Jesus questions for mormons

[Cow Poke]

That's the problem with some anti-LDS people: They attack before they really understand what it is they are attacking.

That's the problem with some LDS people. They perceive questions as attacks because they're looking for excuses to complain.

[nrajeff]

That's the problem with some LDS people. They perceive questions as attacks because they're looking for excuses to complain.

That's the problem with some anti-LDS people: They think STATEMENTS such as

"I thought that LDS believed that Jesus started out as a god, and didn't have to "work His way up".

are QUESTIONS.

[Cow Poke]

That's the problem with some anti-LDS people: They think STATEMENTS such as

"I thought that LDS believed that Jesus started out as a god, and didn't have to "work His way up".

are QUESTIONS.

It is a statement that is open to correction. He was not making a definitive statement - you can tell because it begins with "I thought...." But, just for you, Jeff, because I'm feeling especially magnanimous after all my tree cutting this morning..... lemme modify my statement....

That's the problem with some LDS people. They perceive statements beginning with "I thought...." as attacks because they're looking for excuses to complain.

Better?

[nrajeff]

I thought Evangelical preachers were supposed to treat people with unorthodox beliefs nicer than what one sees in this forum.

[Cow Poke]

I thought Evangelical preachers were supposed to treat people with unorthodox beliefs nicer than what one sees in this forum.

Aha!!!! An "I thought" statement! Very good! (and I don't interpret that as an ATTACK!!!! )

Are you STILL moping, Jeff? Sheeeeeesh! In REAL LIFE, Jeff, I'm extraordinarily kind and polite to people with unorthodox beliefs, and lost people, too. But when somebody acts like you do, I feel no compunction (like that word? ) whatsoever in standing up to your shenanigans.

I wish you could talk to the two Mormon families I'm dealing with in Houston. They'd tell you what a wonderful caring person I am.

HOW LONG are you going to continue this pity party, Jeff?

[Cow Poke]

I thought Evangelical preachers were supposed to treat people with unorthodox beliefs nicer than what one sees in this forum.

Have you EVER seen me be anything but kind and considerate to Punkinhead, Jeff? I'm really nice to her! So there!

[OtherCheek]

OK, after I wrote that it occurred to me that you consider the Standard Works an "open canon", yes? Would THAT be why your answer is no? Your Standard Works "change" to accommodate (or facilitate?) the changing doctrine?

No.

We add to the standard works to incorporate "new" doctrine. We have at times in the past made some minor changes to "clarify" existing doctrine. But I am not aware of any case where we "changed" doctrine. For us, doctrine is truth and truth is doctrine. God would not change an eternal truth would he? "Thus saith the Lord, today baptism is a requirement for heaven, but that may change." I don't think the Lord does that, and neither do the LDS.

Now, policies and procedures and practices may change according to the direction of the Lord. "Thus saith the Lord: the disciples are not to go to the gentile nations, but that may change."

[Cerebrum123]

That's the problem with some anti-LDS people: They attack before they really understand what it is they are attacking.

That wasn't an attack, I was really wondering about that, since earlier I had heard that LDS believe that Jesus has always been a god. So, I will put in the form of a question. So, according to LDS did Jesus have to "work His way up" to being a god?

[Cerebrum123]

No.

We add to the standard works to incorporate "new" doctrine. We have at times in the past made some minor changes to "clarify" existing doctrine. But I am not aware of any case where we "changed" doctrine. For us, doctrine is truth and truth is doctrine. God would not change an eternal truth would he? "Thus saith the Lord, today baptism is a requirement for heaven, but that may change." I don't think the Lord does that, and neither do the LDS.

Now, policies and procedures and practices may change according to the direction of the Lord. "Thus saith the Lord: the disciples are not to go to the gentile nations, but that may change."

Well, baptism is NOT a requirement to enter heaven.

Luke 23:42-44
New International Version (NIV)
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[a]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

The thief on the cross never had time to be baptized, and he is in heaven right now.

[Cow Poke]

No.

We add to the standard works to incorporate "new" doctrine.

How would that NOT be a change to your existing doctrine, OC? Doctrine is a "body" of beliefs, no? Do you define "doctrine" differently?

We have at times in the past made some minor changes to "clarify" existing doctrine.

"Clarify"? You mean --- it was understood one way, and there was sufficient reason to make it say something so that it is better understood? That's not a "change"?

But I am not aware of any case where we "changed" doctrine. For us, doctrine is truth and truth is doctrine.

Doctrine comes from the Latin doctrina which is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings of a particular group or religion.

God would not change an eternal truth would he?

You're calling "doctrine" "eternal truth"?

"Thus saith the Lord, today baptism is a requirement for heaven, but that may change."

Where did God say that?

I don't think the Lord does that, and neither do the LDS.

According to one of your Church historians, the LDS Church has done EXACTLY that. You guys USED to be more Trinitarian, for example, and teach that God was "spirit".

Now, policies and procedures and practices may change according to the direction of the Lord.

Or at the will of one of your prophets. And, yeah, you're going to claim that was "the Lord".

[OtherCheek]

How would that NOT be a change to your existing doctrine, OC? Doctrine is a "body" of beliefs, no? Do you define "doctrine" differently?

This is doctrine:
Article of Faith #9
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I'll just leave it at that.

"Clarify"? You mean --- it was understood one way, and there was sufficient reason to make it say something so that it is better understood? That's not a "change"?

Meaning it was being understood any one of several ways by different people, and could potentially lead to confusion, and to avoid confusion it was clarified to take on the intended meaning.

Doctrine comes from the Latin doctrina which is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings of a particular group or religion.

That's fine

You're calling "doctrine" "eternal truth"?

I think there the scriptures speak of the term doctrine in a least 2 different senses. see more below.
2 John 1:9
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and bideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that bideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

3 Nephi 11:32
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

Where did God say that?

He never did. And never would, IMO, as it constitutes HIS doctrine which does not change. But some Christians don't think baptism is necessary.

According to one of your Church historians, the LDS Church has done EXACTLY that. You guys USED to be more Trinitarian, for example, and teach that God was "spirit".

Jesus said in John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Good question.

When I look at the term "DOCTRINE" I see doctrines that the Lord himself declares as "My doctrine" or the doctrine of "Him that sent me" or iow, the doctrine (gospel) of God. (see the verses I quoted). And then there is the definition from the dictionary that you brought up.
There are CORE doctrines and ancillary doctrines too. The core doctrines of Jesus Christ being explained here:

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. (2 Ne 11:37-39)[/quote]
After this doctrine of Christ, are ancillary doctrines such as that there should be no disputations among the Lord's people, or the commandments represent doctrines as well. After that are the canonized scriptures. After that are the teachings of the Church leadership and what they have adopted as a unified body for church teaching and instruction. When I say that doctrines don't change, I am looking at the term "doctrine" as the doctrine of God that he reveals to man. Truth does not change, and God's doctrine, authored by him, does not change either. However what MAY change is our understanding of what he has given us, and revealed to us. In that sense, it can be said that church doctrines can change to reflect new light, new understanding.

In the LDS view, God does not spoon feed us everything, but he allows us to struggle, learn, grow in knowledge by facing hard questions, and challenges, and thinking things through, and asking for inspiration and guidance a long the way, and learn from mistakes and correct those mistakes--even in governing and leading his Church on the earth.

Or at the will of one of your prophets. And, yeah, you're going to claim that was "the Lord".

Under the Lord's direction. Yes.

[nrajeff]

Aha!!!! An "I thought" statement! Very good! (and I don't interpret that as an ATTACK!!!! )

Then you're naive, or a fool, because I was being sarcastic. Like when a disappointed parent tells a child who just wrecked the car "I thought you knew better than to text while driving." The parent knows that the kid knew better--the child did something he knew was a bad thing to do, and he just did it anyway.

Are you STILL moping, Jeff?

I can't "still" be doing something I didn't start doing. Sheeeeeesh!

In REAL LIFE, Jeff, I'm extraordinarily kind and polite to people with unorthodox beliefs, and lost people, too.

Yeah, sure, whatever, etc.

But when somebody acts like you do, I feel no compunction (like that word? ) whatsoever in standing up to your shenanigans.

In real life, it is you who STARTS the shenanigans, waits for a response to them, and then smugly, condescendingly pretends to have arrived at the scene to criticize that response...like we see going on here?

I wish you could talk to the two Mormon families I'm dealing with in Houston. They'd tell you what a wonderful caring person I am.

I REALLY wish I could talk to those families, so I could show them the side of you that I think you have been hiding from them. How about you give me their email addresses, so I can send them some quotes from Good Old Wonderful, Caring CP, courtesy of this forum?

HOW LONG are you going to continue this pity party, Jeff?

I hadn't thought about whether I pity you, but I suppose I do. I don't have a timeline regarding how long I plan to continue doing so.

[Bill the Cat]

I thought Evangelical preachers were supposed to treat people with unorthodox beliefs nicer than what one sees in this forum.

Who told you that?

[Cerebrum123]

He never did. And never would, IMO, as it constitutes HIS doctrine which does not change. But some Christians don't think baptism is necessary.

Like I showed above, it's not necessary, it's a VERY good thing to do, and is a public symbol of our acceptance of Christ, but it's not something that saves us. Just as I pointed out the thief on the cross never got baptized, and he is in heaven RIGHT NOW.

[Cow Poke]

Then you're naive, or a fool, because I was being sarcastic.

You say the sweetest things.

In real life, it is you who STARTS the shenanigans, waits for a response to them, and then smugly, condescendingly pretends to have arrived at the scene to criticize that response...like we see going on here?

Such drama.

I REALLY wish I could talk to those families, so I could show them the side of you that I think you have been hiding from them. How about you give me their email addresses, so I can send them some quotes from Good Old Wonderful, Caring CP, courtesy of this forum?

One of the couples (the husband of one of the couples, actually) used to peek in from time to time, and was terribly embarrassed by your antics. He is fully aware that I'm the "anti", and he knows my personality pretty well, so he FREQUENTLY does not see the "attacks" that you seem to see from behind every bush and tree and "question" and "statement". But, then again, he doesn't seem to have NEAR the persecution complex that you do. He's actually a quite reasonable and intelligent guy.

I hadn't thought about whether I pity you, but I suppose I do. I don't have a timeline regarding how long I plan to continue doing so.

Well, when you pitch another little "I'm leaving" hissy again, we'll believe it when we see it. I think you just want attention. Part of the "drama" thing.