As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

blah blah blah

thews, I thought you left the board... no, I rejoiced that you left the board.

Why are you back? To get owned by me again?

As Simon is, we once were, as we are, Simon may become.

[Guest]

blah blah blah

thews, I thought you left the board... no, I rejoiced that you left the board.

Why are you back? To get owned by me again?

Here kitty kitty... the poser who can't answer a question still plays the role of intellect... how fun. Well Simon, since you are my little beech, let me prove it to you. I asked you who translated the Kinderhook plates to include "Ham" and you failed to answer. Wanna know why, it's because you have no answer. So Simple Simon, here's your chance to prove me wrong. (insert answer here)... or run away again.

[_thews]

On the other hand, we don't have anything that Jesus himself wrote. So whatever wants to brand itself as Christianity is also believing in the doctrine of whomever was writing about Jesus.

Dad, why did you lie to me? Why did you let me believe that Joseph Smith was of God?

No. There's no such thing as a Urim and Thummim, either.

Your point?

No, because he didn't see dead Indian treasure guardians, either.

Well alrighty then.

[_Simon Belmont]

I asked you who translated the Kinderhook plates to include "Ham" and you failed to answer. Wanna know why, it's because you have no answer. So Simple Simon, here's your chance to prove me wrong. (insert answer here)... or run away again.

Maybe when you post something that actually matters I will listen to your bigotry. Who cares about the Kinderhook plates? I am fully willing to admit that Joseph may have been tricked or made a mistake. So what?

[_thews]

I asked you who translated the Kinderhook plates to include "Ham" and you failed to answer. Wanna know why, it's because you have no answer. So Simple Simon, here's your chance to prove me wrong. (insert answer here)... or run away again.

Maybe when you post something that actually matters I will listen to your bigotry. Who cares about the Kinderhook plates? I am fully willing to admit that Joseph may have been tricked or made a mistake. So what?

I didn't ask you who "may have been tricked" did I? I didn't ask you who cares about the Kinderhook plates... did I? The question I asked you Simon, is who said the Kinderhook plates contained the history of the decedents of Ham? That's the question I asked you (insert answer here). Who said those words?

[_Darth J]

On the other hand, we don't have anything that Jesus himself wrote. So whatever wants to brand itself as Christianity is also believing in the doctrine of whomever was writing about Jesus.

Dad, why did you lie to me? Why did you let me believe that Joseph Smith was of God?

I don't know. Maybe you could ask some other family where the dad is letting his kids believe that. My little boy believes in reincarnation, so my passive indoctrination of Mormonism must not be working too well.

Did you have any comments to make about the fact that any claimed Christianity is just faith in whatever some person wrote about Jesus, since Jesus did not write anything himself?

No. There's no such thing as a Urim and Thummim, either.

Your point?

Well, you were talking about facts, so I thought I should clarify.

No, because he didn't see dead Indian treasure guardians, either.

Well alrighty then.

Although, as I have said before, I would love to see the display at Temple Square should the Church decide to acknowledge this at some point.

[_thews]

I don't know. Maybe you could ask some other family where the dad is letting his kids believe that. My little boy believes in reincarnation, so my passive indoctrination of Mormonism must not be working too well.

Well Darth, as long as he doesn't believe in the charlatan called Joseph Smith we're cool. .. you know, cuz Joe Smith is a doosh liar.

Did you have any comments to make about the fact that any claimed Christianity is just faith in whatever some person wrote about Jesus, since Jesus did not write anything himself?

I'm alive Dart... I exist. God has to exist. Who God is, to me anyway, is what I've actually figured out based on truth. Your parallel logic analogies are getting rather tired. Mormon logic requires parallel analogies to negate... think outside the box.

Well, you were talking about facts, so I thought I should clarify.

Joseph Smith's magic rocks are the "Urim and Thummim"... this is a fact. Your plight to add clarity hardly sheds new light.

Although, as I have said before, I would love to see the display at Temple Square should the Church decide to acknowledge this at some point.

What is "this"?

[_Darth J]

I don't know. Maybe you could ask some other family where the dad is letting his kids believe that. My little boy believes in reincarnation, so my passive indoctrination of Mormonism must not be working too well.

Well Darth, as long as he doesn't believe in the charlatan called Joseph Smith we're cool. .. you know, cuz Joe Smith is a doosh liar.

I had noticed.

Did you have any comments to make about the fact that any claimed Christianity is just faith in whatever some person wrote about Jesus, since Jesus did not write anything himself?

I'm alive Dart... I exist. God has to exist. Who God is, to me anyway, is what I've actually figured out based on truth. Your parallel logic analogies are getting rather tired. Mormon logic requires parallel analogies to negate... think outside the box.

Okay. Among the books of the Bible, which is your favorite that Jesus of Nazareth personally authored?

Well, you were talking about facts, so I thought I should clarify.

Joseph Smith's magic rocks are the "Urim and Thummim"... this is a fact. Your plight to add clarity hardly sheds new light.

Well, they did tell some stories about the breastplate and spectacles......which presumably changed size to fit different prophets like the Ring in The Lord of the Rings.

Although, as I have said before, I would love to see the display at Temple Square should the Church decide to acknowledge this at some point.

What is "this"?

Talking to ghosts that were guarding buried treasure. That diorama would be so freaking awesome!

[_bcspace]

This isn't a Christian mindset. Mormons love to pretend they're Christians, but being Mormon means you actually believe in the doctrine of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith's doctrine is not Christian... it's Mormon.

LDS doctrine is the ultimate in Christianity. All the scriptures are in harmony with LDS doctrine, unlike the lesser christian heretical philosophies which cause Bible verses to conflict. For example:

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." Benz, E.W., Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

[_bcspace]

I know it's in Gospel Principles..... Chap. 47 Exaltation

It's still not officially doctrine, because it's not in the scriptures. It's a true idea, hence why it's taught. Teaching manuals teach a LOT of things that aren't in scriptures, on all kinds of subjects.

Listen, if you guys are so insistent on calling it doctrine, then call it "unofficial doctrine".
As I've listed before, it's not officially in the scriptures, the KFD is not scripture, there have been no First Presidency announcements indicating it's doctrine, etc. etc.

For something to be actual "official" doctrine, it needs to be in scriptures, Revelation from the Prophets to the Church, the Holy Ghost, and common consent. You have maybe one or two of those, but that's it. It's taught because it is a truth that is to be understood by revelation, not that it's emphasised, not that it's not taught much, etc. If a person didn't go to Gospel Principles, they would basically never hear it taught. Of course, we've been teaching Gospel Principles lessons two sunday's a month in Priesthood and Relief Society for the last year, so, that's not really true at the moment.

Anyway, it's a teaching, not all teachings are "doctrine"..... Period.

This is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the way the Church understands and communicates it. The Church does not teach what it does not consider doctrine without specifically noting it as such (the Bible Dictionary is a good example of this). The Church's own statement in Approaching Mormon Doctrine tells us that after doctrine is established by the FP and Qo12 it is officially published and such publication is THE identifying factor for doctrine.

The doctrine may reside in the scriptures, but neither you nor I is qualified to establish it. Neither you nor I can read the scriptures alone and tell the rest of the world what LDS doctrine is without such doctrine being published elsewhere.

A prime example is John 3:5. To the LDS Church, the water and the Spirit refer to water baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. To evangelicals, they mean mortal birth and the born again experience. You would NOT have been able to present the LDS view without the LDS Church itself (the FP and Qo12) having somewhere first published what the correct interpretation of the verse is.

You should see this as totally consistant with the scripture as they tell us explicitly that no prophecy (gospel teaching) is of private interpretation and that revelation by the Spirit is scripture. This means that the manuals and other official publications are more important than the scriptures themselves in terms of communicating what the doctrine is as the interpretation of scripture is usually not found in the scriptures themselves.

Therefore, that God was once a mortal man is an official doctrine of the Church. Anyone who has taken the Teacher Improvement courses or served in the Church for any reasonable length of time or has been a missionary understands all this. I've never met a member in real life who doesn't understand this. I sit in council with GA's from time to time when they visit our Stake or Region and have asked the question and heard it from their lips including the approval of Approaching Mormon Doctrine in support of it.

If the Church publishes it, it is doctrine in context unless otherwise noted or superceeded by a later publication. And while we're at it, the JST excerpts are scripture by the Church's own definition of them.