Posted on 04/27/2006 3:03:34 PM PDT by restornu
You can't even apply that to the family. Oh, sure, as parents are the ones procreating their kids, of course they have authority over them. But you beg the question. No one here was ever claiming that you don't believe that your version of Elohim has authority over you. So your "perfect logic" is aimed at a straw man we didn't construct.
So, let me spell it out for you, yet again: A parent has authority of their child. But that authority is not "ultimate." God invests authority in the government for the protection and safety of individuals. And if a parent abuses a child, then the government has the right to weigh in w/its authority over and above that given parent.
In addition to that, the creator-God's authority also trumps that of the parent. If you're trying to say that parental authority is universally absolute and is the ultimate authority in that kid's life, well, that's a very dangerous proposition, for God isn't called "Father" for nothin'!
One can't make what went on and met for those days to say it was about today!
How foolish!
How laughable!
First of all, you slam (by implication, not directly) all used car salesmen as dishonest--somehow believing that any and almost all religious practioners are somehow heads and shoulders above all used cars salesmen.
I would say it's more balanced than you think: There are more upright, Christian (even LDS, mind you) used car salesmen than you give them credit for being; and likewise, there are more dishonest religious practioners than you apparently care to concede.
I'm sure if you interviewed the thounsands of distinct religious adherents out there, you'd come up with a very high % who would consider themselves an "honest" practitioner. Yet how many JWs, how many New Age offshoots, how many self-improvement cults, how many voodoo and wicca and occultic based groups, how many koolaid cults are either weak representations of the original (at best) or are outright fraud at its flashpoint of origin? Who cares if folks are sincere in their beliefs. You can be sincerely wrong!
I mean just look at the high number of LDS off-shoot sects. You think those folks consider themselves "dishonest"?
>>Do you dispute the following quotes?:
Withput a link? Yep, Gladly, yet's get everything in context here.
If you can link to the source, great we'll discuss it. I am not going to search the web for you, I spend enough time finding my own links.
Source or don't post.
JM .02
Okay, I was a little careless here in that I didn't qualify this as I should have. It is NOT common LDS belief that Jesus died for Adam's sin only. But this HAS been taught by some LDS leaders [I have a copy of LeGrand Richards' book, A Marvelous Work and Wonder--Salt Lake City--Deseret Book, which IS the LDS-owned book publishing company, right?...1958, pp. 98-99: Richards, an LDS general authority, wrote that Jesus "atoned for Adam's sin, leaving us responsible only for our own sins."]
So, indeed, I'm not lying, right? (I was just overbroad in my assertion). And, since you rightly claim this to be pure "heresy" please let me see your denunciations of LeGrand Richards as a heretic. Or, you can begin now. Go ahead. Denounce Richards as a heretic who's leading LDS and non-LDS astray on this!!! In fact, why don't you come right out and say it: Deseret Book Publishing Company is a source of heresy. Won't say it? Why so quick to point a finger at me saying it as "heretical"--but as soon as you find out some LDS leader has published it under the official LDS publishing outlet, and sudden silence??
If I'm not mistaken, I believe deceased LDS apostle B.R. McConkie at least implied the same thing [my reference is p. 348 of Mormon Doctrine...but I don't have his book copy in front of me].
So, allow me to ask you: the LDS belief seems to be that Christ's atonement as it applies to salvation is that it covers personal sins in addition to original sin. However, Christ's atonement as it applies to exaltation does not apply, correct?
My citation for the latter is based on the official Gospel principles manual, which I received when I went through an LDS class. On p. 135, it reads that Jesus "became our savior and he did his part to help us return to our heavenly home. It is now up to each of us to do our part and to become worthy of exaltation."
So, even mainstream LDS materials convey this idea that Christ has won "salvation" across the board for all men, cancelling Adam's sin. Now all ya gotta do for godhood status is yank yourself up. It's almost like, "There. The door's been opened for you. If I'm going to find you worthy, then show me." [I guess that's the Missouri strain of theology showing thru, eh?]
Your debating method here is quite ineffective. When challenged with a quote you neither admit the substance nor deny the substance, but instead you simply challenge the validity of the source. IOW you change the subject.
So here's my challenge:
If in fact those quotes are exactly what these leaders of your church are quoted as saying, then do you believe that what they said was a correct enunciation of LDS doctrine or not?
Regardless of whether or not these guys were correctly quoted, do you agree or disagree with what they are quoted as saying?
CCing P-Marlowe; colorcountry; restornu
>>Are you trying to say that since soldiers have authority doled out to them through their
>>immediate commanding officer [we all know how the military is known for its sharp
>>adherence to a chain of command] that such an immediate commanding officer is that
>>soldier's "ultimate authority?" I thought the "commander-in-chief"--who in turn
>>answers to God, Himself--one of these would be deemed as the "ultimate" authorities.
>>So why is it any soldier knows where the buck stops, but in your spiritual warfare
>>where we're supposed to be a soldier of Christ (Paul's analogy), you pretend
>>commanders in chief are irrelevant to your role.
God is where the buck stops. We are his creations we answer to him, we always will.
I have said this in posts past on this thread. It amazes me that you don’t get it, but you and your Allies (CC’s words) apparently don’t speak English.
If I make a Lego™ car, and then decide to destroy it, I do not have to ask anyone’s permission. It does not matter if I have a father who can build with Lego’s or if he has a father, only that the car belongs to me, I created it. End of chain of authority.
>>Yet you seem to claim that just because an immediate commanding officer is the only
>>supervisor--the only authority he reports to in this chain of command--that just
>>because he's the only "god" in that young soldier's new universe, that somehow
>>making the claim "Well, he's the only god with which we have to do" gets you off the
>>hook of being under the authority of other commands further up the chain.
See above…
>>Furthermore, it shows extreme shortsightedness that you don't know the ultimate spirit
>>to whom Joseph Smith was reporting to. Somehow you reduce the LDS version of
>>Elohim to be the "ultimate" authority when you know full well he's not. The key
>>question to ask is, "what spirit" (if any) appeared to Joe Smith? Was it an "angel of
>>light" masquerading under another identity? [Gal 1:8-9] And what spirit entity was
>>really behind the scenes?
I do know, you have not been listening. Elohim is the ultimate authority to us; we are his and Christ creations.
Are you trying to be purposefully offensive? I ask because I am not sure.
I'm sorry but you must be confused, I've never called anyone my "Allies."
Everything on this thread is confused and confusing. I'll make it simple: THERE IS BUT ONE GOD...ANYWHERE...ALWAYS. To believe otherwise makes you a pagan and NOT a Christian. You however are free to believe any way you choose to believe. It is guaranteed by our United States Constitution.
>>>>we both know it wouldn’t change my mind, mine is made up based on personal revelation
>>Wow! What if Joe Smith had such open-mindedness?
>>I can hear it now. I can just imagine it in my mind, Jimmy Stewart playing the role
>>of Joe Smith in a Hollywood movie:
>>"Now, never you mind, Moroni. You just get on back up to wherever you came from,
>>wings or not. I'm not going to change my mind. My mind's made up based upon
>>personal revelation." [Then as wingless Moroni mozies off sullenly, JimmyJoe mutters
>>under his breath, "Sheesh. Gold plates from South America hauled all the way to
>>upstate New York when Arizona would have been just fine & dandy. Who would
>>choose to write a detailed history on gold plates anyway? What? Does he think I was
>>born yesterday? Next thing ya know this Moroni character thinks I'd believe in an
>>invisible bunny!")
If this is meant to be humorous, don’t give up your day job!
Are you claiming to be an angel of light? Or are you claiming to have more light and knowledge that me, can you guarantee me your message is “more direct” than revelation from Him?
I think you are pretty full of yourself to try to top personal revelation from God, but have it your way, convince me you know more then I think, what am I wearing, or pick some other miraculous thing to try to convince me you know and see all, good luck.
Okay, correct this perceived dialogue to reflect how you would truly answer:
Me: Which god is where the buck stops?
You (as I think you would say): The only god with which we have to do. Elohim. Heavenly Father.
Me: So, this god, whom you call Elohim, has all universal authority? No other god in the universe or any other universe or any other spiritual dimension has authority he doesn't have, or this god did not derive any authority from him?
You (as I think you might say): I didn't say that. I don't have to be concerned with that authority. I only have to be concerned with his authority.
Me: But what if other gods or any other higher-up god pulls rank on your god? Does that not militate against your claim that your god has "ultimate" authority if another god can pull rank on him? "Ultimate" authority that is not ultimate is not ultimate. [Wow! Did I really have to say that, or have you just not been getting what I've been trying to say?]
So what you are saying is that Elohim himself is not the ultimate authority over himself? That there is an "Elohim" in authority above him and another "Elohim" in authority above him....(ad infinitum)????
Sorry. Doesn't compute in an absolute way. Let's say you take that lego, and you put it in a cannon alongside ammunition, and you decide that your means of "destroying" the lego house is to fire it into a real house that doesn't belong to you (beyond your authority). It doesn't matter that you created the legohouse. It doesn't give you the authority to do anything you want with it. You are thereby limited, as your authority is. Someone who has Kolobian authority, for example, doesn't necessarily have Jupiterian authority, or Marsian authority.
So, if your immediate gods are limited in their authority either by planetary boundaries, galaxy boundaries, universal boundaries, or some other dimensional boundaries, then they are limited. They are not a totally free, sovereign god. There are limitations to their authority, for there was once upon a time when they had no authority. They were totally reliant upon other another god or gods for deriving it.
>>You can't even apply that to the family.
You are not creating; procreating is not creation, but close. That is why your authority is not absolute. I would say Society, not government, the government should not be involved (I am a conservative after all) then God.
>>God isn't called "Father" for nothin'!
I agree, whole heartedly!
The child of God can NOT go beyond what the Heavenly Father or Son has spoken or has made known unto his servants!
Hold it, hold it. Would you "enlighten" me, please, if you hold positions counter to LDS theology?
(1)Do not LDS believe that God's means of creation is indeed literal procreation? Does not Father-God and Mother-God have literal spiritual children up there who are simply waiting to inhabit bodies down here?
In other words, more than in any other faith, isn't procreation and creation linked in LDS theology to as high of a degree as you can get?
I mean, this theology is so set that McConkie said that the Father-god's paternity of Christ was literal. Brigham basically said the same thing, as did other LDS prophets.
>>First of all, you slam (by implication, not directly) all used car salesmen as dishonest…
Yep, I believe that to be a common perception, and a stereotype justly earned, by those I have dealt with.
>>Who cares if folks are sincere in their beliefs.
Any right thinking individual will have caution when critiquing with another’s beliefs.
I would feel dishonest with God for messing with your beliefs.
Are you sincere in your beliefs?
Perception may not be reality, but it’s all we have. (Grin)
Excuse me Cofian!
Common sense we were spirits before we join with our body here on earth!
What goes on in your mind Cofian?
And yes Heavenly Father did BEGAT His ONLY BEGOTTEN Son Jesus Christ!
How many times need you say the same thing over and over let along in the same thread!
(a) Your Elohim has a body of flesh & bones, right? (Historic Christianity--no). (b) When you say any man is involved in a "literal paternity"--as McConkie said about the LDS Elohim, or rather than letting any other man do it--like Brigham said, then you are saying that a man had sexual intercourse to beget a child.
So A + B above set against LDS also saying Mary was a virgin, does not compute. You can't have a doctrine of literal procreation in heaven (spirit babies being born in heaven), literal procreation on earth, and Elohim having a literal flesh & bones body--not simply a spirit body--and then try to suddently spiritualize away the implications of words by Brigham, McConkie, and, I believe it was, Joseph Fielding Smith, without having folks draw conclusions that none of these prophets or leaders took any pains to leade readers to draw any different conclusion. Doctrine.
I will repeat again please don't ask this question in a few days later, or a year later etc.!
***
So what you are visiualizing is two Flesh and Blood bodies,
The Heavenly Father has a body of Flesh and Bone, NOT Flesh and Blood!
Luke 1
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
It is the Divinity that is being begotten so Jesus is part Man, part divine!
IMHO
I do know the Heavenly Father part has nothing to do with the temporal ways
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.