exalted man : "God was a man like you" (serpent to eve)

[brlenox]

Utterly and completely irrelevant.
We're talking about consistent scriptural rules, to which Joseph Smith adhered.

My advice...... when you're in a hole, stop digging!

I'm sure that this little bit of correct understanding has not escaped your grasp but did you know that there are no capitals in Hebrew. Nope - not a one. So what cha do is you start with William Tyndale and you say Willie, oh Willie boy, we the people need the Word of God in English so's we's can tell when them awful Priests is trying to pull one on us. So Willie, who just happens to be an English scholar, begins to translate. Quite commonly the same word Strong's 430 or Elohim is translated as Elohim and other times it is translated God with a Big "G" and most times it is translated as god little "g". Remembering of course that Willie is doing all of this in a time long after the apostasy has completely altered the true knowledge of God...and his translation is going to jive with the theology he is most comfortable with. Tyndale was not exactly a trinitarian but I don't think we are ready to delve into deeper elements of Tyndale's doctrinal beliefs.

Thus and please observe closely when you go to Genesis 3:13 here is what you will see in a Strong's label scripture source:

3:5 For God 430 doth know 3045 8802 that in the day 3117 ye eat 398 8800 thereof, then your eyes 5869 shall be opened 6491 8738, and ye shall be as gods 430, knowing 3045 8802 good 2896 and evil 7451.

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjvstro ... gsgen3.htm

You might note that in this verse is found the Big G and the little g but the word in Hebrew that occupied both spots was the word we say as Elohim. This is noted by the Strong's number 430 which follows each usage.

This scripture could with perfect integrity be written as below.

3:5 For Elohim doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil.

Or if you prefer:

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

William, you can just call me Willie, Tyndale who is credited with his translation forming over 70 % of the final King James version had to make a judgement call on whether the text was referring to the supreme being "God" or the general, in his perception and based on his theological preferences, god and being an English Scholar and knowing quite well the grammatical rules for English, those Elohim(s) that he thought referenced the one true God where capitalized while those he thought were the little Elohim(s) he translated as god or angels and a couple of other choices. Each time he came into contact with the word Elohim, he had to make a determination of his own call whether he thought it should be a little g or a big G. A man, just doing the best he knew how according to the best Grammar he could determine decided how the word would be represented in the text of his translation..

Now please come back with something other than "completely irrelevant" as this is the relevant origin of BIG G and little g.

P.S. Because I know you are going to ask this next, Strong's is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) with no capitals and no vowel marks for that matter.

[brlenox]

Robin Hood, If you find this compelling, I am more than happy to begin discussing this material and we can share in an act of communication and sharing of ideas to our mutual education.

[Robin Hood]

Utterly and completely irrelevant.
We're talking about consistent scriptural rules, to which Joseph Smith adhered.

My advice...... when you're in a hole, stop digging!

I'm sure that this little bit of correct understanding has not escaped your grasp but did you know that there are no capitals in Hebrew.

The words "straws and clutching" come forcefully to mind.
Complete strawman argument (excuse the pun), and I think you know it.

Last time I checked, the D&C was originally written in English!
So you don't think that Joseph Smith consistently rendering God with a capital "G" throughout the same sections where he consistently renders all references to us with a lower case "g", has any significance. He just felt like doing it that way? It just suited his mood?

You pass this off as simply something to do with grammar, not realising that grammer is being used to demonstrate a profound truth.
Oh well. As they say around these parts "There's nowt as queer as folk".

Edit: My spelling is atrocious first thing in the morning, had to edit 5 times!

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood, If you find this compelling, I am more than happy to begin discussing this material and we can share in an act of communication and sharing of ideas to our mutual education.

Find what compelling?

[Doug]

So maybe we aught to see what Joseph Smith says the scriptures contain on this subject;

Joseph Smith
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret…We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. 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…
The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the son power - to do what? Why what the Father did. The answer is obvious - in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.
Here, then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And, I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me...
What did Jesus Do? ‘Why I do the things I saw my father do when worlds came rolling into existence, my Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my father so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, an it will exalt Him in glory, He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.’
So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn the First Principles of the Gospel, about which so much has been said.
When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top…It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.” (Excerpts from the King Follet Discourse, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 345-348)

Man is as God once was
God is as Man may become
Both halves of this couplet are addressed in this quote.

I'm sure someone will formulate some argument against this, but I see it that this one has been tucked and and the lights out.

[Robin Hood]

Man is as God once was
God is as Man may become
Both halves of this couplet are addressed in this quote.

I'm sure someone will formulate some argument against this, but I see it that this one has been tucked and and the lights out.

Oh yes, the famous couplet. The one President Hinckley distanced himself and the church from in front of millions of TV viewers.

I believe it when applied to the person of Jesus Christ.
As man is God once was = Jesus was once a man
As God is, man may become = we can become joint heirs with Christ.

Simple.

[brlenox]

Man is as God once was
God is as Man may become
Both halves of this couplet are addressed in this quote.

I'm sure someone will formulate some argument against this, but I see it that this one has been tucked and and the lights out.

Oh yes, the famous couplet. The one President Hinckley distanced himself and the church from in front of millions of TV viewers.

I believe it when applied to the person of Jesus Christ.
As man is God once was = Jesus was once a man
As God is, man may become = we can become joint heirs with Christ.

Simple.

I just posted this on another thread but since it looks like you could use the review as well, I am putting it out there for you.

Your doing the same thing to President Hinckley's quote as you are doing to the scriptures. You are not reading them for understanding. Go back to the transcript of the interview and locate the question to which President Hinckley is responding.

Who is the subject matter - The Fundamentalists.

What are they doing - They are breaking the law of the land.

Does the LDS church support them? - No, the church no longer practices polygamy and so there is no authority from God to do so at this time. Thus it's practice is not according to doctrine.

Full Transcript:

http://www.mormonismi.net/kirjoitukset/ ... 1998.shtml

Here is a partial cut of the Transcript:

...
LK: But when the word (polygamy) is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?
GBH: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.
LK: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?
GBH: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.
LK: Should there be arrests?
GBH: It's matter of civil procedure. The church can't do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.
LK: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?
GBH: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offense. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers.
LK: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?
GBH: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.
LK: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?
GBH: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.
LK: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.
GBH: I don't know. We'll consider it.
LK: I'm giving you an idea.
GBH: Yes.
LK: Would you look better if you were...
GBH: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.
LK: You condemn it.
GBH: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

In none of the above does he address the churches practice of polygamy but he is addressing an apostate group who has no authority.

[Doug]

I had no doubt that you would concoct an argument against what Pres. Joseph Smith said,
But I have no idea what that argument really is.

Joseph said nothing in this article about polygamy (btw: the church, both ancient and modern never practices polygamy, it was polygyny)
Joseph was not addressing Fundamentalists.

You will not accept any of the teachings of true messengers from God so you would not then accept it from God himself.

What do you really want here?

[Doug]

“With regard to the ordinances of God, we may remark that we yield obedience to them because he requires it; and every iota of his requirements has a rational philosophy with it. We do not get up things on a hypothesis. That philosophy reaches to all eternity, and is the philosophy that the Latter-day Saints believe in. Every particle of truth that every person has received is a gift of God.

We receive these truths, and go on from glory to glory, from eternal lives to eternal lives, gaining a knowledge of all things, and becoming Gods, even Sons of God. These are the celestial ones. These are they whom the Lord has chosen through their obedience. They have not spurned the truth, when they have heard it. These are they that have not spurned the Gospel, but have acknowledged Jesus and God in their true character; that have acknowledged the angels in their true character. These are they that work for the salvation of the human family.” (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, selected and arranged by John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954], 152. JD 19:50)

You will get what you claim, you will not be a God because you "spurn the truth".
But those who do not will become Gods.

It's not to late Zeezrom, you can change, you too can be a God with the rest of us.

[Robin Hood]

Why are you talking about polygamy?

[Doug]

Why are you talking about polygamy?

I missed one level of quote, I erroneously thought you brought it up.
I apologize to both of you.

As per your argument that it only applies to Christ,
my last post shows that if you are obedient, it applies
to you as well.

[Doug]

This one is pretty blunt;

“Whether as a spirit son or a spirit daughter of our Heavenly Father, each of us was sent here from our first estate to undergo this joyful yet stressful mortal second estate. Being the literal, premortal spirit children of the Father, each of us can, by going from grace to grace, eventually receive of the fulness of the Father, as did Jesus (see D&C 93:20).” (Neal A. Maxwell, A Wonderful Flood of Light [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990], 36)

[Doug]

D&C 93:20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

Anything less than actually being a God is not his fulness.

[Robin Hood]

This one is pretty blunt;

“Whether as a spirit son or a spirit daughter of our Heavenly Father, each of us was sent here from our first estate to undergo this joyful yet stressful mortal second estate. Being the literal, premortal spirit children of the Father, each of us can, by going from grace to grace, eventually receive of the fulness of the Father, as did Jesus (see D&C 93:20).” (Neal A. Maxwell, A Wonderful Flood of Light [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990], 36)

I'm sorry, I thought we were using the scriptures.
We really shouldn't wander off like this.
As far as I'm concerned, the scriptures are binding upon us. I will believe whatever is proved from them. Everything else is commentary at best.

[Doug]

D&C 93:20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

Anything less than actually being a God is not his fulness.

you gripe while you ignore this

[brlenox]

D&C 93:20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

Anything less than actually being a God is not his fulness.

you gripe while you ignore this

Well played my good man, well played.

[Doug]

So have you now decided that you are going to join your brothers and become a God? Please do.