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

[_Runtu]

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; bit shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

You do not see the connection between Eve's conception being multiplied and that seed being counted for Christ who would have power to bruise the serpent's head?

Nope.

Joseph Smith said that there need be only one word of scripture about something to establish it for doctrine.

If you fail to see it and refuse to use you intelligence to put together all the facts concerning the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and the fact that he was in the express image of the Father and that the purpose for the ordinance of the sacrament is the reverent disposal of the body and blood of Christ prepared to take effect in the instant all things become new and Christ sits upon the very throne of power, which shall be removed from where it now abides, to be brought to this earth as recorded in the Book of Revelation, and fail to wonder how the three beings of the Godhead continue on a closed round from one generation of the heavens to another each in turn being the Christ, then you might want to school yourself in the art of problem solving.

I like that. I don't agree with your convoluted explanation, I'm not using my intelligence and have trouble problem-solving.

D&C 88: 19
19 For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father;

D&C 130
7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.
8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.
9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.

Christ will become God the Father.....as he spoke to the Jews which is where he was before..........meaning that he repeats as God the Father, as then it is rationally extrapolated so do they all three repeat each of the three acts of the Great God.

John 6: 62
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

If that makes sense to you, that's fine with me.

[_Nightlion]

And Madeleine, with Christ being cloned, there is no need for The Immaculate Conception of Mary heresy. She contributed nothing to the DNA of Christ who is born without the stain of original sin because his seed was not of this world and therefore not subject to the fall. Eve contributed nothing of her DNA either. That is how cloning works. God used biological engineering to send his son into the world.

And since the physical body of God the Father did not come by way of seed there is no continuation of the seeds in him, having neither father nor mother, neither beginning of days nor end of years. Cloning is the ONLY option available for God to send the Son.

[Guest]

And Madeleine, with Christ being cloned, there is no need for The Immaculate Conception of Mary heresy. She contributed nothing to the DNA of Christ who is born without the stain of original sin because his seed was not of this world and therefore not subject to the fall. Eve contributed nothing of her DNA either. That is how cloning works. God used biological engineering to send his son into the world.

And since the physical body of God the Father did not come by way of seed there is no continuation of the seeds in him, having neither father nor mother, neither beginning of days nor end of years. Cloning is the ONLY option available for God to send the Son.

Jesus was born perfect because He is God Incarnate, not because of Mary's immaculate conception.

How is it a heresy? Don't Mormons believe that all people are immaculately conceived?

Jesus' conception was a miracle, and that miracle has been explained, "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit."

There isn't any need to make stuff up.

PS: You might be interested in this.

edit because I typed it so wrong!

[_Nightlion]

And Madeleine, with Christ being cloned, there is no need for The Immaculate Conception of Mary heresy. She contributed nothing to the DNA of Christ who is born without the stain of original sin because his seed was not of this world and therefore not subject to the fall. Eve contributed nothing of her DNA either. That is how cloning works. God used biological engineering to send his son into the world.

And since the physical body of God the Father did not come by way of seed there is no continuation of the seeds in him, having neither father nor mother, neither beginning of days nor end of years. Cloning is the ONLY option available for God to send the Son.

Jesus was born perfect because He is God Incarnate, not because of Mary's immaculate conception.

How is it a heresy? Don't Mormons believe that all people are immaculately conceived?

Mary's conception was a miracle, and that miracle has been explained, "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit."

There isn't any need to make stuff up.

PS: You might be interested in this.

I thought you were Catholic. The Immaculate Conception is not about Christ. It is an attempt to explain how Christ could be born without sin to a mortal woman. Therefore it is held that Mary's own birth was immaculate and without sin. Right?

[_madeleine]

Jesus was born perfect because He is God Incarnate, not because of Mary's immaculate conception.

How is it a heresy? Don't Mormons believe that all people are immaculately conceived?

Mary's conception was a miracle, and that miracle has been explained, "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit."

There isn't any need to make stuff up.

PS: You might be interested in this.

I thought you were Catholic. The Immaculate Conception is not about Christ. It is an attempt to explain how Christ could be born without sin to a mortal woman. Therefore it is held that Mary's own birth was immaculate and without sin. Right?

First, I just fixed my post before I read yours:

"Mary's conception was a miracle" should be Jesus' conception. That is what I meant to type.

The Immaculate Conception does not explain how Christ was born without sin to a mortal woman. It is based on the understanding that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (the link I put in there explains this). Mary was God's dwelling place (for a short time), and God cannot dwell in sin.

[_Nightlion]

Jesus was born perfect because He is God Incarnate, not because of Mary's immaculate conception.

How is it a heresy? Don't Mormons believe that all people are immaculately conceived?

Mary's conception was a miracle, and that miracle has been explained, "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit."

There isn't any need to make stuff up.

PS: You might be interested in this.

I thought you were Catholic. The Immaculate Conception is not about Christ. It is an attempt to explain how Christ could be born without sin to a mortal woman. Therefore it is held that Mary's own birth was immaculate and without sin. Right?

First, I just fixed my post before I read yours:

"Mary's conception was a miracle" should be Jesus' conception. That is what I meant to type.

The Immaculate Conception does not explain how Christ was born without sin to a mortal woman. It is based on the understanding that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant (the link I put in there explains this). Mary was God's dwelling place (for a short time), and God cannot dwell in sin.

You are just saying the same thing in a different way. Mormons know that Christ was not dwelling in the belly of Mary during her pregnancy. He was conversing with the prophet Nephi telling him that the next day he would be born into the world and that the sign would be given. So there is no need for Mary to be sinless. Jesus entered his body when he first sucked air and breathed the breath of life. Just like all babies. When babies kick and move is it biology and not independent life. The fetus is made alive and kept alive until birth by the spirit of the mother and not by another spirit entering into the womb. That is what I believe.

[_madeleine]

Luke 1

39
During those days Mary set out and traveled to the hill country in haste to a town of Judah,
40
where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth.
41
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,
42
cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
43
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44
For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.

[_thews]

One thing I find fascinating about the LDS church is that it very much seems to be engineered, where they are constantly redefining doctrine but yet still claiming to never back away from their history. Still, the recent statements from Hinckley are hard to imagine:

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

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.

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

No Mormon acknowledges the truth. Their faith is built upon a pack of lies founded in what if scenarios. Ask them a question, and they'll parlay the answer into another question based on a foregone conclusion that's been spoon-fed to them since birth... it's sad.

Now, I tend to try to put the most positive spin concerning whether a person is lying or just mistaken, but with Hinckley, I don't know how this could be anything but a flat out lie. He KNEW that it was taught, because he even taught it himself. So what was his angle in making this statement? Why are they backing away from this very central part of Mormon theology, or at least it seemed to be in the past?

Ask direct questions ...simple questions that have a foundation in fact:
1) Does every word of the Book of Mormon come from Joseph Smith's seer stones? Answer - yes.
2) Is the Urim and Thummim Joseph Smith's seer stones? Answer - yes.
3) Did Joseph Smith use the same seer stone he also used to "translate" the Book of Mormon for hire at $14 a month to see dead Indian treasure guardians? Answer - yes.

Just ask simple questions and look at the effort it take to avoid the answer... Mormon apologetics... how to BS and make it seem like you actually have an answer.

[_Darth J]

One thing I find fascinating about the LDS church is that it very much seems to be engineered, where they are constantly redefining doctrine but yet still claiming to never back away from their history. Still, the recent statements from Hinckley are hard to imagine:

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

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.

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.

Ask direct questions ...simple questions that have a foundation in fact:
1) Does every word of the Book of Mormon come from Joseph Smith's seer stones? Answer - yes.

No. Nothing came from the seer stone, because it was just a damn rock. There is no such thing as a seer stone.

2) Is the Urim and Thummim Joseph Smith's seer stones? Answer - yes.

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

3) Did Joseph Smith use the same seer stone he also used to "translate" the Book of Mormon for hire at $14 a month to see dead Indian treasure guardians? Answer - yes.

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

[_Simon Belmont]

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?