No three degrees of Glory in 1 Cor 15

[_SteelHead]

“While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’"

[_Tobin]

“While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’"

Again, he views us as his offspring as any good adoptive father would. Certainly we aren't physically fathered by God himself. And if that isn't true, there is no reason to suspect he fathered our spirits either. And that flies in the face of the fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father and what do all Celestial beings do? Just sit around while God forms all the spirits himself? That's ridiculous given a proper understanding of the plan of salvation.

[_SteelHead]

"These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
.
.
.
.
"If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it."

[_Tobin]

"These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."
.
.
.
.
"If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it."

You are mixing things up in your quote mining. First, he's speaking of God the Father as our adoptive Father of us all. Then later he's speaking specificially of Christ as the only begotten of the Father, which unsurprisingly is not us. Christ is the only begotten of the Father. Each father has a son, and each son becomes the father. You'll note he doesn't say sons, he is specificially talking about Christ.

You can be as confused as you wish Steelhead, but the reason the plan of salvation was put in place is so WE become Celestial beings (as others before us have done) and help form spirit children (those being all others but the only begotten of the Father), which in turn become Celestial beings. You clearly seem to have no grasp of the concept even though it is very basic.

[_subgenius]

The Gospel on Video, in a nutshell third man typical Mormon, last man typical Evangelic


http://youtu.be/XrLzYw6ULYw

like i said before....typical evangelical arrogance

[_Drifting]

Wow, I wonder what gdemetz will have to say about this. This must be new Mormon Church doctrine and flies in the face of the long held version I have always heard which talks of Jesus being our older brother, the first born of God's spirit children, in which numbers all humans are included, but the only begotten in the flesh. Is this not now taught?

From the Gospel Principles teaching manual:

God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).

The story of the birth and life of the Savior is found in the New Testament in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. From their accounts we learn that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to marry Joseph when an angel of the Lord appeared to her. The angel told her that she was to be the mother of the Son of God. She asked him how this was possible (see Luke 1:34). He told her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). Thus, God the Father became the literal Father of Jesus Christ.

If God is the literal Father of you and I....and also the literal Father of Jesus Christ...that would make Him...our cousin...no, wait...our in-laws...no, hang on....OUR BROTHER!

[_SteelHead]

Tobin, who is the last Mormon prophet that you recognize as legitimate?

[_Tobin]

Tobin, who is the last Mormon prophet that you recognize as legitimate?

Martin Luther King Jr.

Well, ok, he was a prophet, just not Mormon.

I don't feel any of the prophets since Joseph Smith have been particularly inspired. I view them merely as caretakers of the church. I think a true prophet is a calling from God alone and these men are merely ecclesiastical leaders.

[_subgenius]

Well the first thing that jumps out at me is the charge of arrogance for a presumed deserving. That couldn't be farther from the accepted definition of grace which in its purest form is defined as favor we don't deserve. I am fully aware of my sinful condition and know that it is only by God's grace that I am saved. I give all credit to him who saved me...none to myself. Deserving is the pure reward of works...wages earned for work done. The old covenant that God made with Israel essentially said that if they would keep his commandments and be true to him he would be their God and would bless them. The new covenant in Christ is essentially that through faith in his Son, God will pour out his grace and count as righteous those who in and of themselves are not righteous. The whole premise is on the principle of not being deserving. It is in works that men tend to boast..."but not by works" because they do tend to boast.

so, are you "assured" as you inquired of me?

As I said earlier, I think this is a fundamental and core difference issue between Mormonism and orthodoxy. My observation and experience is that orthodoxy places the person of Jesus at the top of the pyramid while Mormons place The Church there with Jesus somewhere down below together with all the other stuff that has to be done in order to become "worthy"....seemingly ignoring the Biblical injunction that he alone is our worthiness. The saved Christian knows he can never be worthy except through Jesus. As someone once said to me when I asked: If Mormonism is the one true church of Christ as it claims, why doesn't it talk about him more as other churches do (very often the only time you will hear the name Jesus is at the end of a prayer). His answer stunned me at the time: "Well other churches talk about him a lot because that's all they've got...we have genealogy, temples, priesthood, etc., etc." I realize its only one person but I have heard such sentiments from Mormons often during more than 30 years living in Utah.

let us see, we bear His name on His church as it is our church. We praise Christ and recognize Him in all things that we do. Your assertions are unfounded and prejudiced without cause. Your "pyramid" is absurd, and your assumption that we do not recognize the role of Christ in salvation is equally absurd.
Your anecdote is likely a fabrication and not at all indicative of the LDS church or its teachings. It is apparent that you rely on gossip and rumor-mongering for your information about the church.
Yet, how ironic that you give such authority to man-made devices like the Nicene Creed which are not scriptural, not founded in doctrine nor revelation, and satisfy only the desires on men. Why is that?

You say you have assurance the Lord will judge you righteously. I believe he will indeed...but the righteous judgement for those whose sins are not completely covered by God's grace through Jesus, is something not to be contemplated. Salvation is a free gift...if works, deeds done, are a requirement for it then it's hardly a free gift. Ultimately we will have to agree to disagree but the consequences of placing our salvation in the wrong place are awesome and eternal.

C.S. Lewis reportedly said that arguing over which is more important (faith or works) is like arguing about which blade in a pair of scissors is more vital. Without both blades, the scissors do not function as scissors. You need both. And the same is true in the Christian faith.

1 John 2:3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."

Do not forget that even Satan believes there is a God.

[_Albion]

Well, subgenious, now you call me a liar. I ask again, why do Mormons make things so personal by insulting those they debate with? The "anecdote" I quoted most assuredly happened in my life and I used it only as an indication of something which I see as a problem within Mormonism...that Mormonism gives mostly lip service to the idea of Jesus. His name might be in the title of the Mormon Church...his name might be mentioned at the end of prayers...and he might have a place in the plan of progression, but from an outside perspective I don't see him being talked about or worshiped very much in the average meeting. That might be a subjective opinion but it is mine and since I have not been inside a Mormon building for some time perhaps it has been engineered to change in the face of more up to to date Mormon apologetics. An interesting exercise might be to count how many times his name is mentioned over the course of two or three sacrament meetings.

In answer to your question...yes, most assuredly assured...not because of anything I can boast in but only because of him who has fully paid the price of my sin. It is an assurance that allows me to learn and to deepen my relationship with him without the fear of damnation hanging over me. The truth that makes one free.

Glad to see that you are quoting a Christian like Lewis, someone who also had the assurance of salvation. While there is merit in his words I have little doubt where his faith and trust was placed.