It is currently Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:17 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:19 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
For the present, man must be content with the “account of this earth” while waiting on the providence of the Lord to teach him more concerning the interaction of Jesus Christ with an infinite number of other orbs and their inhabitants.


Which never has, and never will happen. Consider THAT a prophecy.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:31 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
I've said this before, but here it is once again,

DonBradley wrote:
grindael wrote:
I appreciate the thoughts Kish, you are always provoking in your commentary, but really, that argument (That it is either all true or all false) was what the original Church was founded upon. Joseph Smith taught that, "I never told you I was perfect, but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations that I have taught."


Sorry, Grindael, but this is a complete non-argument.

Suppose I say, "I never told you I was perfect, but there are no errors in the message board posts that I have made." Now, explain to me how this statement obligates anyone to accept my message board posts in their totality or reject them in their totality, rather than accepting what I've written selectively.

Ready. Set. Go...!

There's nothing there. It really doesn't matter who sets up the false dichotomy: it's still false. You could stack up quotes by the pope from here to the ceiling saying, "When I speak officially as pope, I am always right, and if I'm wrong, this shows I'm not the true pope," and this still wouldn't create a genuine dichotomy for the hearer unless the hearer happens to hold a prior belief in that same premise--that a true pope is necessarily always right.

I'm a little tired, so I may not get this out just right, but here's an analogy. People in the church often use the argument that the prophet can't ever lead the church astray because the prophets have said they can't ever lead us astray. As an argument for why the prophet can't lead us astray, that's pretty much the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's like believing a book because the book says in it, "This book is true." Unless one already believes that, by definition, the prophet can't possibly be wrong, then the prophet's guarantee that he can never lead you astray is, itself, potentially wrong.

By parallel, even if the quote had Joseph Smith saying by revelation "My revelations are always right" (which it doesn't), it still wouldn't follow that a demonstrable error in his revelations would prove them all entirely wrong, unless one already holds an independent theological belief that a true prophet can never say anything wrong by revelation--a belief that any informed adherent to the Bible would have to reject, since the Bible is rife with such errors, and a belief that I and many others simply reject as a misunderstanding of what it means to be a prophet.

Don


Don, your analogy is flawed. You didn't complete the quote. Here it is in its entirety and this makes all the difference in the world:

Quote:
The keys of the kingdom were given to Joseph Smith. They were placed on the heads of other men to make use of on earth for a short time; and when we get through we shall all have our reward. Let us make up our minds to serve and honor God. Do not have any fears concerning the kingdom; the Lord will lead that aright; and if Brother Woodruff or any of the Presidency of this Church should take any course to lead you astray, the Lord will remove us out of the way. We are in the hands of the Lord, and those keys will be held and taken care of by the God of Israel until He comes whose right it is to reign. (Wilford Woodruff, Brian Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol. 1, p. 294).


It is not silly (to them) IN ITS CONTEXT, that they can't lead the Church astray, because God would "remove us out of the way." The same is true with Joseph and his "revelations". He claimed that they had no errors. Brigham Young got upset once at being asked about making mistakes and claimed that THE LORD might make him make mistakes...

Quote:
Many may say, “br. Brigham, perhaps you are mistaken; you are liable to err, and if the mob should not come, after all, and we should burn up our houses and learn that the Government had actually countermanded their orders and that no armies are coming to Utah, it would be a needless destruction. We have all the time felt that there was no need of leaving our houses. How easy it is for men to be mistaken, and we think a Prophet may be mistaken once in a while.” I am just as willing as the Lord, if he is disposed to make me make mistakes, and it is none of the business of any other person. If a people do the best they know, they have the power to ask and receive, and no power can prevent it.

And if the Lord wants me to make a mistake, I would as soon be mistaken as anything else, if that will save the lives of the people and give us the victory. If you get such feelings in your hearts, think of what my conclusion on the subject is, and do not come to my office to ask me whether I am mistaken, for I want to tell you now perhaps I am.

Do I want to save you? Ask that question. But John, what are you doing? Are you not an Elder in Israel? “Yes, I am a High Priest.” What is the office of an High Priest? John replies, “I do not know, without it is to whip my wife, knock down my children and make everybody obey me; and I believe a High Priest presides over an Elder.” You will find some Elders just about that ignorant. Let me tell you what the office of a High Priest and an Elder is. It holds the keys of the revelation of Jesus Christ; it unlocks the gates of heaven. It opens the broad windows of revelation from eternity. John, what are you about, imagining that I may be mistaken? or that br. Heber may be mistaken? Why do you not open the windows of heaven and get revelation for yourself? and not go whining around and saying, “do you not think that you may be mistaken? Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken?” Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right. If I am thus borne off by your prayers and faith, with my own, and suffered to lead you wrong, it proves that your faith is vain. Do not worry. (Brigham Young, sermon given on 21 March 1858, Salt Lake Tabernacle, transcribed by George D. Watt, Van Wagoner, Vol. 3, pp. 1417-1418)


Then in the Afternoon Sermon given on the same day,

Quote:
I have told you what causes apostacy. It arises from neglect of prayers and duties, and the Spirit of the Lord leaves those who are thus negligent and they begin to think that the authorities of the church are wrong. In the days of Joseph the first thing manifested in the case of apostacy was the idea that Joseph was liable to be mistaken, and when a man admits that in his feelings and sets it down as a fact, it is a step towards apostacy, and he only needs to make one step more and he is cut off from the church. That is the case in any man. When several of the Twelve were cut off, the first step was that Joseph was a prophet, but he had fallen from his office and the Lord would suffer him to lead the people wrong. When persons get that idea in their minds, they are taking the first step to apostacy. If the Lord has designed that I should lead you wrong, then let us all go to hell together and, as Joseph used to say, we will take hell by force, turn the devils out and make a heaven of it. (ibid. pg. 1420)


He was being facetious that "the Lord" would design that Young would lead them wrong, and made the same joke about it that Smith did of making Hell a Heaven. (In other words, it just wasn't going to happen). Here is Joseph's full quote,

Quote:
When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations which I have taught." (addressing his doctrinal infallibility). Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught? I enjoin for your consideration—add to your faith virtue, love, &c. I say, in the name of the Lord, if these things are in you, you shall be [p.367] fruitful. I testify that no man has power to reveal it but myself—things in heaven, in earth and hell; and all shut your mouths for the future. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.367).


Young's point here, is that Joseph WAS NOT liable to be mistaken, and if they were, it was because GOD designed them to be. It was Brigham Young who coined the saying about not being able to lead the Church astray:

Quote:
It is my duty to know the mind of the Lord concerning myself and also concerning this people; and I think I know it just as well as I know the road home. I do not know the path from that door to my own home any better than I know how to dictate this people, if they will only hearken to me. This is a great blessing and a great privilege, and if I were to reject it and take a course to deprive myself of the spirit of revelation, according to what the Lord has given to me, and to magnify the Priesthood that I received through his servant Joseph, I would be taken forthwith from this world, I would not remain here at all to darken the minds of, or to lead astray, ANY of the members of the kingdom of God. According to the revelations that I and others of my brethren and sisters have received, through the Prophet Joseph and others who have lived upon the earth, if I observe my duty, I shall have the privilege of living and enjoying the society of my brethren and sisters, and of instructing them; but let me neglect this and I shall be removed out of my place forthwith. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 18, p.71)


Again,

Quote:
There are many of the men and women now before me who have looked for a pure people, and have supposed that that was a proof of the truth of our doctrines, but they will never find such a people until Satan is bound, and Jesus comes to reign with his Saints. The doctrine we preach is the doctrine of salvation, and it is that which the Elders of this Church take to the world, and not the people of Utah.

Some of the Elders seem to be tripped up in a moment, if the wicked can find any fault with the members of this Church; but bless your souls, I would not yet have this people faultless, for the day of separation has not yet arrived. I have many a time, in this stand, dared the world to produce as mean devils as we can; we can beat them at anything. We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character that you can mention.

We can pick out Elders in Israel right here who can beat the world at gambling, who can handle the cards, cut and shuffle them with the smartest rogue on the face of God's foot-stool. I can produce Elders here who can shave their smartest shavers, and take their money from them. We can beat the world at any game.

We can beat them, because we have men here that live in the light of the Lord, that have the Holy Priesthood, and hold the keys of the kingdom of God. But you may go through all the sectarian world, and you cannot find a man capable of opening the door of the kingdom of God to admit others in. We can do that. We can pray the best, preach the best, and sing the best. We are the best looking and finest set of people on the face of the earth, and they may begin any game they please, and we are on hand, and can beat them at anything they have a mind to begin. They may make sharp their two-edged swords, and I will turn out the Elders of Israel with greased feathers, and whip them to death. We are not to be beat. We expect to be a stumbling block to the whole world, and a rock of offence to them.

I never preached to the world but what the cry was, "That damned old Joe Smith has done thus and so." I would tell the people that they did not know him, and I did, and that I knew him to be a good man; and that when they spoke against him, they spoke against as good a man as ever lived.

I recollect a conversation I had with [p.78] a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, money-digger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I donor care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. He said, "I have done." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p.77)

George Q. Cannon,

Quote:
In like manner if before us stands the consequences of speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, it will have the effect to restrain us. Do you think I could give way to a spirit of that kind, however pleasant it might be to me for the time being, at such a risk—the risk of grieving the Spirit of God and causing it to be withdrawn from me? No, I could not; and neither ought any of us. The consequences should be before our eyes. I would like you all, young and old, more especially the young men and women, who have not had the experience of the older ones, to be impressed with the feeling that from this time forth as long as you live upon the earth you will never be guilty of doing anything of this kind. Leave those who do wrong to the Lord. He will see that His servants are not permitted, as President Woodruff said yesterday, to lead this people astray. (Brain Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol. 4, p.313).


I also find this argument silly and dumb. But that is what Mormon PROPHETS TAUGHT. That is my point. It is NOT a non argument. I have literally hundreds more quotes I can give you to show that they claimed doctrinal infallibility with a caveat, that if they were to even think about leading the church astray, or teach wrong doctrine (If the Lord did not MAKE THEM DO SO), he would take them. Your analogy is lame, because you are not claiming to be inspired in your discussions by God, who would snatch you up if you were to attempt to make a doctrinal error or lead the church astray.

Quote:
This in reality is the case, for many of us have been born again according to the traditions of our fathers; but those that keep the celestial law and obey the principles of the Gospel of Christ, you never find them taking different roads. There is but one right road, and it is a straightforward one; and the principles and rules that govern you in that path are simple and easy to be understood. This is the path for us to walk in, and I consider that we are greatly blessed in having learned the true way and in being delivered from that yoke of bondage that has chained [p.140] us down with error, false doctrine; and false teachers. (Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.140)


Quote:
What have we been doing here? You can see for yourselves that we have been laboring with our hands, We have had no time to find fault with our neighbors or to do them injury, or to do anything else only to make ourselves comfortable, and to prepare as fast as possible for the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. See the settlements that have been built up by the penniless, those who bad not clothing to last them three months when they came, and some of whom did not bring a month's provision with them, and did not know that they could raise a thing, only by faith. Yet we came and we have lived and prospered, and here we are. What fault should be found with us? "Oh, you have done so many evil things!" What evils have we done? I am at the defiance of earth and hell to put a finger on the place or time that a false doctrine was taught to any one, a wrong taught to any one, or when evil was justified in any one, all the liars and all the lies on earth and in hell to the contrary notwithstanding. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.217)


And,

Quote:
How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?" By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin? I sometimes say to my brethren, "I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years—over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward. But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, "I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!" All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach, if you think you have one. It would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God; you have started out for life and salvation, and with all their ignorance, wickedness and failings, the majority of this people are doing just as well as they know how; and I will defy any man, to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders. of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, p.205).


This last quote was from 1871 and Young was still proclaiming that he never once taught false doctrine, that he could not, because he would be detected, and the Lord would take him before he led the church astray. All this stuff about "through a glass darkly" is simply special pleading. We have the actual words of Mormon "prophets" and "apostles" that prove they claim doctrinal infallibility and they have the "keys" to the "mysteries" that they can use ANYTIME they feel like it. Why don't they? Why, it's obvious. They were making it up as they went along and still are.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:34 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
And,

grindael wrote:
To further make my point, Dallin Oaks just proclaimed,

Dallin Oaks in Boise wrote:
Stand fast with the leadership of the church. I heard President Hinckley in describing a revelation he had received concerning the building of small temples form which he will soon benefit in this part of the world that he did not claim perfection that there was only one perfect person who had ever lived upon this earth and even the prophets of God were not perfect. But, as the Prophet Joseph Smith said, on a great occasion, ‘there is no error in the teachings.’Spoken under the influence of the spirit of the Lord, witnessed to be true in the hearts and minds of those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost, those teachings are the Lord’s will to his people. And I testify to you that these teachings are true and that if we hold with and follow the current leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, we will stay on the path toward eternal life. (Dallin Oaks, “Boise Rescue Transcript”, 117, On tape, 1:12:38)


They are STILL claiming doctrinal infallibility.


Where is Oak's caveat? There isn't one. All or nothing, (even with the "mysteries") as I have been saying all along.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:03 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 5516
grindael wrote:
Divine Investiture is an apologist joke. It has nothing to do with what was taught in early Mormonism, it was an apologetic invented to circumvent what was actually taught in the early church.


One thing we could probably agree on is that Divine Investiture is indeed a "linchpin" that holds up the weight/substance of the early Mormon development/evolution of the doctrine of the Godhead.

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-lynch ... vestiture/

If one subscribes to there being many worlds in which a "Savior" has acted in the office/calling of being the mediator/redeemer of races of men/women scattered throughout the cosmos, the principle/doctrine of Divine Investiture opens the door to some possibilities that otherwise are a bit difficult to wrap one's mind around.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:15 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
One thing we could probably agree on is that Divine Investiture is indeed a "linchpin" that holds up the weight/substance of the early Mormon development/evolution of the doctrine of the Godhead.


I don't agree. It was an apologetic that was begun around the turn of the 20th century to try and explain away the problems with Joseph and Brigham Young's theological teachings. It is as ridiculous as some of the Penrose/Roberts/Talmage/Fielding Smith explanations for Adam-God.

This is where the Mormon Church split and became something other than what it was originally under Joseph (Nauvoo Era) and carried on by Brigham Young and every prophet until Jos. F. Smith. (Who believed Adam-God, but said it was "too great a pearl to be cast before swine").

Their solution was to publish the ridiculous 1916 essay, which has nothing to do with what was actually taught by Mormon "prophets" up to that time.

The author of the article should have given heed to Rick Grunder. He absolutely knows what he is talking about.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:32 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
...the principle/doctrine of Divine Investiture opens the door to some possibilities that otherwise are a bit difficult to wrap one's mind around.


No, it doesn't. It actually creates a total contradiction between early Mormon theology and what was taught after 1916. Early Mormon theology makes absolutely no sense, and their apologetic to try and makes sense of it only makes things worse, because it has no foundation in early authoritative teachings.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:46 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 5516
grindael wrote:
The author of the article should have given heed to Rick Grunder. He absolutely knows what he is talking about.


When Rick Grunder had this conversation (dealing partially with representative modalism/divine investiture:

http://www.mormonmatters.org/2008/10/11 ... ment-42235

what was his status in regards to the church at that time? Was he a member before this conversation...or has he ever been an active member?

I've heard of him off and on and know that he has some big compilation of some kind in regards to early Mormon documents, but I've not...over the years...paid much attention to his 'stuff' up to this point. He seems to be a very civil/honest sort of fellow.

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:42 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 4791
grindael wrote:
Quote:
...the principle/doctrine of Divine Investiture opens the door to some possibilities that otherwise are a bit difficult to wrap one's mind around.


No, it doesn't. It actually creates a total contradiction between early Mormon theology and what was taught after 1916. Early Mormon theology makes absolutely no sense, and their apologetic to try and makes sense of it only makes things worse, because it has no foundation in early authoritative teachings.

Thanks for your posts, grindael, as usual! Wow. It's both fascinating and appalling to see how inconsistent the early theology was, and how early the apologetics had to start to cover for the inconsistencies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:03 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
...what was his status in regards to the church at that time? Was he a member before this conversation...or has he ever been an active member?


What in the world has that to do with anything? :rolleyes:

Quote:
I've heard of him off and on and know that he has some big compilation of some kind in regards to early Mormon documents, but I've not...over the years...paid much attention to his 'stuff' up to this point. He seems to be a very civil/honest sort of fellow.


He is an expert in early Mormon documents. (Actual physical documents that he collects and sells). For example, he has owned some early Mormon peepstones. I know you are familiar with Google, just google his name and you will find out all you want to know about him.

He is a good friend of mine, and I've been to his house and seen some of his collection. As I've said above it is a mistake not to take his research seriously or blow it off as the author of that article did.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:58 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Lemmie wrote:
Thanks for your posts, grindael, as usual! Wow. It's both fascinating and appalling to see how inconsistent the early theology was, and how early the apologetics had to start to cover for the inconsistencies.


Here is a classic example of how they deceived people with that "exposition".

Quote:
Jesus Christ applies to Himself both titles, “Son” and “Father.” Indeed, He specifically said to the brother of Jared: “Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Ether 3:14). Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title “Son of God” as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary.


Here is what Joseph Smith wrote in 1835 about the "father" and the "son":

Quote:
2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fulness of the Father, or the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name. He is called the Son because of the flesh. And he descended in suffering below that which man can suffer; or, in other words, he suffered greater sufferings and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God and remained without sin, showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, that all who walk not in the law of God may justly be condemned by the law and have no excuse for their sins. He, being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit that bears record of the Father and the Son. These three are one; or, in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made. And these three constitute the Godhead and are one. The Father and the Son possess the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness—filling all in all. The Son, being filled with the fulness of the mind, glory, and power, or in other words, the spirit, glory, and power, of the Father, possesses all knowledge and glory and the same kingdom, and sits at the right hand of power in the express image and likeness of the Father. He is a mediator for man, being filled with the fulness of the mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments. And all those who keep his commandments shall grow from grace to grace and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. They will possess the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all, being filled with the fulness of his glory and becoming one in him, even as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. (Lecture V)

Quote:
5. Q—What is the Father? A—He is a personage of glory and of power (Lecture 5:2),

7. Q—What is the Son? A—First, he is a personage of tabernacle (Lecture 5:2).

11. Q—Why was he called the Son? A—Because of the flesh.

13. Q—Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind? A—They do. “I [Christ]* can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30). “For I [Christ]* came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38). “I [Christ]* and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

14. Q—What is this mind? A—The Holy Spirit.


There is no "divine investiture" here, because early Mormonism taught that the Father and the Son were both the same God, one a "spirit" and another that "spirit" in a created body. The Holy Ghost was the MIND of that God. As Rick Grunder noted, this was a form of Serial Modalism.

Smith radically changed his theology after the Kirtland Era when he began taking Hebrew lessons from Joshua Seixas. Smith then, (while locked up in Liberty Jail) wrote in March of 1839:

Quote:
26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;

27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;

28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. (D&C 121)


Yet, Mormons want to claim that the Book of Mormon revealed all this. It makes everything clear. Obviously it did not, or else why would Smith write the above in 1839? Reason: like with the D&C he was amending things as he went along and even the very nature of God was subject to change. Here is Smith changing the Bible to reflect the early trinitarian belief in Mormonism:

Quote:
KJV: All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.(Luke 10:22)
JST: All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.(Luke 10:22).


From the Evening and Morning Star:

Quote:
“Through Christ we understand the terms on which God will show favour and grace to the world, and by him we have ground of a PARRESIA access with freedom and boldness unto God. On his account we may hope not only for grace to subdue our sins, resist temptations, conquer the devil and the world; but having ’fought this good fight, and finished our course by patient continuance in well doing, we may justly look for glory, honor, and immortality,’ and that ‘crown of righteousness which is laid up for those who wait in faith,’ holiness, and humility, for the appearance of Christ from heaven. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery and enjoy everlasting bliss!

“The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.” (The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12, emphasis mine)


What they do in that essay, is take all of the instances where Christ called himself "the Father" (as he was actually the Father IN THE FLESH in early Mormonism) and deceitfully use that to bolster their ridiculous creation of "divine investiture".

Quote:
“We believe in God the Father, who is the great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father; yet he is our Savior, Redeemer, King, and Great Prototype;-was offered as a sacrifice to make an atonement for sin-rose from the dead with the same flesh and bones, not blood, and ascended to heaven, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.” Times and Seasons, 3:578 (15 November 1841).


Quote:
Shall we shrink at the onset? No! Let every man's brow be as the face of a lion; let his breast be as unshaken as the mighty oak, and his knee confirmed as the sapling of the forest' and by the voice and loud roar of the cannon; and the loud peals and thundering of artillery; and by the voice of the thunderings of heaven as upon Mount Sinai; and by the voice of the heavenly hosts; and by the voice of the eternal God; and by the voice of innocent blood; and by the voice of innocence; and by the voice of all that is sacred and dear to man, let us plead the justice of our cause; trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim, who sits enthroned in the heavens; that peradventure He may give as the victory; and if we bleed, we shall bleed in a good cause, in the cause of innocence and truth; and from henceforth will there not be a crown of glory for us? And will not those who come after hold our names in sacred remembrance? And will our enemies dare to brand us with cowardly reproach?” History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.5, p.94


He separates Jesus from this personage in his diary entry of August 23, 1842:


Quote:
“There are many souls whom I have loved stronger than death. To them I have proved faithful—to them I am determined to prove faithful, until God calls me to resign up my breath. O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men—Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah—God—Thou Eloheim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, "enthroned in heaven," look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of THY SON Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah; and let the lamp of eternal life be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away; and let the words of eternal life be poured upon the soul of Thy servant, that he may know [p.128] Thy will, Thy statutes, and Thy commandments, and Thy judgments, to do them.” History of the Church, Vol.5, ch.6, p.127


Here Smith calls JEHOVAH – GOD - THOU ELOHEIM, and his SON Jesus Christ. The title Jehovah is here given to the Father, not the son. In a Proclamation to the World in April of 1845, the Twelve reversed the order and affirmed:

Quote:
“KNOW YE:— THAT the kingdom of God has come: as has been predicted by ancient prophets, and prayed for in all ages; even that kingdom which shall fill the whole earth, and shall stand for ever.

The great Eloheem Jehovah has been pleased once more to speak from the heavens: and also to commune with man upon the earth, by means of open visions, and by the ministration of HOLY MESSENGERS. By this means the great and eternal High Priesthood, after the Order of HIS Son, even the Apostleship, has been restored; or, returned to the earth.”


Quote:
The gods involved in the creation were designated in Joseph's temple endowment ceremony as Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael.26 Joseph had previously identified Michael as "Adam the ancient of days" (D&C 27:11). Whether he identified either this Elohim or Jehovah to be God the Father as he had previously used these titles is unclear. We have seen that he used the title Elohim in various modes, none of which included Jesus, and he also used the name Jehovah to refer the Father. Given all of these possibilities, to Joseph's endowment ceremony, then, did not seem to include Jesus among the creation gods. This is a curious situation, since many scriptural passages previously produced through Joseph, as well as the Bible, attribute a major role in the creation to Jesus. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith was killed before he was able to elaborate further on these newer, more esoteric ideas. ~Boyd Kirtland, Sunstone 9:2/38 (Aug 84)


Where are any quotes where these men call Jesus Jehovah? Not to be found. Early Mormon theology is a convoluted mess. Jos. F. Smith and company knew this, and so they wrote their apologetic essay to try and mitigate the damage.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:25 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 4791
grindael wrote:
...<snip>
Yet, Mormons want to claim that the Book of Mormon revealed all this. It makes everything clear. Obviously it did not, or else why would Smith write the above in 1839? Reason: like with the D&C he was amending things as he went along and even the very nature of God was subject to change....
<snip>

Wow. It just gets worse and worse. How did Mormons of the day respond to this ever changing theology, if you can even call it that? Or were things in such flux that stuff got overlooked? All of it is lies from the very beginning. If I found this out while I was still a member I think my head would have exploded.

Thanks again, grindael.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:09 am 
World's Top Zion Scientist
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 9192
Location: North Side of The Apocalrock
Just read my paper on New Mormon Theology: The Wonders of Eternity link in my sig, and everything lines up with the Restoration scriptures and the Bible.

Of course it has to be a radical departure from the adolescent mindset of Brigham Young.

_________________
Vindicate Joseph Smith: BECOME ZION
http://apocalblog.blogspot.com/.

My YouTube videos:HERE
PDF Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology:HERE


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:22 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm
Posts: 2986
Gadianton wrote:
in this New Era Article Bruce Porter conclusively proves believing Mormons know that Christ died for not just our planet, but all planets he created, which is infinite planets. Either the inhabitants of these planets waited a really long time for their atonement, rejoicing immensely when it finally happened, or read mystified about what went on before trillions of years prior. There must be some planet envy here. How special we must be to live on the very planet Jesus personally lived and died on? The Church confirms this: we are special in that the most wicked and the most righteous live here -- I believe the doctrine is that on no other planet has their been a people wicked enough to crucify Jesus. This means that MG, Zerinus, LHBPROF, moin moin (?), and all the apologists are exalted in righteousness. Even if only average for this planet, when put against all those other planets, these TBMs really shine. No doubt we critics are barely above dirt for the same reason.

I'm curious to hear from any TBM: How special do you feel knowing that the odds are infinitely against you being born to this world? Perhaps it reflects something wonderful you did in the pre-existence or pre-pre-existence? Do you think you'd feel left out a little if Jesus had died on another planet?

But the wonder doesn't stop there because we also know that Heavenly Father was the savior of HIS father's worlds. Lemmie or someone will need to help out with the math for that, but wow, what are the odds that you Mormons were born on the planet of a savior whose father was also a savior? How many Mormons out there in the deep deep cosmos read with a little disappointment that while they were born to a planet with a Christ, that Christ's father was a garbage man who repented and got to be a God? Do you think they envy you a little? I mean, all that, plus if you're white/ephraim, born in the last days etc., the specialness doesn't seem to end.

But what about God's father's father? What if he was a garbage man? Would any of you feel a little less special knowing that your "royal line" is pathetically short as far royal lines go? I mean, there must be royal lines stretching back thousands, and billions of God-Christs. Or maybe you think that's also true for you? Any of you have personal confirmation on that?



Add this to the mix Gad...

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ser ... sermon.htm

_________________
. “It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”– John Wooden –


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:31 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 5516
grindael wrote:
Divine Investiture is an apologist joke. It has nothing to do with what was taught in early Mormonism, it was an apologetic invented to circumvent what was actually taught in the early church.


What do you make of this entry over at FAIR?

Quote:
There are numerous examples of divine investiture in scripture. The clearest biblical examples involve angels speaking in behalf of God or Christ (Genesis 22:11—12; Exodus 3:2, 6; 23:20–21; Revelation 1:1; 19:9–13; 22:8–16), though Christ also spoke "as though he were the Father" on many occasions throughout the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3). Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8, 18; 4:8; 11:17). It is for this reason that many other Christians identify Elohim and Jehovah as the same person.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Are_ ... e_deity%3F


So do angels speak in behalf of God and/or Christ in the scriptures?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:17 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
So do angels speak in behalf of God and/or Christ in the scriptures?


Apples and oranges. Most Christian sects believe that the Father and Jesus are the same God, as the early Mormons did. Angels were created beings that carried out the will of God and spoke for them. To claim that this is how the Godhead worked is a LATER Mormon invention.

I had some long conversations with Mike H. on facebook years ago and he ran away. He finally claimed (after I destroyed his arguments) that he could support NOTHING from the Bible on Mormon Priesthood, theology, etc. His arguments are ridiculous.

And notice that FAIRMORMON claims that Joseph and others called the Father "Jehovah" but then jump right to the 1916 essay without explaining anything about early Mormon theology. :rolleyes:

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:17 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 5516
grindael wrote:
Quote:
So do angels speak in behalf of God and/or Christ in the scriptures?

Angels were created beings that carried out the will of God and spoke for them.


So we are in agreement that in the case of angels...and Christ speaking for God, that we have something akin to Divine Investiture going on?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:23 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Quote:
So we are in agreement that in the case of angels...and Christ speaking for God, that we have something akin to Divine Investiture going on?


Not Christ speaking for the Father, since Christ was the Father incarnate (though still a separate personage). As believed by most of Christianity and early Mormonism. As for Angels, they did speak for God. Mormons: the "Holy Ghost" is the mind of the two personages in the Godhead, Jesus and the Father. There is no need for "divine investiture" since they are both God.

"For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, 'Surely I will bless you and multiply you.'" - Hebrews 6:13-14

Here is what Irenaeus says on other gods:
Quote:
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD:

1. It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men [the Gnostics & Marcion] blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since HE IS THE ONLY GOD, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE GOD, HE WOULD HAVE A BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END.

2. For how can there be any other Fulness, or Principle, or Power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? But if there is anything beyond Him, He is not then the Pleroma of all, nor does He contain all. For that which they declare to be beyond Him will be wanting to the Pleroma, or, [in other words,] to that God who is above all things. But that which is wanting, and falls in any way short, is not the Pleroma of all things. IN SUCH A CASE, He would have both beginning, middle, and end, with respect to those who are beyond Him. And if He has an end in regard to those things which are below, He has also a beginning with respect to those things which are above. In like manner, there is an absolute necessity that He should experience the very same thing at all other points, and should be held in, bounded, and enclosed by those existences that are outside of Him. For that being who is the end downwards, necessarily circumscribes and surrounds him who finds his end in it. And thus, ACCORDING TO THEM, [Heritics] the Father of all (that is, He whom they call Proön and Proarche), with their Pleroma, and the good God of Marcion, is established and enclosed in some other, and is surrounded from without by ANOTHER mighty Being, who must of necessity BE GREATER, inasmuch as that which contains is greater than that which is contained. But then that which is greater is also stronger, and in a greater degree Lord; and that which is greater, and stronger, and in a greater degree Lord— must be God.

OTHER GODS MAKE ONE DEPART FROM THE TRUE GOD

3. Now, since there exists, according to them, also something else which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, into which they further hold there descended that higher power who went astray, it is in every way necessary that the Pleroma either contains that which is beyond, yet is contained (for otherwise, it will not be beyond the Pleroma; for if there is anything beyond the Pleroma, there will be a Pleroma within this very Pleroma which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, and the Pleroma will be contained by that which is beyond: and with the Pleroma is understood also the first God); or, again, they must be an infinite distance separated from each other — the Pleroma [I mean], and that which is beyond it. But if they maintain this, there will then be a third kind of existence, which separates by immensity the Pleroma and that which is beyond it. This third kind of existence will therefore bound and contain both the others, and will be greater both than the Pleroma, and than that which is beyond it, inasmuch as it contains both in its bosom. In this way, talk might go on for ever concerning those things which are contained, and those which contain. For if this third existence has its beginning above, and its end beneath, there is an absolute necessity that it be also bounded on the sides, either beginning or ceasing at certain other points, [where new existences begin.] These, again, and others which are above and below, WILL HAVE THEIR BEGINNINGS AT OTHER CERTAIN POINTS, AND SO ON AD INFINITUM; so that their thoughts WOULD NEVER REST IN ONE GOD, but, in consequence of SEEKING AFTER MORE THAN EXISTS, would wander away to that WHICH HAS NO EXISTENCE, and DEPART FROM THE ONE TRUE GOD.

IF THERE ARE TWO, THERE WOULD BE MORE AND ADD CONFUSION

4. These remarks are, in like manner, applicable against the followers of Marcion. For his TWO GODS will also be contained and circumscribed by an immense interval which separates them from one another. But then there is a necessity to suppose A MULTITUDE OF GODS separated by an immense distance from each other on every side, beginning with one another, and ending in one another. Thus, by that very process of reasoning on which they depend for teaching that there is a certain Pleroma OR GOD ABOVE the Creator of heaven and earth, any one who chooses to employ it may maintain that there is another Pleroma above the Pleroma, above that again another, and above Bythus another ocean of Deity, while in like manner the same successions hold with respect to the sides; and thus, their doctrine flowing out into immensity, there will always be a necessity TO CONCEIVE OF OTHER Pleroma, and other Bythi, so as never at any time to stop, but always to continue seeking for others besides those already mentioned. Moreover, it will be uncertain whether these which we conceive of ARE BELOW, or are, in fact, themselves the things which ARE ABOVE; and, in like manner, [it will be doubtful] respecting those things which are said by them to be above, whether they are really above or below; and thus our opinions will have NO FIXED CERTAINTY OR CONCLUSION, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits, AND GODS THAT CANNOT BE NUMBERED.

5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety. (Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 1)

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:29 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 4791
grindael wrote:
Quote:
So do angels speak in behalf of God and/or Christ in the scriptures?


Apples and oranges. Most Christian sects believe that the Father and Jesus are the same God, as the early Mormons did. Angels were created beings that carried out the will of God and spoke for them. To claim that this is how the Godhead worked is a LATER Mormon invention....

And notice that FAIRMORMON claims that Joseph and others called the Father "Jehovah" but then jump right to the 1916 essay without explaining anything about early Mormon theology. :rolleyes:


Interesting. If I recall correctly from your comments yesterday, you said the 1916 essay invented this idea to try to circumvent earlier teachings. Was there something in particular they were covering up for, or was it just a matter of trying to hide the many inconsistencies?

I'm thinking that the 1916 essay sounds like the earliest incarnation of correlation, with a dash of "I don't know that we teach that" to provide cover. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Are you the child of a lesser God?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:55 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 4477
Location: The Land of Lorn
Lemmie wrote:

Interesting. If I recall correctly from your comments yesterday, you said the 1916 essay invented this idea to try to circumvent earlier teachings. Was there something in particular they were covering up for, or was it just a matter of trying to hide the many inconsistencies?

I'm thinking that the 1916 essay sounds like the earliest incarnation of correlation, with a dash of "I don't know that we teach that" to provide cover. :lol:


Many inconsistencies.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can."~Joseph Smith, April 7, 1844.
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exiled, zerinus and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group