Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Turns out I have a bit of time after all. I'll see how much I can cover in the time I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I don't see why this is so hard for you.
It's hard for me, because you have misunderstood what we actually believe, and you're basically saying, "How can you believe [such and such]?" when we don't believe it at all.
Quote:
God was apparently a solid body being and there were others of his kind and he had a wife (or several) and the sons and daughters also had solid bodies. That is an alien race in all important respects, even if they have evolved to spirit beings.
Okay, I'm going to try to briefly comment on the various segments of the video. I'm pretty sure that your comments about this "alien race" are pertaining to what is said and shown in the video from :21 to 1:21. This segment is almost completely fabricated nonsense. The only statement the LDS would say is factual is that "Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father..." (1:01 to 1:04). That's four seconds of accuracy out of one minute of talking. We do believe we also have a Heavenly Mother, but we have been given exactly zero information about her, and as far as our believing that God has many wives, that's purely the opinion of the producer of the video. There has never been any LDS commentary concerning God's beginnings, His conception or birth or anything else of the sort. And the portrayal of all of the blond young women, goo-goo-ing over spirit babies is utter nonsense. The Bible says that God is the father of spirits; that's non-debatable. Nowhere does it speak of "endless celestial sex" and no LDS leaders have ever implied that sex is required for the creation of a spirit. The entire segment is a joke.
A couple of early LDS Church Presidents believed that God the Father once lived a mortal life like His Son, Jesus Christ. I have no idea how much this teaching was ever emphasized, but we definitely have no indication that it was ever a commonly taught belief. Furthermore, it has never, in nearly 200 years, been canonized. As I said before, if God did ever live a mortal life, it would have been prior to the period of time covered by the Bible, and therefore cannot be said to contradict the Bible. Also, it is entirely possible, from a Christian mindset, to say that God did once live a mortal life. That doesn't mean He wasn't "God" at the time. According to Christian (including LDS) theology, Jesus Christ was "God" in the beginning. He didn't have to progress to be "God" by virtue of how He lived His life. He had a mortal body and that body was resurrected after He died, but He never stopped being God.
One final thing... You talk about individuals "evolving" to be spirit beings. That's backwards from how we believe it works.
Quote:
This is not (I am pretty sure) a story of God's former being that Christianity would accept doctrinally.
No. It's probably not, but so what? The fact that we have some differences in belief doesn't give people license to fill in the unknowns with nonsense that we don't believe at all.
Quote:
"In addition, members of the Anointed Quorum, a highly select leadership group in the early church that was privy to Smith's teachings, also acknowledged the existence of a Heavenly Mother.[6]:65–67[7] The Times and Seasons published a letter to the editor from a pseudonymous person named "Joseph's Speckled Bird", in which the author stated that in the pre-Earth life, the spirit "was a child with his father and mother in heaven".[8] The apostle Parley Pratt even taught in an official church periodical that God may have had multiple wives before Christ's time, and that after the death of Mary (the mother of Jesus) she may have become another eternal wife" (Wiki)
Now this may not be other than the Opinion of individuals within the church.
Who cares? Parley P. Pratt was one of hundreds of individuals who have served as LDS apostles over the Church's existence. What he may have said is completely immaterial. He was never in a position to declare Church doctrine. Besides, spirits are neither children nor adults. They don't need to be fed or played with or have their diapers changed. Good grief, the nonsense people come up with!
Turns out I have a bit of time after all. I'll see how much I can cover in the time I have.
It's hard for me, because you have misunderstood what we actually believe, and you're basically saying, "How can you believe [such and such]?" when we don't believe it at all.
Okay, I'm going to try to briefly comment on the various segments of the video. I'm pretty sure that your comments about this "alien race" are pertaining to what is said and shown in the video from :21 to 1:21. This segment is almost completely fabricated nonsense. The only statement the LDS would say is factual is that "Mormons believe that Elohim is their Heavenly Father..." (1:01 to 1:04). That's four seconds of accuracy out of one minute of talking. We do believe we also have a Heavenly Mother, but we have been given exactly zero information about her, and as far as our believing that God has many wives, that's purely the opinion of the producer of the video. There has never been any LDS commentary concerning God's beginnings, His conception or birth or anything else of the sort. And the portrayal of all of the blond young women, goo-goo-ing over spirit babies is utter nonsense. The Bible says that God is the father of spirits; that's non-debatable. Nowhere does it speak of "endless celestial sex" and no LDS leaders have ever implied that sex is required for the creation of a spirit. The entire segment is a joke.
A couple of early LDS Church Presidents believed that God the Father once lived a mortal life like His Son, Jesus Christ. I have no idea how much this teaching was ever emphasized, but we definitely have no indication that it was ever a commonly taught belief. Furthermore, it has never, in nearly 200 years, been canonized. As I said before, if God did ever live a mortal life, it would have been prior to the period of time covered by the Bible, and therefore cannot be said to contradict the Bible. Also, it is entirely possible, from a Christian mindset, to say that God did once live a mortal life. That doesn't mean He wasn't "God" at the time. According to Christian (including LDS) theology, Jesus Christ was "God" in the beginning. He didn't have to progress to be "God" by virtue of how He lived His life. He had a mortal body and that body was resurrected after He died, but He never stopped being God.
One final thing... You talk about individuals "evolving" to be spirit beings. That's backwards from how we believe it works.
No. It's probably not, but so what? The fact that we have some differences in belief doesn't give people license to fill in the unknowns with nonsense that we don't believe at all.
Who cares? Parley P. Pratt was one of hundreds of individuals who have served as LDS apostles over the Church's existence. What he may have said is completely immaterial. He was never in a position to declare Church doctrine. Besides, spirits are neither children nor adults. They don't need to be fed or played with or have their diapers changed. Good grief, the nonsense people come up with!
I didn't get it from the video but from the text i lifted. You're saying that God was spirit from the start and the solid body beings came later? Is that Mormon dogma that you can reference?
What's the point of the Christian view? Well obviously it impact on whether dogmatically Christians will accept LDS dogma as valid Christian dogma. It isn't a question of whether it contradicts the Bible; it is about the Christian view of the nature of God. It's not a problem for me, as Genesis - God looks very corporeal and even has corporeal limitations.
I didn't get it from the video but from the text i lifted.
Would you mind quoting the specific text you're referring to again? I'm not sure which one you're referring to.
Quote:
You're saying that God was spirit from the start and the solid body beings came later? Is that Mormon dogma that you can reference?
I'm saying that, according to LDS doctrine, from the time described as "the beginning" God (i.e. the Father) was a spirit, or life force, that resided within a corporeal body that was human in appearance. That's as specific as I can without speculating myself, and it's as specific as any LDS leader has ever gotten. We do not deny the possibility that there was a time when God existed solely as a spirit being, but if that was the case, it is not a part of our theology. All Christians (or at least the vast majority of them, including us) believe that prior to Jesus Christ's mortal incarnation, He was a spirit being. It was when He came to earth that He got a physical body, and His spirit (the same spirit that had always been the essence of who He was) gave that body life. According to the Bible, when He died, He commended His spirit to His Father. On the Sunday following His crucifixion, that same spirit once again returned to His body, and His body was resurrected from the dead, to live eternally from that point forward.
We're with the rest of Christians in this regard. Where we differ is that we believe that God the Father may have gone through a similar process himself prior to "the beginning." John 5:19 quotes Jesus as having said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." While this is not conclusive evidence of anything, it suggests that Jesus' life followed an example previously set by His Father which He was a witness to.
Quote:
What's the point of the Christian view? Well obviously it impact on whether dogmatically Christians will accept LDS dogma as valid Christian dogma. It isn't a question of whether it contradicts the Bible; it is about the Christian view of the nature of God.
Since the traditional Christian understanding of the nature of God derives primarily Greek philosophical thought as was taught during the earliest centuries of Christianity's existence, I don't see how it's any more "valid" than our doctrine. We can all pretty much agree on what the Bible has to say, but the Bible itself doesn't support traditional Christian theology concerning God's nature any more than it supports ours.
Quote:
It's not a problem for me, as Genesis - God looks very corporeal and even has corporeal limitations.
Would you mind quoting the specific text you're referring to again? I'm not sure which one you're referring to.
All of them, from Wiki and the BBC -religion quote.
Quote:
I'm saying that, according to LDS doctrine, from the time described as "the beginning" God (i.e. the Father) was a spirit, or life force, that resided within a corporeal body that was human in appearance. That's as specific as I can without speculating myself, and it's as specific as any LDS leader has ever gotten. We do not deny the possibility that there was a time when God existed solely as a spirit being, but if that was the case, it is not a part of our theology. All Christians (or at least the vast majority of them, including us) believe that prior to Jesus Christ's mortal incarnation, He was a spirit being. It was when He came to earth that He got a physical body, and His spirit (the same spirit that had always been the essence of who He was) gave that body life. According to the Bible, when He died, He commended His spirit to His Father. On the Sunday following His crucifixion, that same spirit once again returned to His body, and His body was resurrected from the dead, to live eternally from that point forward.
We're with the rest of Christians in this regard. Where we differ is that we believe that God the Father may have gone through a similar process himself prior to "the beginning." John 5:19 quotes Jesus as having said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." While this is not conclusive evidence of anything, it suggests that Jesus' life followed an example previously set by His Father which He was a witness to.
As I say, the idea of God's species (soto speak) as an Alien race, derives from this idea that they were corporeal beings at the time of creation. That they were evolved or ascended to spirit form by the time Jesus was sent down doesn't alter that.
Now,making God a spirit before the 'corporeal'phase would keep God nice and divine, but it would (so it seems to me) conflict with the rest of Christianity, just as islam's rejection of God having a son puts them dogmatically beyond acceptance, even if there is nothing in Islam to contradict the rest of the gospels.
Quote:
Since the traditional Christian understanding of the nature of God derives primarily Greek philosophical thought as was taught during the earliest centuries of Christianity's existence, I don't see how it's any more "valid" than our doctrine. We can all pretty much agree on what the Bible has to say, but the Bible itself doesn't support traditional Christian theology concerning God's nature any more than it supports ours.
I agree.The LDS theology seems as good to meas the Christian one. But I'm not the one positing the Christian view of whether LDS Theology is acceptable to them
Quote:
What limitations would those be?
Well, it's the image of God pushing through the foliage shouting "Wherefore art thou, Adam?" It's hardly on a par with God as creative spirit, but works well as a corporeal being with very material limitations.
All of them, from Wiki and the BBC -religion quote.
Okay. Well, I hope that in all my ramblings, I've been able to clarify what we do and do not teach.
Quote:
As I say, the idea of God's species (soto speak) as an Alien race, derives from this idea that they were corporeal beings at the time of creation. That they were evolved or ascended to spirit form by the time Jesus was sent down doesn't alter that.
Well, maybe I should just say that we believe that God and His children (i.e. all of us) are actually the same species. He exists to the fullest of His potential, though, and we do not.
Quote:
Now,making God a spirit before the 'corporeal'phase would keep God nice and divine, but it would (so it seems to me) conflict with the rest of Christianity, just as islam's rejection of God having a son puts them dogmatically beyond acceptance, even if there is nothing in Islam to contradict the rest of the gospels.
Agreed. It does "conflict with the rest of Christianity." But then Pentecostal Christianity conflicts with Catholicism, and Quakerism conflicts with Eastern Orthodoxy. Our differences may ultimately mean that some of us have beliefs that are not correct. These are beliefs, however, that I think God will have no trouble educating us all on in the end.
Quote:
I agree.The LDS theology seems as good to meas the Christian one. But I'm not the one positing the Christian view of whether LDS Theology is acceptable to them
I understand that, and I appreciate your civility in doing so. I know that at least some of our theology is unacceptable to them. I'm good with that; really, I am. I just don't like people resorting to taking what we actually do believe and then embellishing it to such an extent that it is no longer an accurate representation of our doctrine. It may serve their purpose, which is to make Mormonism appear to be the stupidest religion known to man, but it certainly comes across as a desperate ploy in my opinion.
Quote:
Well, it's the image of God pushing through the foliage shouting "Wherefore art thou, Adam?" It's hardly on a par with God as creative spirit, but works well as a corporeal being with very material limitations.
I'm assuming from what you are saying that you think the play is an accurate representation of the religion. I've actually seen it. Great music and choreography, and a few extremely funny parts. But "informational"? Hardly. And by the way, the play is named after the book, which is The Book of Mormon (singular), and the play actually has nothing to do with the book itself.
Vulgar and offensive and completely hilarious play. It is not even so much offensive to Christianity in general or the LDS in particular as it is to humanity overall. What is truly striking is that the play makes us laugh even though the subject matter at the core of the story is demonstrative of some of the worst of humanity.
There's a can't-we-all-get-along lesson in it, too.
I found it interesting that the Mormon church had three different full-page ads in the Playbill, with slogans like, "You've seen the play, now read the book!" and an offer of a free Book of Mormon.
I did a Google search to see if I could find anything else on the church's reaction to the play, and I found one interview with a church leader who said something to the effect of, "Of course it shows some of the church's ways in a negative light, but it does demonstrate the challenges young missionaries face. Plus, we're just happy that the play doesn't mention polygamy!"
I did a Google search to see if I could find anything else on the church's reaction to the play, and I found one interview with a church leader who said something to the effect of, "Of course it shows some of the church's ways in a negative light, but it does demonstrate the challenges young missionaries face. Plus, we're just happy that the play doesn't mention polygamy!"
Would you mind providing a link to that site. I was unable to find it. The only statement I've seen from the LDS leadership doesn't say anything like that. I'd like to see who actually said it.
Would you mind providing a link to that site. I was unable to find it. The only statement I've seen from the LDS leadership doesn't say anything like that. I'd like to see who actually said it.
I will search again. I don't remember who it was off the top of my head.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've actually seen it. Great music and choreography, and a few extremely funny parts. But "informational"? Hardly. And by the way, the play is named after the book, which is The Book of Mormon (singular), and the play actually has nothing to do with the book itself.
