LDS with reservations
Man
I was recently identified as an LDS with reservations. No offense, I
believe the characteristic was accurate. But I thought since some think of
me this way, I might post a little of what my beliefs are. I hope I don’t
get branded as a heretic or anti-Mormon for my opinions, but here they are.
As a whole, I think the church people are great people; the family programs
are great; their faith is great . . . these things help build fine citizens.
My problem with the church is that it discourages individualism. Set
prayers; set ordinances where one word wrong makes a prayer invalid; set
beliefs. Also, sometimes the church is like magical stage play where magic
is king and everyone is a magician. What’s wrong with teaching the love of
God; the Golden Rule; assisting to make strong families. My Grandpa once
told me that if God wanted everyone to go to the Temple he would have him or
her join the Masonic Lodge, it was already in place and ready to go. (Don’t
flame me, my Grandpa said it and he was a good Mormon). I think that the
true welfare of man would be to take the money spent on Temples and build
hospitals to help those suffering in the world. If we give service to
others in this life, how can one believe God does not approve and bless.
It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a subject and it
is not consistent with Mormon doctrine, then one is immediately charged as
being an anti-Mormon and disparaging one’s religion. On an opinion ?????? .
. . . what nonsense, those that make such charges are trying to reinforce
their weak faith.
The word IF is Satan’s tool. He tried it on Christ; “If thou be the Son of
God, command that these stones be made bread.” (Matt. 4:3) That taunting
“if”. The temptation was not just to his hunger. Far more it was to his
identity, to make him doubt that he was the Son of God. The same tool is
used on this N.G. to defeat us. We hear, “If you were not so stupid……..”
“If you were a good person………” “If you were not an anti-Mormon………..” “If y
ou were as smart as you think you are………..” But we can defeat that taunting
“if” with the Lord revealing to us who we are and always have been. We are
myopic, caught here in the darkness of mortality, but He can see. And his
view is the long view. “Who am I?” we ask, and the world gives mixed
answers, as does this N.G. But the Lord will affirm that we are each
different and each, like the rest of his creation, is “Good”. M
Humor, some complain of my humor. Friend, play with a baby and watch
him/her smile and laugh and tell me God has no humor.
Why do I post here, probable for the same reason you do . . . to justify
what I believe. What other reason could there be . . . . unless one is
hateful and likes to demonstrate his/her hate? Anyway, that’s my take on
it. M
--
Best Sellers
> I was recently identified as an LDS with
> reservations. No offense, I believe the
> characteristic was accurate. But I thought
> since some think of me this way, I might
> post a little of what my beliefs are. I
> hope I don't get branded as a heretic or
> anti-Mormon for my opinions, but here they
> are. As a whole, I think the church people
> are great people; the family programs are
> great; their faith is great . . . these
> things help build fine citizens. ...
But, Man, they're not enough.
I once knew a man who joined the Church
because He thought the youth programs were
great. He was absolutely convinced the Boy
Scouts were God's own plan for young men.
But he had serious problems with the Word
of Wisdom(tm), Tithing(tm), Fasting(tm),
Priesthood service(tm)¸ Welfare projects(tm),
Temple Worship and a host of other LDS
Church characteristics. His primary issues
were a lack of belief in Jesus Christ as
his personal Savior (or even as a real Being),
and Joseph Smith's role in the restoration
of the Gospel, Church and Priesthood.
He left the Church, and both we and he were
better off for it.
The fundamental purpose of the Church, and
all its programs, commandments and
involvements is to help people develop a
firm, ingrown testimony of the Divinity,
Calling, Mission, and Person of Jesus Christ.
If any of the peripheral elements
inhibits that testimony's growth, then you
should jettison it. However, I find that
many people somehow think themselves wiser
than God, or at least His servants, and
want to jettison nearly all of the Church.
It doesn't work that way.
> ... My
> problem with the church is that it
> discourages individualism. Set prayers;
> set ordinances where one word wrong makes a
> prayer invalid; set beliefs. ...
There are only three "set prayers". Each
of those is directly connected with
repentance and the Atonement. I know I'd
not want to use incorrect wording when dealing
with these most central of all ceremonies. I
have a hard time seeing a problem with this.
Maybe if you were more specific.
The "set ordinances" are only performed in
the Temple, so I cannot discuss them.
Baptism is quite flexible, as long as the
candidate is completely immersed there is
no prescribed movement. I have baptized
people by letting them fall forward into
the water because they were too heavy for
me to lift back up.
Blessing babies, or the sick are essentially
free form. And I have never seen anyone
call back a pear because I picked it wrong.
> ... Also,
> sometimes the church is like magical stage
> play where magic is king and everyone is a
> magician. ...
I don't follow this. There's nothing magic
about the Church until one actually applies
the principles. We all know Temple-sealed
couples where one or both of the spouses
didn't follow the commandments and who have
divorced. The blessings only happen when
the person plays by the rules.
> ... What's wrong with teaching the
> love of God; the Golden Rule; assisting to
> make strong families. ...
That's how we make Celestial people out
of telestial ones.
> ... My Grandpa once told
> me that if God wanted everyone to go to the
> Temple he would have him or her join the
> Masonic Lodge, it was already in place and
> ready to go. (Don't flame me, my Grandpa
> said it and he was a good Mormon). ...
I hope you (and your Grandfather) have
gotten more out of the Temples than this
implies.
> ... I think
> that the true welfare of man would be to
> take the money spent on Temples and build
> hospitals to help those suffering in the
> world. If we give service to others in
> this life, how can one believe God does not
> approve and bless.
There is no question that we need vehicles
to serve, both for efficiency and motivation.
But there is no dichotomy. We can and do,
have both. There are medical missions,
and I hope you've been reading the Ensign
where the Brethren are beginning to talk
about the assistance we've been giving to "
outsiders" for years, and where we are also
increasing that assistance.
Here, in the metropolitan area around
Sacramento, County Welfare workers are
able to write orders on the Bishop's
Storehouse and Deseret Industries
resources.
> It appears to me that if one voices his/her
> own opinion on a subject and it is not
> consistent with Mormon doctrine, then one
> is immediately charged as being an anti-
> Mormon and disparaging one's religion. On
> an opinion ?????? . .. . . what nonsense,
> those that make such charges are trying to
> reinforce their weak faith.
First, this varies from place to place,
based on the local leadership. So, what is
true for you in (wherever), may not be true
elsewhere. But there is a difference
between voicing an opinion and trying to
impose that opinion as if it were doctrine--
in essence, demanding that the Church
follow your conscience.
(n.b.: The second person plural used in the
above paragraph does not refer to "Man", as
an individual, but is the common English, non-
specific pronoun.)
>The word IF is Satan's tool. He tried it
> on Christ; "If thou be the Son of God,
> command that these stones be made bread."
> (Matt. 4:3) That taunting "if". The
> temptation was not just to his hunger. Far
> more it was to his identity, to make him
> doubt that he was the Son of God. The same
> tool is used on this N.G. to defeat us. We
> hear, "If you were not so stupid....." "If
> you were a good person..." "If you were
> not an anti-Mormon.." "If you were as
> smart as you think you are....." But we
> can defeat that taunting"if" with the Lord
> revealing to us who we are and always have
> been. We are myopic, caught here in the
> darkness of mortality, but He can see. And
> his view is the long view. "Who am I?" we
> ask, and the world gives mixed answers, as
> does this N.G. But the Lord will affirm
> that we are each different and each, like
> the rest of his creation, is "Good". M
Perhaps, but I think "good" may not be
"good enough" for some purposes.
Throughout the Bible, both Old and New
Testaments, God has demanded obedience as
the price of his approbation. All modern
scripture echoes that theme.
> Humor, some complain of my humor. Friend,
> play with a baby and watch him/her smile
> and laugh and tell me God has no humor.
I have seven children and six grandchildren.
(I only have three of the seven children
"in production". More to come, surely.
I'm hoping for forty-nine (7^2)
grandchildren.) If I was your target,
you're preaching to the choir. And I
laugh, a lot.
> Why do I post here, probable for the same
> reason you do . . . to justify what I
> believe. What other reason could there be
> . . . . unless one is hateful and likes to
> demonstrate his/her hate? Anyway, that's
> my take on it.
Unfortunately, there are those.
Lehi (Who's here because people trash God's
church, but do so by lying and distorting
our beliefs and practices)
============================================
Please save your children from the grasp of
government by removing them from the government's
schools. Visit www.sepschool.org.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Man
--
Best Sellers wrote in message
<0fbde53c...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>...
>Man wrote:
>
>> I was recently identified as an LDS with
>> reservations. No offense, I believe the
>> characteristic was accurate. But I thought
>> since some think of me this way, I might
>> post a little of what my beliefs are. I
>> hope I don't get branded as a heretic or
>> anti-Mormon for my opinions, but here they
>> are. As a whole, I think the church people
>> are great people; the family programs are
>> great; their faith is great . . . these
>> things help build fine citizens. ...
>
>But, Man, they're not enough.
Apparently not, what else does mankind need? I wish I knew. What makes an
eleven year old shoot and kill his teacher; the family; the friends; . . .
I'm sure it was not the church.
>
>I once knew a man who joined the Church
>because He thought the youth programs were
>great. He was absolutely convinced the Boy
>Scouts were God's own plan for young men.
>But he had serious problems with the Word
>of Wisdom(tm), Tithing(tm), Fasting(tm),
>Priesthood service(tm)¸ Welfare projects(tm),
>Temple Worship and a host of other LDS
>Church characteristics. His primary issues
>were a lack of belief in Jesus Christ as
>his personal Savior (or even as a real Being),
>and Joseph Smith's role in the restoration
>of the Gospel, Church and Priesthood.
>
>He left the Church, and both we and he were
>better off for it.
Understand. It doesn't 'take' for everyone. There is some physic
difference in each of us. I have three adult children. All raised the
same. They are successful professional people and very aware of their
impact on others, e.g., the golden rule. One is a very dedicated LDS
member, the other two are not. Moralistic there is not a dimes worth of
difference between them.
>
>The fundamental purpose of the Church, and
>all its programs, commandments and
>involvements is to help people develop a
>firm, ingrown testimony of the Divinity,
>Calling, Mission, and Person of Jesus Christ.
>If any of the peripheral elements
>inhibits that testimony's growth, then you
>should jettison it. However, I find that
>many people somehow think themselves wiser
>than God, or at least His servants, and
>want to jettison nearly all of the Church.
>It doesn't work that way.
I suppose one must follow his/her conscience . . . or be a hypocrite.
>
>> ... My
>> problem with the church is that it
>> discourages individualism. Set prayers;
>> set ordinances where one word wrong makes a
>> prayer invalid; set beliefs. ...
>
>There are only three "set prayers". Each
>of those is directly connected with
>repentance and the Atonement. I know I'd
>not want to use incorrect wording when dealing
>with these most central of all ceremonies. I
>have a hard time seeing a problem with this.
>Maybe if you were more specific.
>
>The "set ordinances" are only performed in
>the Temple, so I cannot discuss them.
Understand, I included many of the statements in the Temple as set prayers.
>
>Baptism is quite flexible, as long as the
>candidate is completely immersed there is
>no prescribed movement. I have baptized
>people by letting them fall forward into
>the water because they were too heavy for
>me to lift back up.
I did the same when Baptizing an invalid.
>
>Blessing babies, or the sick are essentially
>free form. And I have never seen anyone
>call back a pear because I picked it wrong.
Very true, it is not legalistic. But if a very dedicated family in your
ward had a baby and did not give it a name and a blessing, you wouldn't want
to hear what was not said out loud. It is a expected custom, not a legal
one. I'm sure your well aware of the great peer pressure to conform in the
church.
>
>> ... Also,
>> sometimes the church is like magical stage
>> play where magic is king and everyone is a
>> magician. ...
>
>I don't follow this. There's nothing magic
>about the Church until one actually applies
>the principles. We all know Temple-sealed
>couples where one or both of the spouses
>didn't follow the commandments and who have
>divorced. The blessings only happen when
>the person plays by the rules.
I was referring to some of the most amazing things the Holy Ghost, Christ,
God, or the Angels were credited in doing to some during testimony meetings.
Problem is, some of these members seem to forget that I do a lot of their
taxes. I have been requested to do things that I have to refuse because
they were illegal and then next testimony go and listen to their ramblings
in the name of Jesus Christ. I love Jesus Christ as same as anyone . . . I
don't like to see His name defamed anymore than the dedicated Mormon.
>
>> ... What's wrong with teaching the
>> love of God; the Golden Rule; assisting to
>> make strong families. ...
>
>That's how we make Celestial people out
>of telestial ones.
So some say!
>
>> ... My Grandpa once told
>> me that if God wanted everyone to go to the
>> Temple he would have him or her join the
>> Masonic Lodge, it was already in place and
>> ready to go. (Don't flame me, my Grandpa
>> said it and he was a good Mormon). ...
>
>I hope you (and your Grandfather) have
>gotten more out of the Temples than this
>implies.
I cannot truthfully say that I have.
>
>> ... I think
>> that the true welfare of man would be to
>> take the money spent on Temples and build
>> hospitals to help those suffering in the
>> world. If we give service to others in
>> this life, how can one believe God does not
>> approve and bless.
>
>There is no question that we need vehicles
>to serve, both for efficiency and motivation.
>But there is no dichotomy. We can and do,
>have both. There are medical missions,
>and I hope you've been reading the Ensign
>where the Brethren are beginning to talk
>about the assistance we've been giving to "
>outsiders" for years, and where we are also
>increasing that assistance.
>
>Here, in the metropolitan area around
>Sacramento, County Welfare workers are
>able to write orders on the Bishop's
>Storehouse and Deseret Industries
>resources.
Agreed, but I feel more can be done. Perhaps I live in an area where I do
not see these great things happening.
>
>> It appears to me that if one voices his/her
>> own opinion on a subject and it is not
>> consistent with Mormon doctrine, then one
>> is immediately charged as being an anti-
>> Mormon and disparaging one's religion. On
>> an opinion ?????? . .. . . what nonsense,
>> those that make such charges are trying to
>> reinforce their weak faith.
>
>First, this varies from place to place,
>based on the local leadership. So, what is
>true for you in (wherever), may not be true
>elsewhere. But there is a difference
>between voicing an opinion and trying to
>impose that opinion as if it were doctrine--
>in essence, demanding that the Church
>follow your conscience.
One can impose anything, it only means something if there is a recipient to
such. Doctrine means different things to different people. I like
individuals; I like people; I like those that accept the Golden Rule. I
like differences of honest opinion History has proven that the value and
strength of society depends less on what men have an do in common than upon
what men hold apart. In truth, where uniformity has been the rule,
stagnation has been the result. I see such in our ward. We march too often
in platoons. Our individuality is enslaved by fads and fashions is bought
and sold by the auctioneers of the daily marketplace, lies spoiled by the
decaying forces of social pressure, and bows before the false god of
uniformity. Every identity has his or her own beauty -- sublime uniqueness
that is the essence of individuality -- and every person has a personal
contribution to make that he alone can off -- to neighbors to society, and
to the world. I recently went to Switzerland with my daughter. We attended
church while we were over there. My daughter commented that the service was
exactly like the one she had at home in Utah. No difference is right, all
marched to the same drummer, like automatons. (no offense intended).
Miracles come from those who have individuality. Maybe we should do like
John the Baptist, go into the desert and eat a few bugs, and for God's sake,
be different. M
I just wish I knew the authors a little better.
Man
--
Xristos wrote in message <3946CD...@ewakening.net>...
>Man wrote:
>>
>> I was recently identified as an LDS with reservations.
>
>Maybe you better cancel your reservations. (Bad joke, I know.)
>
>
>> No offense, I
>> believe the characteristic was accurate. But I thought since some think
of
>> me this way, I might post a little of what my beliefs are. I hope I don’
t
>> get branded as a heretic or anti-Mormon for my opinions, but here they
are.
>> As a whole, I think the church people are great people; the family
programs
>> are great; their faith is great . . . these things help build fine
citizens.
>> My problem with the church is that it discourages individualism. Set
>> prayers; set ordinances where one word wrong makes a prayer invalid; set
>> beliefs. Also, sometimes the church is like magical stage play where
magic
>> is king and everyone is a magician. What’s wrong with teaching the love
of
>> God; the Golden Rule; assisting to make strong families. My Grandpa once
>> told me that if God wanted everyone to go to the Temple he would have him
or
>> her join the Masonic Lodge, it was already in place and ready to go.
(Don’t
>> flame me, my Grandpa said it and he was a good Mormon). I think that the
>> true welfare of man would be to take the money spent on Temples and build
>> hospitals to help those suffering in the world. If we give service to
>> others in this life, how can one believe God does not approve and bless.
>
>You know, you're right. But it doesn't really make any difference. You
>might make a good Unitarian though.
>
>Seriously, there are plenty of denominations out there to choose from.
>I've learned over the years to give up trying to reinvent the wheel.
>Every denomination has its good points and its bad points. Too much
>ritual, too little ritual, too much individualism, too little
>individualism. . . you can't please everyone.
>
>Eventually you have to find something you can get into wholeheartedly.
>Then you can feel like you're making a contribution and accomplishing
>something. With every passing year I get a little more tired of spinning
>my wheels. I know the church isn't going to change anytime soon. I do
>the best I can to point folks in the right direction.
And the right direction is ............? M
>
Charles S Waters
>
> "Man" <ch...@saber.net> wrote:
>
> >It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a subject and it
> >is not consistent with Mormon doctrine,
>
>
> --
> All countries my homeland, all people my kinsman,
> all truth my religion. http://www.absalom.com
I agree that one should be a be to voice one's beliefs with respect to
Mormon doctrine and the decade in which one lives shouldn't determine if
one is accepted as orthodox or rejected as heterodox or apostate.
--
Charles -- Who took the red pill (The Matrix)
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth,
From the laziness that is content with half-truths,
From the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
O God of Truth, deliver us.
-- Ancient Prayer
True morality consists not in following the beaten
track, but in finding out the true path for ourselves
and fearlessly following it.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
Xristos
father of peace
Webmaster
Man
--
father of peace wrote in message <39470923...@news.pipeline.com>...
>"Man" <ch...@saber.net> wrote:
>
>>It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a subject and
it
>>is not consistent with Mormon doctrine,
>
>With the current mainstream version of LDS doctrine....
I take this to mean that doctrine is constantly changing? M
Man
--
Charles S Waters wrote in message <39471319...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
>father of peace wrote:
>>
>> "Man" <ch...@saber.net> wrote:
>>
>> >It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a subject and
it
>> >is not consistent with Mormon doctrine,
>>
>> With the current mainstream version of LDS doctrine....
>>
>> --
>> All countries my homeland, all people my kinsman,
>> all truth my religion. http://www.absalom.com
>
>I agree that one should be a be to voice one's beliefs with respect to
>Mormon doctrine and the decade in which one lives shouldn't determine if
>one is accepted as orthodox or rejected as heterodox or apostate.
I don't think my opinion hurt the church, any church in fact. If so, then I
have greater power than I thought I did. If I have this greater power,
where did it come from? I realize that my opinions may not be correct, then
again, perhaps they are. I was at a fireside a week ago. A discussion came
up on a Biblecal subject, of the 20 people attending the 20 disolved into
three groups with three different interpretations. Now, according to some
on this N.G., each group should be calling the other two groups anti-Mormons
because they could not agree. M
Man
Charles S Waters
> >
> >>It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a subject and
> it
> >>is not consistent with Mormon doctrine,
> >
> >With the current mainstream version of LDS doctrine....
>
I wouldn't use the word constantly. For example in general conferences,
quotes derived from the PofGP have been decreasing in frequency over the
last decade or so. Does that mean that we are beginning to de-emphasize
the PofGP? The same trend happened with plural marriage and Adam-God to
name a few. The doctrine that we can become like God has been
de-emphasized by President Hinckley in public interviews of late.
Man
--
Charles S Waters wrote in message <3947F3FC...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
>Man wrote:
>>
>> --
>>
>> father of peace wrote in message <39470923...@news.pipeline.com>...
>> >"Man" <ch...@saber.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a subject
and
>> it
>> >>is not consistent with Mormon doctrine,
>> >
>> >With the current mainstream version of LDS doctrine....
>>
>> I take this to mean that doctrine is constantly changing? M
>
>I wouldn't use the word constantly. For example in general conferences,
>quotes derived from the PofGP have been decreasing in frequency over the
>last decade or so. Does that mean that we are beginning to de-emphasize
>the PofGP? The same trend happened with plural marriage and Adam-God to
>name a few. The doctrine that we can become like God has been
>de-emphasized by President Hinckley in public interviews of late.
Yes, I agree on the de-emphasizing. I was wondering if some of these
de-emphasized doctrines were critical to some of our/LDS current beliefs. M
C&C
> Man wrote:
> >
> > --
> >
> > father of peace wrote in message
<39470923...@news.pipeline.com>...
> > >"Man" <ch...@saber.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a subject
and
> > it
> > >>is not consistent with Mormon doctrine,
> > >
> > >With the current mainstream version of LDS doctrine....
> >
> > I take this to mean that doctrine is constantly changing? M
>
> I wouldn't use the word constantly. For example in general conferences,
> quotes derived from the PofGP have been decreasing in frequency over the
> last decade or so. Does that mean that we are beginning to de-emphasize
> the PofGP? The same trend happened with plural marriage and Adam-God to
> name a few. The doctrine that we can become like God has been
> de-emphasized by President Hinckley in public interviews of late.
It certainly seems like an attempt to "mainstream" Mormonism and bring it
into line with the rest of Christianity.
Chuck
Charles S Waters
>
> --
>
> Charles S Waters wrote in message <3947F3FC...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
> >quotes derived from the PofGP have been decreasing in frequency over the
> >last decade or so. Does that mean that we are beginning to de-emphasize
> >the PofGP? The same trend happened with plural marriage and Adam-God to
> >name a few. The doctrine that we can become like God has been
> >de-emphasized by President Hinckley in public interviews of late.
>
> de-emphasized doctrines were critical to some of our/LDS current beliefs. M
I believe so. To de-emphasize that we can become like God de-emphasizes
that we are the children of God. That doesn't work for me.
Kerry A. Shirts
C&C <camn...@uswestnospam.net> wrote in article
<bn%15.1840$li3....@news.uswest.net>...
> Charles S Waters <cswa...@newsguy.comDELETE> wrote:
> > Man wrote:
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > father of peace wrote in message
> <39470923...@news.pipeline.com>...
> > > >"Man" <ch...@saber.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>It appears to me that if one voices his/her own opinion on a
subject
> and
> > > it
> > > >>is not consistent with Mormon doctrine,
> > > >
> > > >With the current mainstream version of LDS doctrine....
> > >
> > > I take this to mean that doctrine is constantly changing? M
> >
> > I wouldn't use the word constantly. For example in general
conferences,
> > quotes derived from the PofGP have been decreasing in frequency over
the
> > last decade or so. Does that mean that we are beginning to
de-emphasize
> > the PofGP? The same trend happened with plural marriage and Adam-God
to
> > name a few. The doctrine that we can become like God has been
> > de-emphasized by President Hinckley in public interviews of late.
>
> It certainly seems like an attempt to "mainstream" Mormonism and bring it
> into line with the rest of Christianity.
>
> Chuck
Nah. Not to worry. The Book of Mormon will save us on this, if we'll only
keep trying to understand it better.
Kerry A. It's like the various Gospels I would suspect, each one
emphasizing something different or de-emphasizing some things about Jesus"
Shirts
>
>
>
Man
--
Charles S Waters wrote in message <3949A7AD...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
>Man wrote:
>>
>> --
>>
>> Charles S Waters wrote in message <3947F3FC...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
>> > For example in general conferences,
>> >quotes derived from the PofGP have been decreasing in frequency over the
>> >last decade or so. Does that mean that we are beginning to de-emphasize
>> >the PofGP? The same trend happened with plural marriage and Adam-God to
>> >name a few. The doctrine that we can become like God has been
>> >de-emphasized by President Hinckley in public interviews of late.
>>
>> Yes, I agree on the de-emphasizing. I was wondering if some of these
>> de-emphasized doctrines were critical to some of our/LDS current beliefs.
M
>
>I believe so. To de-emphasize that we can become like God de-emphasizes
>that we are the children of God. That doesn't work for me.
Does it work for you that you can become a god? M
Charles S Waters
>
> --
>
> Charles S Waters wrote in message <3949A7AD...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
> >Man wrote:
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Charles S Waters wrote in message <3947F3FC...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
> >> > For example in general conferences,
> >> >quotes derived from the PofGP have been decreasing in frequency over the
> >> >last decade or so. Does that mean that we are beginning to de-emphasize
> >> >the PofGP? The same trend happened with plural marriage and Adam-God to
> >> >name a few. The doctrine that we can become like God has been
> >> >de-emphasized by President Hinckley in public interviews of late.
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree on the de-emphasizing. I was wondering if some of these
> >> de-emphasized doctrines were critical to some of our/LDS current beliefs.
> M
> >
> >I believe so. To de-emphasize that we can become like God de-emphasizes
> >that we are the children of God. That doesn't work for me.
>
> Does it work for you that you can become a god? M
Absolutely.
Man
--
Charles S Waters wrote in message <394ABA02...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
Well Charles, if you do and I don't, be kind to me. (g) M
Charles S Waters
I'll give you a hand up so we'll be equals. I hope you'll do the same
for me.
Man
--
Charles S Waters wrote in message <394B7561...@newsguy.comDELETE>...
You know, I think I can say an 'Amen' to that. M
Kerry A. Shirts
Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in article
<skkoif...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >I believe so. To de-emphasize that we can become like God de-emphasizes
> >that we are the children of God. That doesn't work for me.
>
MAN SAYS (to which I am responding)
> Does it work for you that you can become a god? M
I think the Eastern side of the world has it up on us westerners in this
respect. They do not believe they can actually BECOME Gods. They already
are such, but just don't recognize it sometimes.
Kerry A. "That doctrine tastes good" Shirts
Man
--
Kerry A. Shirts wrote in message <01bfd8ef$f76f19a0$de2aa1d1@default>...
Let's see, they are Gods but do not know it . . . is this some kind of an
oxymoron? M
>
R. L. Measures
<shir...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in article
> <skkoif...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >I believe so. To de-emphasize that we can become like God de-emphasizes
> > >that we are the children of God. That doesn't work for me.
> >
>
> MAN SAYS (to which I am responding)
>
> > Does it work for you that you can become a god? M
>
> I think the Eastern side of the world has it up on us westerners in this
> respect. They do not believe they can actually BECOME Gods. They already
> are such, but just don't recognize it sometimes.
>
> Kerry A. "That doctrine tastes good" Shirts
€ bait. [Phyllis Greenacre: "The Impostor" Psychoanalytic Quarterly,
27:359 - 382 (1958)]
--
- Rich... ag6k, 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures, remove plus from adr.
FAWNSCRIBE
I think the Eastern side of the world has it up on us westerners in this
respect. They do not believe they can actually BECOME Gods. They already
are such, but just don't recognize it sometimes.
Kerry A. "That doctrine tastes good" Shirts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Proverbs 14:12
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death"
Relying on who has one UP on another on this stuff means diddly squat if GOD
hasn't ordained such notions to be true.
Fawnie
Fawn
Man
--
Kerry A. Shirts wrote in message <01bfd99e$7f920780$e42aa1d1@default>...
>
>
>Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in article
><skptq2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>Kerry had said:
>> >I think the Eastern side of the world has it up on us westerners in this
>> >respect. They do not believe they can actually BECOME Gods. They already
>> >are such, but just don't recognize it sometimes.
>> >
>> >Kerry A. "That doctrine tastes good" Shirts
>>
>> Let's see, they are Gods but do not know it . . . is this some kind of an
>> oxymoron? M
>
>Yeah! I suppose it would be. What a paradox.......Life is to teach us who
>we really are is the Eastern teaching. Alan Watts is sensational on this,
>as is Joseph Campbell......
>
>Kerry A. "Not every wrinkle is worked out even in the Eastern views" Shirts
Kerry, ya know, the more I think about it, maybe just being an Angel ain't
so bad afterall! M
>
Xristos
> € bait. [Phyllis Greenacre: "The Impostor" Psychoanalytic Quarterly,
> 27:359 - 382 (1958)]
I'm interesting in looking up this article. Can you perhaps post a link
to where it might be found??
Xristos
> > >I believe so. To de-emphasize that we can become like God de-emphasizes
> > >that we are the children of God. That doesn't work for me.
> >
>
> MAN SAYS (to which I am responding)
>
> > Does it work for you that you can become a god? M
>
> respect. They do not believe they can actually BECOME Gods. They already
> are such, but just don't recognize it sometimes.
I think I'll go with that, then. That kina beats out Mormondumb, as you
say.
Kerry A. Shirts
Xristos <xri...@ewakening.net> wrote in article
<394D88...@ewakening.net>...
Oh no!!!!!! You CANNOT, you SHOULD NOT go with this idea that you are
already a God(dess). Hell the Christians here are gonna kill ya and mock ya
and drag yer bones through their streets shouting with glee.......
Kerry A. "Loving being a smart alec at times" Shirts
>
Kerry A. Shirts
Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in article
<skptq2...@corp.supernews.com>...
Kerry had said:
> >I think the Eastern side of the world has it up on us westerners in this
> >respect. They do not believe they can actually BECOME Gods. They already
> >are such, but just don't recognize it sometimes.
> >
R. L. Measures
€ I have not seen it on the Internet Mr./Mrs. Xristos. If I needed a
copy I would go to a library and pay them to locate one.
Kerry A. Shirts
Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in article
<skr7rnq...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Kerry A. Shirts wrote in message <01bfd99e$7f920780$e42aa1d1@default>...
> >Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in article
> ><skptq2...@corp.supernews.com>...
> Kerry, ya know, the more I think about it, maybe just being an Angel
ain't
> so bad afterall! M
Laugh. Yeah I see what you mean. But apparently we are already beyond the
angels. Who knows? Oh incidentally, I asked about your idea of how Jesus
was God already. I have several LDS scholar friends who gave me comments
and scriptures I will share with you if you don't mind.
My good friend, John Tvedtnes of FARMS says
While the scriptures indicate that men can become gods, they never say that
we
will create worlds and populate them with our children. That is an
assumption
and, while some have taught it, it cannot be supported by the scriptures.
Let's
not allow people to hold us to this or any other idea, even if it is true,
unless it's in the scriptures. Moreover, Jesus Christ is an exception in
more
ways than one. He is a member of the Godhead, we are not. He suffered and
died
for the sins of all mankind, we did not. So his godhood is clearly
different
from ours in at least these respects, and perhaps others as well.
Another dear friend of mine, Eugene Seaich asked me to see these scriptures
also.
D&C 132:19-20 clearly states that we will possess a "fulness" (see Col.
2:9-10 and D&C 93:3-4, 17-20), and will be "gods." Then go to vs. 63,
which states that
exalted wives will "bear the souls of men," in addition to "replenishing
the
earth."
Richard Hopkins, still another friend I have constant contact with says
this:
I think the passage in Heb. 1:8-9 quoting Ps. 42:6-7 is very revealing
also.
Christ was ready to be exalted long before any of us, and long before he
received a body. In fact, these passages and others (e.g., Phil 2:9-10)
suggest it is this nature that is requisite for exaltation to godhood and
that he had this nature (loved righteousness and hated wickedness)
eternally, which I take to mean always. (That would require that he had
this
nature as an intelligence, even before he was organized as a spirit, but
I'm
speculating in that regard on the nature of "intelligences," of course.)
Scott Pierson whom I have known for quite awhile on the Internet and become
good friends with also includes his thoughts on this:
True. Right NOW he is a member of the Godhead, and WE ARE MORTALS. (This
is stating the obvious.) But the promise is that we too shall one day be
deified, following the same process of sonship that Jesus followed (Heb.
2:9-11). (Note that "captain" in vs. 10 is actually ARCHEGOS, i.e. "first
of a series," that is to say, the PROTOTYPE of other exalted men).
One should further compare D&C 88:107, which states that we shall be EQUAL
to God; and 3 Nephi 28:10, which says that "ye shall be EVEN AS I AM, and I
AM EVEN AS THE FATHER."
I must conclude that Scripture very definitely supports man's deification
and the procreation of new souls.
Thus, John's statement,
So his godhood is clearly different from ours in at least these respects
Some of my other friends also gave forth their comments of which I share
with you in hopes of at least showing you the most interesting ideas in LDS
theology concerning these issues. Obviously we just don't know enough yet.
I had understood this last comment differently. As I understood it,
Scripture makes a difference between our Father in Heaven not as a matter
of
kind, but as a matter of degree:
Abraham 3
17 Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above
the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and
there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but
what he will do it.
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 than the other, have no beginning;
they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for
they are gnolaum, or eternal.
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.
So the fundamental differences between Father and his children was that of
degree of intelligence and having a glorified body. Yet, Jesus did not
have
a glorified body, and he was still said to be "like unto God," and so I
must
assume that Jesus was like unto God as a result of his intelligence.
Now consider this:
Abraham 3
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were
organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the
noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst
of
them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those
that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me:
Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto
those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we
will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may
dwell...
So the one that was "like God" said to the others present, "We will go
down...and...make an earth." But look what those construction workers are
called just a few verses later:
Abraham 4
1 AND then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the
beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and
the earth.
2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they
had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face
of
the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the
waters.
So, the difference between Father and children is not one of type, but of
degree [this, of course, is standard LDS thinking on the subject]. That is
why Jesus could cite the Psalms, "I said, ye are gods," thus calling even
mortal man by that title.
There is a blurring of meaning within the scriptures, where most often,
the state of Godhood is referring to the precise state that Father dwells
in, and another that acknowledges that in our own sphere of generation, we
are all gods.
And again Eugene Seaich, a noted Mormon scriptorian adds:
I however believe that the "differences in intelligence" which the Book of
Abraham mentions have only to do with the QUANTITY of intelligence attained
in the preexistence. The difference between men and gods, on the other
hand, is a difference in QUALITY--between "black" and "white," between
mortals and deities. Men, on the other hand, are promised deification by
RECEIVING GOD'S OWN FULNESS (D&C 93:3-4, 17-20).
This is a matter of GRACE, not of personal attainment. When even the
humblest servant receives "all of God's fulness" (Eph. 3:19), he must
surely
receive ALL OF GOD'S FULNESS.
I believe that the process of salvation and exaltation began way back in
the
preexistence, when Christ was chosen to be a creator and the savior of his
brethern. The rest of us were chosen to follow his example by practicing
the law of sacrifice (meaning that we too must learn to participate in his
sacrifice, Mt. 16:24ff.) Thus Christ became "ahead" of us WHEN THE PROCESS
WAS PUT IN ACTION, but before that he was equal to us (our "older
brother").
Only after being chosen in the Council in Heaven did he actually become a
God.
As I understand it, each generation of God's eternal family chooses ONE
individual to become the savior and exemplar for the rest, and the others
are destined to follow in his steps. Evidently, the choice was open to any
one who could fill it, since Satan volunteered to do it his way.
According to Scripture, we were "uncreated Intelligence" (D&C 93:29) before
being organized into "intelligences" or "spirits" or "souls" (Abr.
3:22-23):
"....the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among
all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and God saw these
souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said:
These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits..."
The Prophet was obviously using "souls" in its common, every day meaning
(i.e. "spirits"), not as unities of spirit and body, as Semitic authors
usually did ("God put his spirit into him and he became a living soul").
"From the beginning" usually has the scriptural meaning of "from the
beginning of the world," i.e. from the time of creation. See, for example,
Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 ("In the beginning God created....."), or Rev.
13:8 ("slain from the foundation of the world"). I doubt very much that
Jesus of Nazareth was chosen an infinite number of creations ago to be the
savior of all future worlds. I do, however, believe that God always
creates through a Son, as well as mediates with the world through a Son
(original version of Dt. 32:8-9), which is why there is always a Son along
side of the Father.
So, I would conclude that there are interesting ideas to ponder and study
in the scriptures. I hope this has helped you a little bit.
Kerry A. "trying to be "Mr. Helpful" to someone who appears to really want
to know and understand, and which I am only too glad to legitimately help"
Shirts
Man
You've given me a lot of information. M
--
Kerry A. Shirts wrote in message <01bfda62$e2b18c40$e22aa1d1@default>...
TheJordan6
>> >Man <ch...@saber.net> wrote in article
>> ><skptq2...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Kerry, ya know, the more I think about it, maybe just being an Angel
>ain't
>> so bad afterall! M
>
>Laugh. Yeah I see what you mean. But apparently we are already beyond the
>angels. Who knows? Oh incidentally, I asked about your idea of how Jesus
>was God already. I have several LDS scholar friends who gave me comments
>and scriptures I will share with you if you don't mind.
>
>My good friend, John Tvedtnes of FARMS says
>While the scriptures indicate that men can become gods, they never say that
>we
>will create worlds and populate them with our children. That is an
>assumption
>and, while some have taught it, it cannot be supported by the scriptures.
So now, Kerry Shirts informs us that accurate LDS teachings are not dispensed
by the "prophets", but instead by a college professor. LDs leaders supported
their teaching by the scriptures, Kerry.
>Let's
>not allow people to hold us to this or any other idea, even if it is true,
>unless it's in the scriptures.
A tenet of Mormonism is that the teachings of Mormon prophets take precedent
over even the 'scriptures.'
Moreover, Jesus Christ is an exception in
>more
>ways than one. He is a member of the Godhead, we are not. He suffered and
>died
>for the sins of all mankind, we did not. So his godhood is clearly
>different
>from ours in at least these respects, and perhaps others as well.
>
>Another dear friend of mine, Eugene Seaich
Another college professor?
asked me to see these scriptures
>also.
>D&C 132:19-20 clearly states that we will possess a "fulness" (see Col.
>2:9-10 and D&C 93:3-4, 17-20), and will be "gods." Then go to vs. 63,
>which states that
>exalted wives will "bear the souls of men," in addition to "replenishing
>the
>earth."
That's funny, when I have quoted those same verses here on ARM, illustrating
the Mormon belief that people will bear children in the 'celestial kingdom,'
some Mormons have told me that those verses don't mean that.
>Richard Hopkins, still another friend I have constant contact with
Another college professor? Gee, Kerry, why don't you quote the "prophets" and
"apostles"? They're supposedly the guys with the "authority" and the
"inspiration" to teach correct doctrine.
says
>this:
>I think the passage in Heb. 1:8-9 quoting Ps. 42:6-7 is very revealing
>also.
>Christ was ready to be exalted long before any of us, and long before he
>received a body. In fact, these passages and others (e.g., Phil 2:9-10)
>suggest it is this nature that is requisite for exaltation to godhood and
>that he had this nature (loved righteousness and hated wickedness)
>eternally, which I take to mean always. (That would require that he had
>this
>nature as an intelligence, even before he was organized as a spirit, but
>I'm
>speculating in that regard on the nature of "intelligences," of course.)
>Scott Pierson whom I have known for quite awhile on the Internet and become
>good friends with also includes his thoughts on this:
Lessee: Scott Pierson....isn't he the Mormon also known as 'Pacumeni?" Is he
a GA? Isn't he also the same guy who called the "God is an exalted man"
teaching a "folk doctrine?"
Randy J.
R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ Behold ye, the maze of mormonism.
If the Catholic church had been run like this, it would likely have gone
belly up by the sixth century.
cheers, Randy.
--
AlienWard
professors:
"My good friend, John Tvedtnes of FARMS says
Another dear friend of mine, Eugene Seaich
Richard Hopkins, still another friend I have constant contact
with
Scott Pierson whom I have known for quite awhile on the Internet
Some of my other friends also gave forth their comments"
I think we're supposed to be impressed that he has friends and
we're supposed to feel like a bunch of losers with no friends.
What Kerry is saying is that the LDS leaders don't know shit
about doctrine so we have to rely on his friends for the excuses
to support JS's claims of Jesus as his own God. I just wonder
how Jesus was our spirit brother but managed to get on the fast
track to progression, become a God without being a human first
like his father, and then create the universe before his father
became a human and a God and create him (Jesus).
Alien
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
FAWNSCRIBE
silly
Fawn
madro...@my-deja.com
Sounds like good accurate history to base a belief on. (g) Mrs.
Murphy being sarcastic again.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.