WARNING - the Irony quotient for this thread has just buried the needle on the gage. Gaz, if you keep this up were going to have to engage the overrides and run like hell, fearing for the space-time continuum.
Its alright, I know a guy who fixes those.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Or how joe baptized himself without the priesthood?
Actually, if you dust off your scriptures you'll se that he got the priesthood from John the Baptist in verse 69, then got baptised in verse 70.
How can one get the priesthood yet not be baptized? This does not make sense. One must get baptized before being ordained. Why didn't the spacemen portal from Kolob and baptize Joe THEN ordain him?
Course, trying to make sense of this microcosm of nonsensicalness floating in a maelstrom of contradictions is absurd...I've got work to do.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Gazelam wrote:This is so idiotic. Anyone that has been through the Temple and believes this nonsence should be excommunicated on grounds of heresy.
Temple nothing. I think D&C 130:22-23 speak against Adam as the Holy Ghost:
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. 23 A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.
If Adam is a resurrected being (he died before Jesus so I assume he is resurrected), then Adam cannot be the Holy Ghost.
Now, as to the identity of the Holy Ghost, some speculate that it is more of a title than one particular person. It's hard to say with the Holy Ghost as He seems to get the short end of the glory stick. We know so little about Him. We know a lot more about the Son and a bit more about the Father.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Gazelam wrote:This is so idiotic. Anyone that has been through the Temple and believes this nonsence should be excommunicated on grounds of heresy.
Hell applauds your eagerness to force conformity on doctrinal issues, especially harmless ones. This will result in rigid doctrinal dogmatism, preventing anyone from progressing. Once revelations cease LDS members are rendered harmless and make great sport when brought to Hell. They also have a tendency to have miserable lives plagued with endless martyr complexes.
Last edited by _Belial on Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gazelam wrote:This is so idiotic. Anyone that has been through the Temple and believes this nonsence should be excommunicated on grounds of heresy.
Hell applauds your eagerness to force conformity on doctrinal issues, especially harmless ones. This will result in rigid doctrinal dogmatism, preventing anyone from progressing. Once revelations cease LDS members are rendered harmless and make great sport when brought to Hell. They also have a tendency to have miserable lives plagued with an endless martyr complexes.
Where is here? Is this a closed board allowing only Mormon views? Admitedly the board is largely exMormon. I am exmormon. I think Richards comment is spot on.
It requires no special accomplishment of the rest of Christianisty. There is doctrinal diversity confusions and hostilities. The question in view of Richards comment is whether a prophet like Joseph Smith is the answer to that situation. If it creates more confusion instead of increased clarity that observation argues that a prophet is perhaps not the answer. that observation does not require that the rest of Christianity be clear or even right.
A prophet like Joseph Smith can create confusion by supplamenting assertion in the place of thought. It is better to think and even argue like at Nicea. It is better to understand the reason for trinitarian doctrin and accept or reject it or improve it with thought than to just assert stuff.
Gazelam wrote:This is so idiotic. Anyone that has been through the Temple and believes this nonsence should be excommunicated on grounds of heresy.
What an odd thing to say. I would imagine that the correct statement should be, "anyone who has been to the temple and teaches this stuff as doctrine should be called to repentance, and if they do not desist, submit to church discipline."
I was unaware that a false teaching regardign God is harmless. And also, way to channel the serpent on the rest of that post, twisting truths and distorting perceptions.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
