Christ-posse Non Peccare -able Not To Sin Or Non Posse Peccare - Not A

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Or do you consider Man to be the species from whom Gods can be formed, by obtaining Man's highest office, after obtaining what we call the priesthood and then obeying Man's greatest laws?

Speaking LDS to LDS, Ray, let me be clear. What makes mankind, mankind, is our intelligence (as per D&C's definition; I'm not referring to knowledge of facts, but the core of our beings). Animals don't hold the priesthood. Mankind does. Plants don't hold the priesthood. Mankind does. Animals and plants can't become gods. Mankind can. See D&C 132 for more info.

In that sense, mankind--meaning those with intelligences capable of being exalted--is one species. Jesus's type of intelligence or being is the same as ours so we're of the "same species as gods," meaning the nature of our being, not our status or position of authority.

Priesthood authority isn't an organic genetic marker or species delineator. Having priesthood doesn't make one man/woman a different species or intelligence than another who does have it.

And try thinking and praying before you answer that question to keep you from getting more "off".

Ray, you need to quit these condescending remarks. It's childish, and I'm not the only one who's tired of this habit of yours. Your post would've been fine without that last comment. Why do you put that crap in your posts? Cut it out, grow up, be aware of how you articulate yourself, learn when to hold back and when to share, and just get on the same page everyone else on this board is on as far as communicating effectively and positively.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm in no mood to be trifled with today, especially by you who has had so many warnings about your habit of talking down. You may not mean to talk down, but it's talking down nonetheless. Figure out another way of encouraging someone to ponder an issue without warning them of how wrong they are and are likely to be without your not-so-gentle nudging. There. Like it or lump it. That's how it is.

Hi AK,

...I've been wondering about you...You are pretty quiet over the last couple of days.

I just got bored with this thread to be honest...or shall I say, the lack of understanding/articulation. As for how I am, yeah...after 8 months of helping my brain-injured father recover, and only leaving the house to get groceries or medicine...I've been ground to gravel. Add to that the fact that I don't see me leaving home anytime soon as he's not well enough for my mom to care for him by herself...it's pretty dang frustrating.

But hey, everyone's got problems...how are you? It is good to see you back on the boards.

[Dr T]

Quick reply about why I think forgetting is not perfection. Say you study for a test. On that test you forget the answer to 1 out of 100 and therefore answer that one wrong. Is your score a perfect 100%? NO. 99% is not perfect. That is why I don't see why not remembering can be seen as perfect. As far as the god in embryo concept. From your understanding, why was it that Satan kicked out of heaven?

Thanks

[Ray]

ApostleKnight: Speaking LDS to LDS, Ray, let me be clear. What makes mankind, mankind, is our intelligence (as per D&C's definition; I'm not referring to knowledge of facts, but the core of our beings). Animals don't hold the priesthood. Mankind does. Plants don't hold the priesthood. Mankind does. Animals and plants can't become gods. Mankind can. See D&C 132 for more info.

In that sense, mankind--meaning those with intelligences capable of being exalted--is one species. Jesus's type of intelligence or being is the same as ours so we're of the "same species as gods," meaning the nature of our being, not our status or position of authority.

Priesthood authority isn't an organic genetic marker or species delineator. Having priesthood doesn't make one man/woman a different species or intelligence than another who does have it.

I already know the truth, ApostleKnight. I don't need to look anything up.

And the one species we are is all of God, so let's refer to God as our species.

Ray: And try thinking and praying before you answer that question to keep you from getting more "off".

ApostleKnight: Ray, you need to quit these condescending remarks. It's childish, and I'm not the only one who's tired of this habit of yours. Your post would've been fine without that last comment. Why do you put that crap in your posts? Cut it out, grow up, be aware of how you articulate yourself, learn when to hold back and when to share, and just get on the same page everyone else on this board is on as far as communicating effectively and positively.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm in no mood to be trifled with today, especially by you who has had so many warnings about your habit of talking down. You may not mean to talk down, but it's talking down nonetheless. Figure out another way of encouraging someone to ponder an issue without warning them of how wrong they are and are likely to be without your not-so-gentle nudging. There. Like it or lump it. That's how it is.

ApostleKnight, it pains me to say this to you, but you are being very rude. Try comparing what I said, to what you said to me as if I had said that to you.

There is a way to let someone know they are "off" without being blatantly rude, and while you might prefer to never have someone correct you, it was still a good thing to do.

[Dr T]

Brother AK,

I wondered/worried if caring for him has been taking its toll on you. Sir, you will be in my prayers. I know the difficulty of medical issues and how it impacts the whole family, particularly the caretaker. Respect to you sir! May God give you the strength to carry on and the sustenance to persevere. Prayers will also go up for your father and your mother in this difficult time. Any opportunity for respite? Other family members or home nurse for 48 hours?

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Is your score a perfect 100%? NO. 99% is not perfect. That is why I don't see why not remembering can be seen as perfect.

The nuance in understanding is this: Jesus was perfect before his birth. By perfect I mean perfect attributes of godliness, perfectly obedient to the Father, perfect knowledge and fulness of priesthood authority. LDS theology holds that a spirit without a body cannot experience a fulness of joy, so in that sense Jesus wasn't "completely perfect" because he hadn't yet received his body of flesh and bone. But anyway, in the ways that matter for this discussion, Jesus was perfect.

Having to undergo the same process we did (the veil) so he could understand us doesn't rob him of perfection. It was a temporary memory loss, but even more importantly, it has nothing to do with whether he could sin or not--which is what this thread was about if I remember correctly. Jesus's intelligence or nature has always been so obedient and humble and submissive that he was the only one of us as God's spirit children who attained godhood before this life (godhood meaning priesthood authority). So even when his knowledge was "wiped clean" as a baby on earth, his every instinct was always to do right, obey God, be kind, loving, etc... So he never sinned even though sure he could've chosen to wash his donkey on the Sabbath or eaten pork with publicans.

I'm not trying to convince you Dr. T, just explain clearly the LDS view on all this. Hopefully you're learning more about LDS doctrine/teachings which will augment your personal studies into our faith. Thanks for your kind thoughts and prayers, I appreciate it. I have had brothers come and help out for a couple days, but in the end my mom and I do what needs doing. We'll make it. Thanks again for your comments.

[Ray]

Quick reply about why I think forgetting is not perfection. Say you study for a test. On that test you forget the answer to 1 out of 100 and therefore answer that one wrong. Is your score a perfect 100%? NO. 99% is not perfect. That is why I don't see why not remembering can be seen as perfect. As far as the god in embryo concept. From your understanding, why was it that Satan kicked out of heaven?

Thanks

Heh, tests (in school) do not test your knowledge. They test what you can remember. And while it is good to remember what you have learned, not remembering doesn't mean you don't know or never knew the answers.

And Satan was "kicked out' of heaven, because he chose to rebel, and he had the chance to repent (turn away from) his choice, but instead he chose to go to war with our Father... a war he could and never can win.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

ApostleKnight, it pains me to say this to you, but you are being very rude.

Get over yourself Ray. Figure out what everyone's been saying over the months about how you communicate. Pray about it, before you get more "off" in your manner of dialogue.

There is a way to let someone know they are "off" without being blatantly rude, and while you might prefer to never have someone correct you, it was still a good thing to do.

Again, get over yourself. You're not always right, everyone else isn't always wrong, and it's possible for you to be "off" about someone else being "off" so buzz off already. I'm done sugar-coating this, I'm so tired of your stubbornness and unwillingness to change. Get it together, it's very annoying and if speaking candidly is being rude then you need to grow thicker skin to withstand honest critique.

[Dr T]

Hi AK,

I understand that you are not trying to convince me. I appreciate you approach to education! I apologize for not addressing your question about how I am doing. I've been up and own. Numb hands, loss of words, slower, etc. those are not fun, but I am alive, breathing and have a beautiful wife and children to keep me company. Plus, I started pending the last couple of days here. (My wife is out of town so I have a lot of time to type away). :) As far as Jesus attaining priesthood prior to birth on Earth has there been any writing or messages about how that took place?

Thanks

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

ApostleKnight, it pains me to say this to you, but you are being very rude.

Get over yourself Ray. Figure out what everyone's been saying over the months about how you communicate. Pray about it, before you get more "off" in your manner of dialogue.

There is a way to let someone know they are "off" without being blatantly rude, and while you might prefer to never have someone correct you, it was still a good thing to do.

Again, get over yourself. You're not always right, everyone else isn't always wrong, and it's possible for you to be "off" about someone else being "off" so buzz off already. I'm done sugar-coating this, I'm so tired of your stubbornness and unwillingness to change. Get it together, it's very annoying and if speaking candidly is being rude then you need to grow thicker skin to withstand honest critique.

Again, if I had said something like this to you, you would say I was very rude. Wouldn't you?

And btw, your comments are making no effect upon me because I know that I was not rude, so don't feel bad if you later can see that talking like you did is not good. I've already forgiven you. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Dr. T, I'm glad you have a supportive family around you. And I'm glad you're getting time to spend reading/writing on this board. I enjoy your contributions/questions.

As far as Jesus attaining priesthood prior to birth on Earth has there been any writing or messages about how that took place?

The concept is not unique to LDS theology, but in a word I would answer: Foreordination. Here is an excellent explanation of the LDS view in this regard. I highly recommend reading it, it's only about a page. One key excerpt I want to reproduce here is as follows:

...a person's premortal character can never be judged by his or her present station in life. Some of the most bitter and arduous circumstances may be, in the perspective of eternity, the most blessed, and perhaps even the situations that men and women elected and agreed to enter. Foreordination does not preclude the exercise of agency. Foreordination is a conditional preappointment to or bestowal of certain blessings and responsibilities.

Foreordination is not predestination or precausation.

Again, if I had said something like this to you, you would say I was very rude. Wouldn't you?

I already say you're rude many a time. While your rudeness is in the form of "encouragement towards Ray's knowledge," I'm simply saying you need to come down from the ivory tower, get up to your elbows in the mud with the rest of us, and enjoy the experience. When the meek speak up, they never speak down. Just calling your attention to your blindspot Ray...apparently a very, very blindspot.

And btw, your comments are making no effect upon me...

How did I know you were gonna say that? Surprise, surprise.

....because I know that I was not rude...

Lemme guess, God told you in answer to prayer that you weren't being rude? And I should pray for that same knowledge since I'm so "off?" Yeah, I'm being sarcastic now...I'm irritable and ask no excuse or quarter for it. But I'm accurate in my analysis of your posts, regardless of how over the top my delivery is. Don't forgive me Ray, focus on interpersonal communication instead. We'll all be better for it.

[prisonchaplain]

AK: Even in the midst of personal exhaustion you come up with some intelligent and discerning posts. Thank you.

Dr. T: You've forced me to break out my theological dictionary--a good thing.

Ray: IMHO AK is not being rude, he's being direct. You may disagree with him, but understand, he's not trying to be smart aleck, or to engage you in a battle of wits. He's trying to offer you some advice on how to intelligently and, yes, spiritually engage non-LDS. Since AK is almost universally respected by everyone on this board--particularly us non-Mormons, you might consider his counsel, rather than reacting to it.

[BenRaines]

AK,

I enjoyed very much your explaination re: God and Christ's mortal existence.

Ben Raines

[Guest ApostleKnight]

IMHO AK is not being rude, he's being direct...He's trying to offer you some advice on how to intelligently and, yes, spiritually engage non-LDS.

Thanks for helping explain my intent PC. I'm glad you know I'm not trying to embarass Ray or put him down to make myself look good. He has good stuff to say. I hope he discovers new ways to say it to you, and me and the rest of us.

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

Kierkegaard* is the one that said, "Faith and reason cannot be harmonized."

* Sören Kierkegaard. Concluding Unscientific Postscript, trans. David F. Swenson and Walter Lowrie (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1941). p. 480; Philosophical Fragments, trans. David F. Swenson and Howard V. Hong (Princeton University Press, 1936, 1962), pp. 46-47; S. U. Zuidema, Kierkegaard (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1960).

Phepfffh. (that's me vibrating my lips). Whoever can believe that thought seriously needs some professional help.

Doc,

Faith is simply another word for assurance. Are you now telling me you can't have some reasoning while also feeling sure that your reasoning is true? Or that you can't have some reasoning while having God assure you it's true?

Think, Man!!! It ain't that hard to figure out.

But I guess we can believe whatever we want.

I think you missed the point of this question Ray. I believe what DR-t was trying to point out is that sometimes when we see something that we don't at first understand that might be considered the power of God, if we try to reason and eventually come to a scientific understanding of the event that took place, then we might decide that it was not the power of God after all, thus degenerating our faith in God.

[LionHeart]

Hey good hearted Ray,

What do you make of Gen 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." If we are all literall offspring, what of the "being formed of the dust of the ground" and requireing God to "breath into his nostrils the breath of life."

Thanks

Perhaps I will tell you how Brigham Young understood this idea. First of all the book of Genesis is also referred to as the first book of Moses.

Brigham young asked "What came first, the apple or the tree? The tree produces the apple while the apple produces the tree." He then said, "I tell you that never was there a time, nor will there be a time when you have one without the other. The Lord's kingdom is one eternal round." He went on to explain that when the Lord created this world, he did not "create" it out of nothingness. He merely organized matter that already existed into the form of this world. He then took seeds and animals from other worlds that were already created (in the heavens there are worlds many) and put them on this world. And finally He brought Adam and Eve over. Then Brigham Young asked his audience if they thought he was calling Moses a liar because Moses wrote in the book of genesis that God created Adam out of the dust of the Earth. His response to this was that Moses was no more of a liar than our parents were when they told us that little billy came from a hollow toadstool. Moses merely told the people what they were capable of understanding. Man is essentially sustained from the dust of the Earth. The food we eat comes from the dust of the Earth; whether its meat or produce.

There is more to this idea, however, it is very controversial so I won't go into it, unless I'm specifically asked about it.

[LionHeart]

Quick reply about why I think forgetting is not perfection. Say you study for a test. On that test you forget the answer to 1 out of 100 and therefore answer that one wrong. Is your score a perfect 100%? NO. 99% is not perfect. That is why I don't see why not remembering can be seen as perfect. As far as the god in embryo concept. From your understanding, why was it that Satan kicked out of heaven?

Thanks

It depends on what one considers to be perfect. For example, one person's perfect might be another persons nothingness. It's like the old fable: if you try to please everyone, you will end up pleasing no one.

Or take for another example, someone who is a perfect baseball player might be nothing to someone who is a perfect mountain climber.

And although Jesus was not known for His perfection at playing baseball, He was known for His perfection at living His life according to the will of His Father, and for His perfect love.

And although He may not have been the best baseball player in the world had He tried it, it still does not detract from His perfection.

[Ray]

Tommy: Ray: IMHO AK is not being rude, he's being direct. You may disagree with him, but understand, he's not trying to be smart aleck, or to engage you in a battle of wits. He's trying to offer you some advice on how to intelligently and, yes, spiritually engage non-LDS. Since AK is almost universally respected by everyone on this board--particularly us non-Mormons, you might consider his counsel, rather than reacting to it.

Heh, another dagger thrust at my heart.

But okay, I’ll take your advice and counsel, Tommy, by trying to see what it is YOU think I can learn from ApostleKnight about how to “intelligently and, yes, spiritually engage non-LDS people”.

And here’s my review of this experience:

After several posts where I had been trying to explain that God and Man are of the same species, ApostleKnight came in with the following post (and I’ll share what I thought and continue to think about it):

ApostleKnight: Let me (Fine with me if you can – without insulting anyone in the process) put this in proper perspective. LDS and non-LDS are arguing this issue from two theological viewpoints so different that there will be no consensus about any of it other than that Christ could have sinned but didn't. As for the rest, being made "lower than the angels," kenosis, etc... meeting of the minds is unlikely because meeting of beliefs is unlikely.

Here's why this is so. LDS believe godhood is a matter of priesthood authority/keys/power...in other words, it's an office or status, not a species. (Did ApostleKnight just say that what I (a LDS) believe is not in agreement with true LDS beliefs, or did I just imagine that?) Jesus is God because of his priesthood authority (assuredly higher than any angel's authority). (I agree with ApostleKnight on this point to a degree, but not to the degree where I would say that Jesus is God NOT ALSO BECAUSE He is of the same species as God) . Another LDS belief ties in with this one so let's keep our eye on the ball. (Did ApostleKnight just say that I and all the rest of us should “keep our eyes on the ball” by listening to what he is saying, as he puts this issue in the “proper perspective”, implying that I was not doing that…. or did I just imagine that too?) LDS believe we existed as spirits prior to our mortal existence (Jesus too), and that when we were born on earth we passed through a "veil of forgetfulness," whereby our memory of our premortal existence was rendered inaccessible.

So Jesus is God due to his priesthood keys/authority. (Again, I agree with ApostleKnight on this point to a degree, but not to the degree where I would say that Jesus is God NOT ALSO BECAUSE He is of the same species as God.) And LDS believe that when he was born on earth, he too--just like any of us--experienced this "veil of forgetfulness," whereby he had to learn "who he was," as he grew from a boy. Now, note this well, (Oh yes, of course, ApostleKnight, we know it is YOU who is speaking, so of course we will “note well” what YOU are saying because you ALWAYS such a nice guy and you ALWAYS speak the truth and we know we should pay attention to YOU.)… the "veil of forgetfulness" didn't strip Jesus of his priesthood authority...in essence, his godhood. He forgot who he was when he was born, and had to re-learn everything he once knew, but he didn't have to be "re-ordained" with priesthood keys/authority he held before this life. I also agree with ApostleKnight on this point to a degree, because some of what he is saying is in agreement with true LDS beliefs, but he’s still “off” a little on some of what he is saying, judging by what I know from the official teachings of the Church.

So Jesus made himself a little lower than the angels in his corruptible, mortal body, and in his being utterly dependent on mortal parents for his safety at a very young age (compliments of King Herod). But he still had his priesthood authority, his godhood, and through revelation from God his Father re-aqcuired his omniscience. (I would say that He re-acquired only His memory of all of His omniscience, without implying He ever lost His knowledge. Or in other words, I would say He still had all of His knowledge although He didn’t remember everything He once knew. And I will also say it all came back to Him quickly, just as our knowledge can come back to us quickly once we become in “tune” with our Father in heaven.)

The key issue is that LDS view the term God to be a title or office, while non-LDS seem to view it as a species tag,, or description of nature or essence. (Okay. I’ve said that Man and God are the same species, and that God is literally our Father, so does that mean that I’m non-LDS or have non-LDS beliefs about this, according to ApostleKnight and what he is explaining in the “proper perspective”, or am I just imagining all of that too ?) In this respect, the arguments about whether Jesus "gave up his godhood" are meaningless if the common terms being used really aren't common at all. Since most non-LDS on this board don't believe in a premortal existence, or a "veil of forgetfulness," or that godhood is the result of having a fulness of priesthood authority...well, you can see the theological quagmire that presents itself.

I'm not saying to stop discussing it (Well that was nice of you), just that from an observer's point of view each "side" of the argument is talking about two different things. I hope this explanation of LDS views will at least clarify the nature of the discussion, as heretofore it seemed that no one was keeping in mind the striking differences in theology that dictate how the issue be approached/evaluated. If it seemed to you that I didn’t have that knowledge in my mind, ApostleKnight, you could have just asked me if I understood the other perspective that many non-LDS have about God and Man and I would have then told you what I know and knew about that, based on the knowledge I once had when I was non-LDS… but you didn’t do that did you, instead you only offered what YOU believe is the truth, and not only did you do that, but you also implied that what I was saying was not true, as if you have really have the true knowledge – and btw, the issue of who has the most true knowledge between the two of us is really no big deal to me as long as we can both (and all) share and come to a true knowledge of the truth while also being in agreement with God.)

And then after that post from ApostleKnight, I then said this to him:

There is some truth in what you said, ApostleKnight, but you're still "off" on at least one key point, because God is a species, and is the only species from whom Man was created in the beginning... with male and female genders.

Or do you consider Man to be the species from whom Gods can be formed, by obtaining Man's highest office, after obtaining what we call the priesthood and then obeying Man's greatest laws?

And try thinking and praying before you answer that question to keep you from getting more "off".

… which I thought was very gracious of me considering all that ApostleKnight had said and implied about me in his post, because not only did I try to tell him the truth I know about that key point in this thread, but I also offered him an alternative perspective which could easily appear to be true and make sense to someone who would say that God was and is not a species, while advising him to think and pray about that alternative viewpoint before continuing with the attitude he had.

To which ApostleKnight then responded by trying to set me straight with his “proper perspective”, again, and I was pretty much prepared for a response like that if he continued to disagree with me, and while he did say something which made more sense to me than what he had said before, when he clarified his beliefs by implying the same idea I had while I was trying to share what I know about how God and Man are of the same species, although he didn’t identify that species as God, he also said some other things which showed that he still had the same attitude he had before after quoting my advice to him:

Ray: And try thinking and praying before you answer that question to keep you from getting more "off".

ApostleKnight: Ray, you need to quit these condescending remarks. (my suggestion that he was a little “off”) It's childish, and I'm not the only one who's tired of this habit of yours. (True, I’ve had other people try to tell me that I am offensive – but that doesn’t mean it is true) Your post would've been fine without that last comment. (my advice to think and pray before speaking and being more “off”) Why do you put that crap in your posts? (that particular bit of advice was given as a word of caution to try to help you realize and correct your attitude) Cut it out, grow up, be aware of how you articulate yourself, learn when to hold back and when to share, and just get on the same page everyone else on this board is on as far as communicating effectively and positively. (Is he suggesting that I talk more like him in his posts?)

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm in no mood to be trifled with today, especially by you who has had so many warnings about your habit of talking down. (Some people complain about hearing the truth, because they are not ready to hear it, but I never “talk down” to help other people, and you should try not to see it that way) You may not mean to talk down, but it's talking down nonetheless. (That’s your perspective, and the perspective of other people who think like you do, or who cannot see or hear all that is really true, instead of what they only believe) Figure out another way of encouraging someone to ponder an issue without warning them of how wrong they are and are likely to be without your not-so-gentle nudging. (You mean like you did, when you stated you were sharing the “proper perspective”?) There. Like it or lump it. That's how it is. (You mean that’s how it is for you and other people who see things that way – and I see things very differently)

Get over yourself Ray. (You mean like you are over yourself?) Figure out what everyone's been saying over the months about how you communicate. (I’ve got that figured out, I just do not agree with you people) Pray about it, before you get more "off" in your manner of dialogue.(What is the difference between you advising me to “pray about it” and me advising you to do that? – except for the fact that you don’t like hearing it?)

Again, get over yourself. You're not always right (I never said I was), everyone else isn't always wrong (I never said they were), and it's possible for you to be "off" about someone else being "off" so buzz off already. (Yes, it is possible, but not likely in this situation, although you do seem to have Tommy on your side on this) I'm done sugar-coating this, I'm so tired of your stubbornness and unwillingness to change. Get it together, It's very annoying and if speaking candidly is being rude then you need to grow thicker skin to withstand honest critique. (No, speaking candidly is not rude, and that is not what I’m talking about. I consider being “rude” to be the act of making disparaging remarks to other people; not saying something “to help set them straight” – as long as you don't say things with a disparaging attitude, or to try to make them feel like a low life.)

And for those of you who think it's okay to talk to other people like ApostleKnight talked to me, which is not the same way I talked to him (although my red comments might show that I thought about it), I'd say you still have a lot to learn about Jesus Christ, and all of those who truly follow Him – but yes, we all do stumble from time to time, which is why I forgave ApostleKnight.

And I truly do hope your father gets to feeling better, ApostleKnight. A good Father is a wonderful asset.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

And here’s my review of this experience:

After those fateful words follows a post that could only have been written in martyr-mode. Your response to my posts is rife with infantile outbursts like, "Why is it okay for you to talk like that...how come I can't?"

(Did ApostleKnight just say that what I (a LDS) believe is not in agreement with true LDS beliefs, or did I just imagine that?)

You didn't imagine it, you apparently have a different understanding of what "true LDS beliefs" are. I'm unaware of any official LDS teaching that says when a man/woman is exalted to godhood they become a different species. But then really, the silly argument over the word "species" is semantic and one which I'm not interested in hashing out any further.

(Did ApostleKnight just say that I and all the rest of us should “keep our eyes on the ball” by listening to what he is saying...implying that I was not doing that

I have to say again--sincerely--get over yourself. I wasn't even thinking of your previous posts when I wrote my post about "keeping our eyes on the ball." If you don't like the phrase I used, fine, but Ray, there's a huge difference between you assuming I was inferring that you were "off," and you flat out saying, "Pray about my teachings AK, before you get more off than you are already." You're tilting at windmills, Quixote.

(Oh yes, of course, ApostleKnight, we know it is YOU who is speaking, so of course we will “note well” what YOU are saying because you ALWAYS such a nice guy and you ALWAYS speak the truth and we know we should pay attention to YOU.)

Bleh. What a tantrum! "Note it well," is a syntactical device meant to function as an underline or highlight of the concept immediately following. If you take it to mean, "I'm always right so listen to my words of wisdom oh ye hopeless ignorant saps," well that's your choice. But geez...c'mon!

I also agree with ApostleKnight on this point to a degree...but he’s still “off” a little on...judging by what I know from the official teachings of the Church.

Okay Ray, let's get this over with so we can move on. What official teachings of the Church am I "off" about? Be specific, give quotes, references, etc... Seriously, if I'm in error I'd like to be corrected. No one likes being wrong. However, I'm not going to let you just sew a red flag to my post and sail by. Back it up, where am I mistaken in doctrine?

(I would say that He re-acquired only His memory of all of His omniscience, without implying He ever lost His knowledge.

Same thing...he didn't have access to his omniscience for a period of time. The thing that upsets me about this whole argument, Ray, is that we really agree...on every point I believe. But you are misreading my post--or I didn't express myself clearly enough--and we have this whole series of posts back and forth trying to harmonize views that are already in harmony. Let me be specific.

- God, Jesus and all of us are of the same "species."

- Jesus didn't have the use of his omniscience for a period after his birth; he never "lost" his omniscience, just forgot that he was omniscient for all purposes.

Instead of telling me I'm off, Ray, you might just ask me, "AK, I'm not sure I agree with you on <insert concept here>, would you clarify what you mean when you say <insert excerpt here>?"

If it seemed to you that I didn’t have that knowledge in my mind, ApostleKnight, you could have just asked me if I understood the other perspective that many non-LDS have about God and Man and I would have then told you what I know...

See, this is what I'm talking about. I wasn't even referring to you in my post, yet here you are acting like I wrote your name in all caps, bold, italics, underlined, highlighted in yellow and bracketed by insulting emoticons. Let's make a deal Ray: If I don't address you specifically in my posts, assume I'm not talking about you. If I direct my comments to you by name, assume I'm talking to you. Seems sensible to me.

...which I thought was very gracious of me considering all that ApostleKnight had said and implied about me in his post...

But I didn't, you imagined it all. I never once addressed you by name until I told you to stop being condescending. Don't assume I'm always talking to or about you unless I use your name! I'm not going to waste any more of my day responding to a gross misinterpretation of my words. I will say one last thing, however.

And I truly do hope your father gets to feeling better, ApostleKnight. A good Father is a wonderful asset.

Thank you Ray. See, there are reasons I like you. You can be really nice and considerate. I don't like arguing with you or fighting with you. I just wish the same spirit of that last quote was in all your posts. If it is, and I'm missing it, it's my fault. I'll look harder.

[Ray]

ApostleKnight: After those fateful words follows a post that could only have been written in martyr-mode. Your response to my posts is rife with infantile outbursts like, "Why is it okay for you to talk like that...how come I can't?"

My question had a purpose, ApostleKnight. Why didn’t you just answer it?

What makes you think you can you say things like this without sounding condescending to me?

And your characterization of my comment being an “infantile outburst” is exactly the type of thing I was talking about before when I said you were being rude. A comment I wouldn’t have made, and yet for some reason you think you can make a comment like that… while actually being justified in doing it.

You apparently have a different understanding of what "true LDS beliefs" are. I'm unaware of any official LDS teaching that says when a man/woman is exalted to godhood they become a different species. But then really, the silly argument over the word "species" is semantic and one which I'm not interested in hashing out any further.

I never said that Man is or will become a different species even when exalted to godhood, ApostleKnight.

I was simply trying to say that our species (the species of Man) is of the same species as God.

I have to say again--sincerely—get over yourself.

Did you say this, AGAIN, without thinking about it at all, or did you know what you were saying when you made that comment while knowing how I would interpret it? And what makes you think you can say something like that without sounding condescending to me? Have you ever heard me make a comment like that to you, even when speaking in a thread like this?

I wasn't even thinking of your previous posts when I wrote my post about "keeping our eyes on the ball." If you don't like the phrase I used, fine, but Ray, there's a huge difference between you assuming I was inferring that you were "off," and you flat out saying, "Pray about my teachings AK, before you get more off than you are already."

I didn’t say you were thinking about my posts when you wrote what you wrote in your post. And yet you still said, to all of us, that we should “keep our eyes on the ball” as you proceeded to make your comments. And yet you don’t think we’ll think that remark was condescending while you’d think my comments were.

And btw, I believe there is NOTHING wrong with ANYONE telling someone else they are wrong while asking them to think and pray some more… as long as that person who is making that comment actually knows they are right beyond doubt and can back that up with a testimony. (and yes, I said a testimony, instead of some words in some books)

You're tilting at windmills, Quixote.

A cute phrase, ApostleKnight, but it sounds like it may be another disparaging remark to me, based on what you have said to me in the past.

Bleh. What a tantrum!

And you were acting mature when you said this? Why do you say things like this without regard to my feelings, while assuming that I’m condescending?

"Note it well," is a syntactical device meant to function as an underline or highlight of the concept immediately following. If you take it to mean, "I'm always right so listen to my words of wisdom oh ye hopeless ignorant saps," well that's your choice. But geez...c'mon!

What? You want me to cut you some slack? Then why don’t you try cutting me some slack… before responding to my comments while assuming that I’m condescending when I have not said that to you?

Okay Ray, let's get this over with so we can move on. What official teachings of the Church am I "off" about? Be specific, give quotes, references, etc... Seriously, if I'm in error I'd like to be corrected. No one likes being wrong. However, I'm not going to let you just sew a red flag to my post and sail by. Back it up, where am I mistaken in doctrine?

You were off in saying that God is not a species, and my first response to you alluded to some references. But if you’re not satisfied with that, you can do some more research. I’m not doing your homework for you.

The thing that upsets me about this whole argument, Ray, is that we really agree...on every point I believe. But you are misreading my post--or I didn't express myself clearly enough--and we have this whole series of posts back and forth trying to harmonize views that are already in harmony.

Heh, I think you are saying this now because, after my other posts, you can now see the point I was making, but before you were saying God is not a species, while saying godhood an office, that is attained through the priesthood, without mentioning that we (all of Man) are of His race.

And yes, we were in more harmony that you thought we were before, and you were upset with me because you misread my posts… but I never made disparaging comments to you(not counting my words in red, which revealed my thoughts to you, which I did not express before)

Instead of telling me I'm off, Ray, you might just ask me, "AK, I'm not sure I agree with you on <insert concept here>, would you clarify what you mean when you say <insert excerpt here>?"

Yes, and you could also have done that, instead of making disparaging remarks about me to me and other people who read and are reading this thread. Or in other words, you could have asked me what I meant by what I said when I said what I said before, instead of making those disparaging comments to and about me.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I wasn't even referring to you in my post, yet here you are acting like I wrote your name in all caps, bold, italics, underlined, highlighted in yellow and bracketed by insulting emoticons. Let's make a deal Ray: If I don't address you specifically in my posts, assume I'm not talking about you. If I direct my comments to you by name, assume I'm talking to you. Seems sensible to me.

No, I wasn’t thinking that you were thinking about me as you made those comments you made, except for those comments you made to me which I told you I thought were rude and disparaging to me. And even then when I told you, you continued to say that I was being condescending. I find it strange that you think that way, while thinking that you can somehow be justified.

I never once addressed you by name until I told you to stop being condescending.

But I wasn’t, even though you thought I was. And I never have acted with a condescending attitude, even though you and others have thought that I was. You do not know the real me.

Don't assume I'm always talking to or about you unless I use your name!

I wouldn’t, and you did.

I'm not going to waste any more of my day responding to a gross misinterpretation of my words.

I also wouldn’t be responding to your misinterpretation of my words unless I thought I could clear this up, and I hope that if we do it, when we’ve done it, we’ll forget about all of this, while using our experience to avoid making this mistake again, while we both think and say better things to and about each other.

I don't like arguing with you or fighting with you. I just wish the same spirit of that last quote was in all your posts. If it is, and I'm missing it, it's my fault. I'll look harder.

Thank you. I never have tried to make disparaging remarks, even though I have seen that coming from others, and the only reason I have tried to express my thoughts with you here is to try to clear up this misunderstanding.

But the final words are all yours, as I hope you won’t make even one more disparaging comment to or about me again.

[prisonchaplain]

RAY, I wasn't trying to get into the middle of your discussion with AK about LDS beliefs (guess who the least qualified of us three would be in that discussion?). Rather, I was addressing his advice to you in relating to non-LDS posters. Here's my take:

1. Most non-LDS who would bother to come to an LDStalk forum have at least some knowledge of LDS teachings, and some curiosity about the faith.

2. We know that LDS believe they have the truest understanding of God and his plan for humanity.

3. We know that LDS believe they have more of God's truths than other Christians.

SO, AK's point to you seemed to be that there is no need to continually remind non-LDS of those points. To encourage a Christian to pray about LDS distinctives once or twice might be acceptable, but to keep doing so with each post might come across as condescending to many.

Furthermore, as a general rule of thumb in any forum about any topic, the fact that you post with your name is indication that you think you are true and right. No need to keep saying so.

As my English teacher used to tell us, "NO need to say 'I think' in writing or speech. In writing, you name is on the paper, so 'I think' is redundant. Likewise, with speech--the words are coming out of your mouth already."

Ray, I've gotten to know you, so I'm able to read past some of these mannerisms. But, I also thought AK's words to you were useful advice. Why you felt "stabbed in the heart" is beyond me.

[Ray]

Why you felt "stabbed in the heart" is beyond me.

Because you, it seemed to me, were upholding ApostleKnight's disparaging comments to me, while saying that I should learn from him about how to talk to people.. when instead you could have tried to tell him that he may be mistaken in some of his assumptions about me and what I was trying to say.

And btw, I think it is helpful to distinguish between things I think, things I believe, and things that I know to be true, because not every idea that I have about everything is supported by knowledge through a testimony from God.

Or in other words, when I say "I think", I am sometimes expressing a personal opinion, that may or may not be true, but when I say "I know" something is true I am saying that is true according to knowledge I have received from God, through a personal assurance (or testimony) from Him to me, and believe me, there is a difference, so I will continue to make the distinctions.

[prisonchaplain]

Because you, it seemed to me, were upholding ApostleKnight's disparaging comments to me, while saying that I should learn from him about how to talk to people.. when instead you could have tried to tell him that he may be mistaken in some of his assumptions about me and what I was trying to say.

I have no interest in which one of you is the more right or wrong in your particular comments on this string towards one another. It is sad to see to well-meaning people take discussions about God and his truths personally, and get so offended. But, I'm hardly qualified to be a mediator here.

So, to be clear, I was only suggesting that Apostleknight's advice to you about how to communicate with non-LDS posters was sound. Further, I don't think any non-LDS poster that I have seen has been offended by AK's posts. So, he offers his advice with a goodly amount of gravitas.

Most of the other stuff might be more appropriate in PMs, imho.

And btw, I think it is helpful to distinguish between things I think, things I believe, and things that I know to be true, because not every idea that I have about everything is supported by knowledge through a testimony from God.

The wonderful thing about advice is that you can take it or leave it.

I've found that if I just state things and someone is uncertain, then I can respond with "I don't have proof, but I believe this is so." Or, "I know because...(God told me), I read it at ag.org, or whatever.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I apologize to everyone for having to read this or wade through this to get to any doctrinal discussion. Sorry for dragging this out or continuing to comment on it.

From a writer's perspective, I just need to clear up one matter of diction that's at the heart of your complaint Ray, and which is incorrect.

What makes you think you can you say things like this without sounding condescending to me?

Ray, my comments weren't condescending. Condescending refers to a superior attitude. Your habit of talking from a position of superior knowledge (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth :)) is, to me, condescending. Let me be specific: You often make comments like, "I know what I've typed to be the truth, and we can all learn the truth from God if we ask Him, so I hope we'll all learn the truth."

My comments to you have not been mild, veiled, or forgiving. They have been direct and harsh, frustrated and irritated. I have never addressed you from a position of "superior gospel knowledge." I know you don't agree, and that's fine, but I've never told you to pray or study more until you understand the way I do. That to me, would be condescending. I've never lorded my knowledge over you or compared my learning to yours. It's one thing to say someone's in error, and show why, and quite another to vaguely assert someone's "off" and not say why.

The worst adjective that can be leveled against me is perhaps vituperative, or scathing, or excoriative, or other related words that refer to harsh censure, forceful chastisement, or sharp critique. For this I ask no pardon. Although I've been harsh with you, Ray, I don't hate you. I simply disagree with your manner of dialogue, and how you articulate your views. As PC said, saying what you believe or know to be true is enough. You don't need to constantly tell us to pray about it. We know that's a crucial step in verifying any doctrine.

I was simply trying to say that our species (the species of Man) is of the same species as God.

Which is what I believe. My other point was that being a god is a matter of priesthood authority, not just being the same species as God our Father. There are many children of God who will not be exalted/gods even though they are the same species as God. (man it's good to get back to discussing doctrine!)

...as long as that person...knows they are right beyond doubt and can back that up with a testimony. (and yes, I said a testimony, instead of some words in some books)

Well there's the problem Ray. I need more than testimony. If I'm wrong about doctrine, show me in the scriptures where I'm wrong. No offense--really--but your testimony is not enough for me without God's words in support.

You were off in saying that God is not a species...you can do some more research. I’m not doing your homework for you.

I appreciate that you have a life beyond this board, Ray. Time is precious and I would not dream of asking you to write an essay on why you are right. All I wanted was a chapter or verse of scripture from which you draw your conclusion. I'll be happy to look it up myself. I just need to know where you're coming from. In the future, maybe you can give references if I don't know why you believe something?

...but I never made disparaging comments to you...

You can be harsh with me Ray, criticize my ideas, but back it up. I'm more than willing to admit when I'm mistaken about something. But just saying, "pray about it," doesn't cut it with me. I need sources or scripture. If that's a problem, there's no reason we have to have a dialogue at all. But that's where I'm coming from.

...I never have acted with a condescending attitude, even though you and others have thought that I was. You do not know the real me.

Then don't blame us for seeing your posts the way we do. If we don't know the real you, misunderstanding is the inevitable result. That's okay.

...the final words are all yours, as I hope you won’t make even one more disparaging comment to or about me again.

I've never disparaged your person Ray, just the way you communicate. I've got no problem with your views/beliefs. I've got a problem with the way you express those views/beliefs. That's it. Nothing more. If you said, "AK, I think you're completely off about <doctrine x> because chapter 5 of 2 Nephi says <teaching y>." I can deal with that. I won't accept, "AK, you're off about this, you should think more about it before you get more off." That's vague, ambiguous and useless if understanding is the goal.

I reserve to myself the right to disparage, be harsh in critiquing, or in any other way forcefully condemn behavior on this board from anyone that I see as counter-productive. It usually takes a lot before I throw down the gauntlet and draw my rapier. This was unfortunately one of those times. I hope it won't happen again, but I make no promises. Alot depends on you and me.

[Dr T]

Okay, to get back to Bens thread, I have a quick question for ApostleKnight. AK, you said,

Jesus didn't have the use of his omniscience for a period after his birth; he never "lost" his omniscience, just forgot that he was omniscient for all purposes.

that sounds like a self contradictory statement. From how I am reading that, you are saying Jesus was all knowing yet forgot (implying that He didn't know) something. Can you clear up my confusion?

THanks,

Dr. T

[Guest ApostleKnight]

...you are saying Jesus was all knowing yet forgot (implying that He didn't know) something. Can you clear up my confusion?

It does seem oxymoronic to say Jesus is omniscient yet forgot his omniscience.

LDS believe we all existed as spirit beings before we were born on earth. We lived with God our Father and Jesus and each other. We were taught the gospel and other things to prepare us for our mortal life. Jesus attained all knowledge, or omniscience. How Jesus has always existed yet was not always omniscient is another belief of mine I'd be happy to discuss with you. :)

Anyway, I mentioned earlier that when our spirits joined our mortal bodies and we were born, we passed through a "veil of forgetfulness," that most LDS refer to simply as "the veil." Our pre-mortal memories and experiences were lost to our newborn minds, partly so we'd have our faith tested. Jesus, in being born as a mortal, also passed through this veil. He too started mortality as a baby who had to learn to talk, walk, eat, play, etc... like every one of us.

But Jesus has always been obedient and faithful and righteous. This means he's always been in tune with God our Father and the Spirit. That means he was privy to pure revelation/knowledge all the time. I don't know at what age his omniscience "returned" or when he "remembered" everything he knew before his birth. I don't know when "the veil" that separates us and God was removed for Jesus. We know by age 12 he was in the temple educating the learned rabbis and doctors of the law. I don't know, maybe it was 8?

The point is, we don't have revelation on the issue and I don't really mind not knowing. All I know is that Jesus truly can say, "I know how you feel," because he went through what all of us went through, knows what it's like to start from scratch. The difference is that Jesus went on to gain (or regain) his omniscience that "the veil" obscured at the start of his mortal life.

So is Jesus omniscient? I believe so.

Has Jesus always been omniscient? As per this explanation, I believe not. For a short span after birth, he was as ignorant of language, motor skills, balance, how to eat, let alone the mysteries of the universe, that all of us were at birth. I hope that's clear. Feel free to ask me if I haven't explained anything in enough detail for you.