article <365C70...@tek.com>,
Duwayne Anderson <duwayne.r...@tek.com> wrote:
> What is your opinion about Mormon apologists who defend Mormonism by
> denying or objecting to the teachings of the Mormon prophets, seers,
> revelators, and apostles?
>
> Are they also in a state of apostasy?
>
> Regards,
>
> Duwayne Anderson
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
dar...@my-dejanews.com
Dear Tim,
You are assuming that Mormons believe they can become God. This is a false
assumption. Mormons can never become the Alighty One (God), but we can become
Mighty Ones (gods). God has existed from all eternity, and has never done
anything "evil". However, the gods (Mighty Ones) have a beginning, but they
too don't have an end. We can never become equal to God, but we can become
gods. This was the teaching of all the early Christian writers. Darrick
Evenson
In article <73h5og$sbi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
tim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> So in order to become a God one can not have ever sinned?
saml...@my-dejanews.com
TQQT,
I have asked myself a similar question before.
My inquiry was of this nature: If in order for mankind to become more like
God, then mankind must aquire an understanding, or knowledge, of good and
evil. It was my assumption that the only way to achieve this knowledge was
thru sinning, thru disobedience to the will of God.
So I asked myself," How could Christ gain a knowledge of good and evil, if he
never sinned? Was Christ born into this world on equal terms as the rest of
mankind? Yes, he had to be, if it were not so, then he could never truly be
able to succor us or have mercy upon us.
Perhaps Christ gained this knowledge thru temptations alone. That makes
better sense to me, but... Adam and Eve were tempted also but fell from grace
because of thier actions, not their temptations. Just as we are sinful,
because of our actions.
So how could Christ be able to judge me, or have mercy and compassion on me
for my weaknesses, if he never went thru the act of sinning?
I realized that Christ was born on equal ground as the rest of us, he
retained no memory of his prior life, he had to grow and learn thru his
childhod years as we all do. I wondered if he told his parents "No" when
they wanted him to lay down to sleep for the night. Or if he threw his
supper in the floor because he just was not going to eat it. Would this make
Christ imperfect? I do not think it would. I have pondered if thru Christ's
own baptism, he washed away all those innocent childhood "sins". Would a
loving Father in Heaven, condemn his Son a sinner, of these childhood
actions? My answer is No. I do not think these types of actions could
result in Christ gaining a knowledge of good and evil. Or make him a sinner,
if even Christ had done any of those things.
Hmmmm..... I began to think, what happens to us as a result of our sinning?
When Adam and Eve first sinned by eating the fruit, they broke a physical law
of God; and the result was that physical death entered into the world, that
curse is upon all of Adam's posterity. We die! Our spirit and body seperate.
The only was to reunite them is for someone to have the power to ressurect
the body and spirit together again; someone needs to die, and then ressurect
himself. Christ did that, and the curse of a physical death is lifted from
all, and everyone receives a ressurected body in the end.
So we all die because of Adam, and we all live again because of Christ. As
happy as this makes me feel, to be able to be with my mother again, something
is still missing. After Adam transgressed the physical law and brought Death
into the world, God instituted other laws unto mankind, spiritual laws, which
we are individually responsble for. And these laws result in a spiritual
death, or Hell. A seperation from God because of willful sinning. Was
Christ ever seperated from God? Yes. As he hung upon the cross, he uttered,
" Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?" Christ then knew, and received the knowledge in full, as to
what it was like to be a sinner. He then knew what it was like to be me. No
man could have been more undeserving of the full penalty of law then Christ
was. Christ fought and overcame this world, he overcame sin, death, and
hell.
I can now put my full faith in Jesus Christ, I know that he is my Saviour and
Redeemer, that he paid the ransom in full for me, and that he is merciful and
that his judgements are truly just.
SamLaman
saml...@netscape.net
Nathan Weyerman
TQQTs wrote:
> >From: Nathan Weyerman
>
> >> >TQQTs wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
> >> >>
> >> >> TQQTs
> >> >
> >> >Everything posted on this question then will be pure speculation and not
> >> >doctrinal.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Let's not concern ourselves with doctrine. I'm asking for your
> >> personal testimony on this. Call it speculation if you wish.... or call it
> >> faith.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >When you say God do you mean the office that the current personage(s)
> >> >hold(s) or the personage(s) that currently holds the office of God?
> >> >In the case of the first, no.
> >> >In the case of the latter, no. Did Christ ever sin? no.
> >>
> >> I think that covers most of the bases Nathan. What I get is that you
> >beleive
> >> that God(s), either in personage or office never sinned.
> >
> >The God we worship never sinned because it states in the scriptures that
> >Christ did
> >everything he saw the Father do, therefore, in this case, God was perfect the
> >same
> >way Christ was. The office of God has always been filled by personages who
> >have
> >been perfected (choosing never to sin), but not all will have never sinned
> >previously to filling that office.
>
> Then you personally reject the idea that as man is, God once was. Man is a
> sinner, God never was. We are not alike.
Are little children sinners? No. So when does that occur, not during birth, but
by learning to choose the bad. Man is not a sinner initially but is nurtured to be
such, therefore the statement As man is, God once was is not entirely invalid. I
consider Jesus to have been a man and God to have been like him. Therefore, I do
not reject that statement.
> >
> >> > Was he like us
> >> >(i.e. mortal)? yes, to a degree.
> >> >Did Christ do everything that the Father did? yes.
> >>
> >> What I am getting here is that you personally beleive that God was once
> >sort of
> >> like man, to some degree, but not really truly like him. Is this accurate?
> >If
> >> not, please tell me so.
> >
> >yes
> >
> >> If it is accurate, then please explain for me why you beleive that you and
> >I,
> >> not being like God, can hope to achieve godhood.
> >
> >It is written in the scriptures (spoken by the prophets) that we can become
> >perfected through Christ. And thus being perfected am without sin and
> >therefore
> >can fill a role of being sinless.
>
> Greg and I have gone over this pretty thoroughly. I think we've agreed that
> this is well-nigh impossible. Christ's atonement, according to LDS thought,
> serves to get immortality for all men. Becoming perfect is pretty much left up
> to the individual. You don't get much help from Christ. LDS perfection comes
> from obeying the commandments and laws of the gospel and repenting when
> appropriate.
LDS nor any other sinful man can make the final step to perfection. It was through
Christ's atonement that we are cleansed from sin and that can come in no other
way. By living the commandments we show Christ that we accept his grace, but we
are by no means expected to never sin. In fact if that was the expectation then
there would have been no Christ. This according to LDS thought seems bogus. Sure
immortality is given to all men through Christ's atonement however His atonement
extends beyond this. BoM scripture, Bible scripture, and modern day teachings
attest to this fact.
Alma 34 (the whole chapter) but I'll quote one verse 8: And now, behold, I will
testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you,
that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him
the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the
world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Doctrine and Covenants 19:16 (there's more but trying to be quick) For behold, I,
God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would
repent;
Again there are more on this thought but I must go.
> >>> >You can go with this where you like, however, I am not responsible for
> >> >any one else's opinion.
> >>
> >> Nor should you be. I agree. As for where this thread goes.. I'm following
> >you.
> >> TQQTs
--
<html>
<font face="Morpheus" size=6><b><u><div align="center">
The Weyerman Clan<br>
</font><font face="Book Antiqua, Bookman" size=3><a
href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4635">http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dunes/4635</a></font></b></u></html>
TQQTs
>Date: 11/25/98 10:02 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <73ijs9$494$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Nicely put. If I understand you, you're saying that Christ did indeed sin.
Actually, it does make some sense, since Christ did insist on being baptised.
Since Christ did only that which he saw His Father do, then it follows that God
the Father was also at one time guity of sin. As a sinner, God could not claim
to be God, so we're left with the conclusion that God was not eternally God.
If He's not eternal, then He's not God at all.
Now the LDS scheme of being like God becomes more feasible. We can be like God,
becasue He is not the real true Supreme Being.
TQQTs
TQQTs
>
>> Do you (personally) believe that God has ever sinned?
>
>and
>will:
>
>No, God has never sinned.
>
>Lehi
Actually, very few have answered teh question. The really thoughtful LDS
realize the consequence that follows: If God never sinned, then he was never a
sinner. The idea that "As man is, God once was" is therefore false.
TQQTs
sel...@psyber.com
> Lehi answered:
> >TQQTs wrote:
> >Lehi
No, TQQTs, the fact that GOD never sinned does not mean that Pres Snow's
couplet is "false". What it does mean is that you have no idea what we're
talking about.
Lehi
===
Government-controlled schools do today for
government what government-controlled churches
did in the middle ages. No wonder governments
like them so much. Please visit www.sepschool.org.
R.L.. Measures
> > >He turned water into wine, right?
>
> > >> Also, if wine was grape juice in the bible then why do lds use water
> > >> in the sacrament, why not grape juice?
>
> > >
> > >D&C 20:75 ; "It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake
> > >of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus."
> > >
> > >Did God change his mind?
> >
> > Folks;
> >
> > Doctrine changes, policy changes, definitions change.... but facts are
facts.
> >
> > Here is a fact for your consideration:
> >
> > Water is cheaper than either wine or grape juice.
> >
>
> So either you do not believe the Bible is truth or you believe the truth
> can change. My Bible states that the word of God is truth. It says when you
> partake of the Lords supper to use the fruit of the vine. Why, Why , Why
> would he change it to water. .....
€ The water to wine trick was old hat, and he wanted to try a wine to
water version?
--
- Rich... - 805-386-3734, take away plus from e-mail address