Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

[Kevin Deegan]

DH says perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of the Lord can also reside within one's heart.

Interesting Pain can reside within, but not God?

Surely the LDS god can not reside in ones heart because as a man with a Body he just will not fit!

 

Dwell in your heart?

1835 D&C 130:3 says, “The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.” 

BUT

1830 Alma 34:36, it says, “And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell.”

 

The TRUTH on PRAYER!

1998 “Elder Bruce R. McConkie clearly explained what our relationship with each member of the Godhead should be, pointing out that some misguided members of the Church may ‘begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed’ with him. This is wrong, said Elder McConkie. We should pray directly to the Father...” The Ensign, June 1998, p. 59

 

1830 “...Jesus came and stood in the midst...he spake unto the multitude, and commanded them that they should kneel down again upon the earth, and also that his disciples should kneel down upon the earth. And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray. And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.” 3 Nephi 19:15-18

 

THE TRUTH on WORSHIP!

1830 “And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ... wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.” 2 Nephi 25:29

 

1986 “We Worship the Father... In an official interpretation of Moses 1:6, the First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, And Charles W. Penrose) said: ‘But the sole object of worship, God the eternal Father, stands supreme and alone...’ Who is the sole object of worship?... President George Q. Cannon taught: ‘...We know also that our Father in Heaven should be the object of our worship... He will not have any divided worship. We are commanded to worship Him, and Him only.’ (Gospel Truth, 1:135)” —Come Unto Christ —Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, 1986, p. 46-47

 

Joe refutes the BoM! or BoM True or not?

1830 “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.”—Moroni 8:18

“...the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all etnernity...”—Mosiah 3:5

1844 “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,...he was once a man like us....”—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-346

 

More LDS Evolution of God
1830 Modalistic ONE god

1835 two gods

1844 Plural gods

Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

DAVEH:   Ahhhhhhhh........you are beginning to realize my point, Izzy.  Likewise, if the torment of hell is not a literal burning lake of brimstone, then perhaps the pain of being separated from the love of the Lord can also reside within one's heart.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

It has not been quenched. It is alive today in my heart. izzy

 

---

 

DAVEH:  I would think anybody who understands that the argument of using a burning bush as evidence to prove that God is capable of creating an unquenchable fire is a bit weak if that unquenchable fire (burning bush) has been quenched.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

Yours?

 

---

 

DAVEH:  Not at all, Izzy.  It is simply an observation of illogic.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that particular trick, eh? iz

 

---

 

Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?

DAVEH:   Only if the bush is still burning.

David Miller wrote:

DaveH, I agree with Judy here.  The argument of a "literal impossibility" is 
a little weak when we are talking about God.  Moses did see a bush that was 
burning but not consumed.  Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
 
David
 Miller
 
 
 
Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance?  Genesis is not a "science 
book" per se.
Although
 the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is 
called "science"
Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and 
Physics?
 
Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD   (I 
think) ...
 
KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality 
endless torment.
a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire
 
DAVEH:   More imagery that is physically an impossibility.  Fire can be 
extinguished, whereas
mental torment can go on forever.
 
So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who 
delivered what he
 had
promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. 
A God who was
able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept 
them in the desert for 40yrs
feeding them with
 manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing 
out and their feet from
swelling.  The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe 
head to float on water
The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front 
of Jezebels' chariot
 and
had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.
 
Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the 
feeble efforts of man explain
Him?
 
 
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits 
you.
 
Lance 
  

--   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Dave Hansen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.langlitz.com  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  If you wish to receive  things I find interesting,  I maintain six email lists...  JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,  STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

---

Yahoo! Travel
Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!