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.
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.
Are Latter-day Saints not allowed to ask questions of the beliefs of others on this board?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.
...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.
Last edited by Russ; 03-08-2009 at 03:54 PM.
So that means this thread is now up for grabs?...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
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.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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.
Then start your own thread, man. I know you know how. Don't pull this kindergarten garbage.
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.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.
No. Are you attempting to tell me what I believe from an obviously deficient antagonistic perspective? I sincerely hope not.
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.
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.
Russ has stated that Evangelicals believe that 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). And Russ has stated that Evangelicals believe that His first "creation" (or "procreation") was Jesus Christ where it's said that God (Elohim) and Mother God "begat" Jesus.
Where does he come up with this stuff?Russ has stated that Evangelicals believe that 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). And Russ has stated that Evangelicals believe that His first "creation" (or "procreation") was Jesus Christ where it's said that God (Elohim) and Mother God "begat" Jesus.
In the beginning of what?
I guess if you think rocks are as important to God as people, then you would say God has no preeminent creation.
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?
...without the tones of "garbage" being hurled at your opponent?
Do you mean to say that the endowment isn't true?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?
Are you hijacking this thread to defend the endowment?
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?
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.
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.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.
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?
Last edited by Russ; 03-08-2009 at 05:09 PM.
So, parts of the LDS temple ceremony are not true? They're just parables? Can we have an authoritative source that confirms this?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?
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.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.
You're not dealing with a rookie, Maklelan. lol
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?t=375
Appropriate edit of your words. :-)Russ has stated that [B]Mormon theology would have us believe/B]that 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). And Russ has stated that Evangelicals believe that His first "creation" (or "procreation") was Jesus Christ where it's said that God (Elohim) and Mother God "begat" Jesus.
Can we talk about it?
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?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
Some LDS put words in the mouths of others.
LDS theology would have us believe that God and Mother God "procreated" Jesus, Satan and all of us as brothers and sisters.
It's my hope that you'll understand why Christians have difficulty understanding and accepting such theology as Christian.