God's first creation

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I am curious as to what Evangelicals believe was God's first creation, and what was God's preeminent creation?

What was God's first creation? Please explain.

What was God's preeminent creation? Please explain.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

I am curious as to what Evangelicals believe was God's first creation, and what was God's preeminent creation?

What was God's first creation? Please explain.

What was God's preeminent creation? Please explain.

God's first act, after being a mere mortal but thereafter becoming deity by obedience to LDS laws, ordinances and principles, was to take a wife (or wives D&C 132). His first "creation" (or "procreation"), says LDSism, was Jesus Christ where it's said that God (Elohim) and Mother God "begat" Jesus. Satan was "procreated" sometime after.

...trying to keep it real and on topic with LDS discussion.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

God's first act, after being a mere mortal but thereafter becoming deity by obedience to LDS laws, ordinances and principles, was to take a wife (or wives D&C 132). His first "creation" (or "procreation"), says LDSism, was Jesus Christ where it's said that God (Elohim) and Mother God "begat" Jesus. Satan was "procreated" sometime after.

...trying to keep it real and on topic with LDS discussion.

Are Latter-day Saints not allowed to ask questions of the beliefs of others on this board?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by maklelan

Are Latter-day Saints not allowed to ask questions of the beliefs of others on this board?

...but the author of this topic/thread already has this very same topic going on in another thread: http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=392

Can we talk about LDSism and creation?

In LDS temples, creation is covered. Here's a sample of the larger picture found here:

THE CREATION--FIRST DAY

ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, see: yonder is matter unorganized, go ye down and organize it into a world like unto the other worlds that we have hereunto formed. Call your labors the First Day, and bring me word.

JEHOVAH: It shall be done Elohim. Come Michael, let us go down.

MICHAEL: We will go down, Jehovah.

JEHOVAH: Michael, see: here is matter unorganized. We will organize it into a world like unto the other worlds that we have heretofore formed. We will call our labors the First Day, and return and report.

MICHAEL: We will return and report our labors on of the First Day, Jehovah.

JEHOVAH: Elohim, we have been down done as thou hast commanded, and have organized a world like unto the worlds that we have heretofore formed, and we have called out labors the First Day.

ELOHIM: It is well.

These are the things investigators should examine regarding LDS theology.

Compare Genesis ch. one.

P.S. Identification of characters:

ELOHIM: God

Jehovah: Jesus

Michael: Archangel

And that's a whole different story.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

...but the author of this topic/thread already has this very same topic going on in another thread: http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=392

So that means this thread is now up for grabs?

Originally Posted by Russ

Can we talk about LDSism and creation?

In LDS temples, creation is covered. Here's a sample of the larger picture found here:

THE CREATION--FIRST DAY

ELOHIM: Jehovah, Michael, see: yonder is matter unorganized, go ye down and organize it into a world like unto the other worlds that we have hereunto formed. Call your labors the First Day, and bring me word.

JEHOVAH: It shall be done Elohim. Come Michael, let us go down.

MICHAEL: We will go down, Jehovah.

JEHOVAH: Michael, see: here is matter unorganized. We will organize it into a world like unto the other worlds that we have heretofore formed. We will call our labors the First Day, and return and report.

MICHAEL: We will return and report our labors on of the First Day, Jehovah.

JEHOVAH: Elohim, we have been down done as thou hast commanded, and have organized a world like unto the worlds that we have heretofore formed, and we have called out labors the First Day.

ELOHIM: It is well.

These are the things investigators should examine regarding LDS theology.

This isn't isn't theology, this is a temple presentation. It's a rhetorical device, not doctrine. I would think you would know this. After all, the standard works give four different accounts of the same creation. They're not all taken as literal doctrinal expositions.

Originally Posted by Russ

Compare Genesis ch. one.

P.S. Identification of characters:

ELOHIM: God

Jehovah: Jesus

Michael: Archangel

And that's a whole different story.

Is your modus operandi really just to reject every thread's topic and hijack them to just introduce your own pet topics? C'mon, dude. That kinda **** is for kids.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by maklelan

So that means this thread is now up for grabs?

I would like to see LDS theology discussed, presented and exposed. Same old M.O. for the last 10 years, because those who are investigating LDSism have a right to know what they're signing up for.

As an aside and an example, you never told me that only married Mormons are eligible for eternal life; which is what deep down Mormonism teaches.

This isn't isn't theology, this is a temple presentation. It's a rhetorical device, not doctrine. I would think you would know this. After all, the standard works give four different accounts of the same creation. They're not all taken as literal doctrinal expositions.

That's an interesting statement. As far as I've been told by other Mormons, the temple endowment is truth. Profound truth and nothing but the LDS truth. Are you attempting to downplay the importance of the endowment?

Is your modus operandi really just to reject every thread's topic and hijack them to just introduce your own pet topics? C'mon, dude. That kinda **** is for kids.

As I told you, the author of this thread is already discussing this same topic in another thread. How many threads does he need? Let's talk about LDSism.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

I would like to see LDS theology discussed, presented and exposed.

Then start your own thread, man. I know you know how. Don't pull this kindergarten garbage.

Originally Posted by Russ

Same old M.O. for the last 10 years, because those who are investigating LDSism have a right to know what they're signing up for.

As an aside and an example, you never told me that only married Mormons are eligible for eternal life; which is what deep down Mormonism teaches.

I don't recall ever being asked. If it was on the other board, you're probably on my ignore list, given your proclivity for the kinda garbage you're pulling here. Don't you teach deep down that only people who accept your perspective of Christ are eligible for salvation? How barbaric.

Originally Posted by Russ

That's an interesting statement. As far as I've been told by other Mormons, the temple endowment is truth. Profound truth and nothing but the LDS truth. Are you attempting to downplay the importance of the endowment?

No. Are you attempting to tell me what I believe from an obviously deficient antagonistic perspective? I sincerely hope not.

Originally Posted by Russ

As I told you, the author of this thread is already discussing this same topic in another thread. How many threads does he need? Let's talk about LDSism.

Grow up and start your own thread. If it's a duplicate then have it removed, but you don't get to just hijack it.

[Russ]

...without the tones of "garbage" being hurled at your opponent?

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

...without the tones of "garbage" being hurled at your opponent?

I've yet to see you speak with even a moderate level of vitriol about Mormonism. You're on full throttle all the time. Don't pretend for a second you want to avoid being condescending.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by maklelan

I've yet to see you speak with even a moderate level of vitriol about Mormonism. You're on full throttle all the time. Don't pretend for a second you want to avoid being condescending.

Nah, not full-throttle. I'm getting too old to go wide open. ****n head gaskets, burnt valves, burnt pistons, et. al, that ain't no fun. :-)

Just the truth, maklelan.

That's what we all want most, isn't it. No one wants to be ripped off by their car mechanic.

Is it true that only married Mormons can receive eternal life?

That's a thing which will cause a Bible student to shake his head every time.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Nah, not full-throttle. I'm getting too old to go wide open. ****n head gaskets, burnt valves, burnt pistons, et. al, that ain't no fun. :-)

Just the truth, maklelan.

That's what we all want most, isn't it. No one wants to be ripped off by their car mechanic.

Is it true that only married Mormons can receive eternal life?

That's a thing which will cause a Bible student to shake his head every time.

No, it's not true. As Spencer W. Kimball famously explained (apparently your anti-Mormon websites failed to mention this), unmarried people who live their lives the best they can and were never blessed with the opportunity to get married will not be denied the celestial kingdom.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by maklelan

No, it's not true. As Spencer W. Kimball famously explained (apparently your anti-Mormon websites failed to mention this), unmarried people who live their lives the best they can and were never blessed with the opportunity to get married will not be denied the celestial kingdom.

Definitely, according to (let's get real serious here and "stuff," ahem hhrrmmpphh), only married Mormons receive eternal life, that life which is described by Mormons as continuing the family unit in the eternities.

You're not dealing with a rookie, Maklelan. lol

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=375

[baptizedinChrist]

Originally Posted by Russ

Definitely, according to (let's get real serious here and "stuff," ahem hhrrmmpphh), only married Mormons receive eternal life, that life which is described by Mormons as continuing the family unit in the eternities.

You're not dealing with a rookie, Maklelan. lol

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=375

Notice the equivocation, Russ? Our Mormon friend tells us that those who are not married will inherit the celestial kingdom. Yet, no one said they won't. What's been said is that they will not inherit eternal life. Does our Mormon friend not realize that the two are not the same? Are we non-Mormons going to have to correct him regarding his own beliefs? Or, will he be prideful enough not to acquiesce to such a humiliating scenario and actually come out and be clear about the beliefs of the LDS Church as you have been?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by baptizedinChrist

Notice the equivocation, Russ? Our Mormon friend tells us that those who are not married will inherit the celestial kingdom. Yet, no one said they won't. What's been said is that they will not inherit eternal life. Does our Mormon friend not realize that the two are not the same? Are we non-Mormons going to have to correct him regarding his own beliefs? Or, will he be prideful enough not to acquiesce to such a humiliating scenario and actually come out and be clear about the beliefs of the LDS Church as you have been?

All good LDS members know that only married Mormons will receive eternal life according to LDS laws, ordinances and principles.

*shrug*

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

All good LDS members know that only married Mormons will receive eternal life according to LDS laws, ordinances and principles.

*shrug*

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Not very common, but it still doesn't make up for ignoring what the prophet of the church has said about the question. You're a true rookie.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Definitely, according to (let's get real serious here and "stuff," ahem hhrrmmpphh), only married Mormons receive eternal life, that life which is described by Mormons as continuing the family unit in the eternities.

You're not dealing with a rookie, Maklelan. lol

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=375

Evidently I am, since you seem to think that thread addresses what I referenced, and that Bruce R. McKonkie's non-approved book trumps Spencer Kimball. I understand that within the world of anti-Mormonism you're no doubt a pro, but in the real world you're still woefully unprepared to deal with the facts.

[baptizedinChrist]

Originally Posted by Russ

That's an interesting statement. As far as I've been told by other Mormons, the temple endowment is truth. Profound truth and nothing but the LDS truth. Are you attempting to downplay the importance of the endowment?

Interesting indeed. These "truths" are supposed to be "sacred" and "eternal" truths. How can they be easily dismissed? I also find it odd how the person didn't provide any official statement from the authorities of the LDS Church to substantiate his opinions.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by baptizedinChrist

[COLOR="Navy"]Interesting indeed. These "truths" are supposed to be "sacred" and "eternal" truths.

Can you please cite the publication where the narrative of the endowment ceremony is claimed to be historical truth? I know you're not conflating the principles communicated by a literary narrative with the literal historicity of the narrative itself, so you must have some publication of which I'm unaware that states that the narrative itself is historically accurate. Can you cite it for me please?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by maklelan

Can you please cite the publication where the narrative of the endowment ceremony is claimed to be historical truth? I know you're not conflating the principles communicated by a literary narrative with the literal historicity of the narrative itself, so you must have some publication of which I'm unaware that states that the narrative itself is historically accurate. Can you cite it for me please?

Do you mean to say that the endowment isn't true?

Are you hijacking this thread to defend the endowment?

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Do you mean to say that the endowment isn't true?

I know you know how to read, and yet you seem to be trying to convince me with all your soul that it still slips your grasp. What did I say about the principles being communicated by the literary composition of the temple ceremony?

Originally Posted by Russ

Are you hijacking this thread to defend the endowment?

This is just as asinine as I've seen. I'm playing along with your hijacking and now you want to pretend I'm hijacking the thread? C'mon, dude, this is pathetic.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by maklelan

I know you know how to read, and yet you seem to be trying to convince me with all your soul that it still slips your grasp. What did I say about the principles being communicated by the literary composition of the temple ceremony?

Ah haz gon bak n' red it agin. U sed:

Can you please cite the publication where the narrative of the endowment ceremony is claimed to be historical truth? I know you're not conflating the principles communicated by a literary narrative with the literal historicity of the narrative itself, so you must have some publication of which I'm unaware that states that the narrative itself is historically accurate. Can you cite it for me please?

It seemz dat yer suggestin' dat the narrative ain't historikally akerate. U sed in part, "I'm unaware that states that the narrative itself is historically accurate."

Hep me git on da same pagee.

Thanks ya,

Vee Pee ah Mizzipi.

Shoedog, a fiend o' mine, iz Prezdint, but he's on da road rite now so I'll call him on da cell phone n' see if'n he wantz ta call ya. Gotta number?

But rite now I gotz to go eat sum dinner.

P.S. I had to lok up "conflating."

My wife is making me a perty afghan of conflatin' colours. Life is like a box of chocolates, ain't it?

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Ah haz gon bak n' red it agin. U sed:


It seemz dat yer suggestin' dat the narrative ain't historikally akerate. U sed in part, "I'm unaware that states that the narrative itself is historically accurate."

Hep me git on da same pagee.

Thanks ya,

Vee Pee ah Mizzipi.

Shoedog, a fiend o' mine, iz Prezdint, but he's on da road rite now so I'll call him on da cell phone n' see if'n he wantz ta call ya. Gotta number?

But rite now I gotz to go eat sum dinner.

P.S. I had to lok up "conflating."

My wife is making me a perty afghan of conflatin' colours. Life is like a box of chocolates, ain't it?

No sincere response to my criticism, just latching on to my sarcasm in your attempt to evade.

[baptizedinChrist]

Originally Posted by maklelan

Can you please cite the publication where the narrative of the endowment ceremony is claimed to be historical truth? I know you're not conflating the principles communicated by a literary narrative with the literal historicity of the narrative itself, so you must have some publication of which I'm unaware that states that the narrative itself is historically accurate. Can you cite it for me please?

So, parts of the LDS temple ceremony are not true? They're just parables? Can we have an authoritative source that confirms this?

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by Russ

God's first act, after being a mere mortal but thereafter becoming deity by obedience to LDS laws, ordinances and principles, was to take a wife (or wives D&C 132). His first "creation" (or "procreation"), says LDSism, was Jesus Christ where it's said that God (Elohim) and Mother God "begat" Jesus. Satan was "procreated" sometime after.

...trying to keep it real and on topic with LDS discussion.

Good to see you have not changed...nice rude diversion. I truly have not missed you or CARM.

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by Russ

God's first act, after being a mere mortal but thereafter becoming deity by obedience to LDS laws, ordinances and principles, was to take a wife (or wives D&C 132). His first "creation" (or "procreation"), says LDSism, was Jesus Christ where it's said that God (Elohim) and Mother God "begat" Jesus. Satan was "procreated" sometime after.

...trying to keep it real and on topic with LDS discussion.

I can see your first act is to deflect from answering. So at least there are still some constants in the Universe. I think maybe his first act in the reformation was to call John Calvin to lead the souls of so many to hell, and you to Salt Lake...do you just har*** the Mormons there or Catholics as well. You know in the early Christian Church Russ, you could just kill us. Thoses must have been the days!