[quote=“Satellite TV”]That is your interpretation. Very liberal. If there is only one creator why would there be mention of another? The text does not need to exclude anyone else as there isn’t anybody esle.
The text precludes there being others as
It does not refer to them as you put it as there is no them.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter, because RDO’s interpretation isn’t canonical, isn’t official LDS doctrine, and is contradicted by LDS Scripture, which insists that ‘Gods’ created. Smith changed all the singular pronouns and verbs to plural specifically to teach this doctrine. It’s official LDS doctrine that ‘Gods’ plural created, not that one God (Jesus), created at the behest of his father. If that were the case then RDO wouldn’t have to keep disagreeing with me over the meaning of the grammar. He would agree that it says only one person created all things (Jesus). But he already tried the ‘Jesus’ thing and found out that the majority of LDS members don’t believe it. And of course it’s contradicted by LDS Scripture.
STV, it will help to understand that the LDS doctrine concerning creation and God(s) developed and changed over time. It went like this:
Smith originally taught that there was one God, who was one person, but who manifested Himself as Father, son and Holy Spirit (this is called ‘Modalism’); his early writings reflect this
Later Smith taught that there was one Godhood, consisting of three Gods (Heavenly Father, son, and Holy Spirit), but that these were individual Gods and not united ontologically (only in purpose). At this point he believed that Heavenly Father had created all things through the son, and his early writings and some early LDS Scriptures reflect this (Book of Moses, for example)
Still later Smith changed his teaching yet again, and claimed that it had now been revealed to him that Heavenly Father, son and Holy Spirit were not the only Gods, and that Jesus had not created alone but had created in concert with a council of other Gods (other than Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit). His later writings and some LDS Scriptures reflect this change (specifically Book of Abraham)
That’s why you’ll see conflicts and contradictions between his earlier statements and his later statements, between LDS Scripture written earlier when he believed that Jesus had created all things alone on behalf of Heavenly Father, and LDS Scripture written later when he believed that Jesus had created in cooperation with a council of other Gods. Well read Mormons (including Chapel Mormons), already know this, and it is acknowledged in LDS Church material such as the Ensign (the Church magazine). But Internet Mormons such as RDO aren’t always familiar with the history, and attempt to synthesize it into one consistent unaltered original teaching, which just doesn’t work. That’s why RDO will claim that Book of Moses and Book of Abraham don’t contradict, but can’t explain how.
Okay. Trying to sort through this stuff. Bottom line is that Mormons believe in multiple gods, yes, no? (yes, I lower-cased that on purpose). This answer, if anything, should determine whether Mormons are Christian.
TF, yes Mormons believe in multiple gods. Internet Mormons such as RDO try to play this down, and on the official Website it’s not mentioned openly, but it’s there in the Standard Works, and it is a well documented doctrine of the LDS Church which has been taught ever since Smith introduced it.
They realise that this has a serious impact on their claim to be Christian, which is why LDS apologists argue that polytheism was the original orthodox religion of the Hebrews, and that Paul taught a belief in many gods.
Elohim is plural. So someone is lying, or wrote down the wrong words.[/quote]
As I have explained previously, ‘elohim’ is not plural in Genesis 1. This is the most common Hebrew word for God. But RDO is not correct when he says it is a plural. There is considerable confusion over this word among the laity, though the lexical data is clear.
The word ‘elohim’ is a word which is always morphologically plural (that is, it has an ending which is normatively plural for Hebrew nouns), but only grammatically plural when it takes a plural verb. It is not the only Hebrew word of this class:
[quote][ul]
[li]zequnim - old age (Genesis 21:2, 7; 37:3; 44:20.)
[/li]
[li]neurim[/i] - youth. David was only a boy ([i]naar), but Goliath “has been a fighting man from his youth [ne`urim].” (I Samuel 17:33.)
[/li]
[li]chayyim - life. This is used in the song “To life, to life, lechayyim” in the movie Fiddler on the Roof.
[/li]
[li]'adonim - lord. 'Adon means “lord,” and 'adonim normally means “lords,” but Isaiah 19:4 says, “I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master ['adonim].”[/li][/ul][/quote]
When it is used with a singular pronoun, and/or a singular verb, it refers to one person. In this regard it is identical to certain English words. In English the word ‘sheep’ has only one form, regardless of whether it is used to refer to sheep singular, or sheep plural. Only the pronoun/rverb/noun agreement identifies whether one or more sheep is referred to. When we read ‘a sheep was’, we know only one sheep is referred to. If the sentence said ‘these sheep were’, we would know that more than one sheep is referred to. The word ‘fish’ can be used in the same way (though a morphological plural ‘fishes’ exists, it seems uncommonly used).
The word ‘elohim’ can refer to more than one God, but the plural pronouns and verbs must be used to identify such usage. In the Bible, the singular pronouns and verbs are invariably used when ‘elohim’ is used of the God.
Earlier Christians used to believe that the ‘elohim’ of Genesis 1:26 was a reference to the trinity. This has long since been discredited. Standard scholarship now understand the word to refer to one person, God. From the footnote on Genesis 1:26 in the New English Translation (a standard evangelical translation):
[quote]The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.
Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court.
In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.”
See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way.[/quote]
At this point we turn to the NET’s note on Psalm 8:5:
[quote]Psalm 8:
8:5 and make them almost like the heavenly beings?"
16tn Heb “and you make him lack a little from {the} gods {or “God”}.” The Piel form of rsj, “to decrease, to be devoid,” is used only here and in Eccl 4:8, where it means “to deprive, to cause to be lacking.” The prefixed verbal form with vav consecutive either carries on the characteristic nuance of the imperfect in v. 5b or indicates a consequence (“so that you make him…”) of the preceding statement (see GKC §111.m). Some prefer to make this an independent clause and translate it as a new sentence, “You made him….” In this case the statement might refer specifically to the creation of the first human couple, Adam and Eve (cf. Gen 1:26-27).
The psalmist does appear to allude to Gen 1:26-27, where mankind is created in the image of God and his angelic assembly (note “let us make man in our image” in Gen 1:26).
However, the psalmist’s statement need not be limited in its focus to that historical event, for all mankind shares the image imparted to the first human couple. Consequently the psalmist can speak in general terms of the exalted nature of mankind.
The referent of <yhla (elohim, “God” or “the heavenly beings”) is unclear. Some understand this as a reference to God alone, but the allusion to Gen 1:26-27 suggests a broader referent, including God and the other heavenly beings (known in other texts as “angels”).
The term <yhla (elohim) is also used in this way in Gen 3:5, where the serpent says to the woman, “you will be like the heavenly beings who know good and evil.” (Note Gen 3:22, where God says, “the man has become like one of us.”) Also <yhla (elohim) may refer to the members of the heavenly assembly in Ps 82:1, 6. The LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the OT) reads “angels” in Ps 8:5 (this is the source of the quotation of Ps 8:5 in Heb 2:7).[/quote]
Again, the NET Bible interprets the phrase ‘Let us make man in our image’ as God addressing His angelic assembly. This is the scholarly consensus, and has been for some time.
That is not relevant to the topic under discussion.[/quote]
Of course it is. You’re attempting to use God and god interchangeably in your argument when you know full well that there is a significant difference in meaning between the two-- all very much relevant to whether or not Mormons believe there is one God or not.
Either talk about God or talk about gods. Don’t attempt to conflate the two.
That is not relevant to the topic under discussion.[/quote]
Of course it is. You’re attempting to use God and god interchangeably in your argument when you know full well that there is a significant difference in meaning between the two-- all very much relevant to whether or not Mormons believe there is one God or not.
Either talk about God or talk about gods. Don’t attempt to conflate the two.[/quote]
Yeah but to Chrisitans God or god or GOD is the same. There is only one god. Man does not become god.
SO what we have are Mormons who claim to be Christians that have several gods and even become god vs Christians with the Bible scriptures who say there is only one God ( people do not become gods), god GOD or whetever other names you can come up with for god.
So for Christians there is no difference as there is only one god. For Mormons there is a difference as they believe there are many gods, and God, and GOD too.
That is not relevant to the topic under discussion.[/quote]
Of course it is. You’re attempting to use God and god interchangeably in your argument when you know full well that there is a significant difference in meaning between the two-- all very much relevant to whether or not Mormons believe there is one God or not.[/quote]
You’re changing the subject again. The capitalization of ‘god’ in English Bibles is not relevant to the topic under discussion, which is what Mormons believe.
I haven’t done any such thing. You’ve led us astray by firstly claiming that Mormons only believe in one God, then acknowledging that you worship more than one, then trying to qualify it by saying Mormons only believe in three ‘capital G’ Gods whom they view as one God, when in fact LDS Scriptures and writings consistently teach the belief in multiple Gods, sometimes capitalized (as they are in LDS Scripture), and sometimes not capitalized, indicating that the distinction you are trying to make is completely your own invention.
Not only were completely unaware of the fact that LDS Scripture refers to ‘capital G’ gods (plural), which contradicted what you had said previously, but you had to construct an ad hoc apologetic in order to try and explain it, telling us that the ‘capital G’ gods referred to Heavenly Father and the son, a belief which you acknowledged was your own idea, and not LDS doctrine.
I have already demonstrated that the ‘capital G’ gods (plural), in the LDS Scriptures are understood by the Church to refer to a plurality of Gods (sometimes capitalized and sometimes not, the distinction you make isn’t reflected by Church practice), who constitute a council of Gods with whom the son created. This is directly contrary to your claim that the son created alone, on behalf of the Father (which is not LDS Scripture, though it is adopted by many Internet Mormons these days in an attempt to present to non-Mormons a belief which is more theologically palatable than LDS polytheism).
Instead of all this fooling around you could have just told us all the truth, that the theology of the LDS Church is polytheism.
My reading of Genesis is the official one, its according to LDS doctrine, it’s in perfect harmony with LDS scripture. In Genesis 1:27 the subject is singular. In Moses 2:27, the subject speaker is singular. That’s exactly what it says, and exactly what I’m saying. You cannot apply the grammar of the Book of Abraham to the grammar of the Book of Moses or Genesis. They are different books by different writers who were given similar visions by God.
Fortigurn, you are no authority on Mormonism and you’ve got things stuck in your head that are just flat wrong. I know it, and you don’t.
You’re assuming Smith is a false prophet and that the Book of Abraham was not translated by the gift and power of God. That’s a huge fallacy in this argument.
Wrong and wrong. You are confusing two references and treating them as equal. And you are ignoring the official position of the Church-- both in canon and in open teaching. In Genesis, in the verse in question, the official version is God (singular) created.
In Abraham 4, the verse says “Gods”. And I’ve already discussed how that having that refer to Jesus Christ and God the Father harmonizes it with the rest of LDS teaching.
Holy freaking cow. You are saying I disagree. I have said I agree. From the start. You are trying to say LDS says a singular is plural. I have shown beyond doubt that the LDS reading of Genesis 1:27 is singular.
If you attempt to use this argument again then it shows you are being intellectually dishonest.
Sorry bud, but I’m a very well versed Mormon and I know the history. And I reject the label “LDS Mormon” because as you continue to define it, that does not match my beliefs or background.
I’m an inactive member. But, I’m still on record of the Church as an elder, and as such I have authority to teach official church doctrines. I can’t declare new doctrine, and I am no general authority, but I am authorized to teach it within the church.
You, on the other hand, are a non-Mormon and have come to some very wrong conclusions based on your own opinions and interpretations of LDS writings. Your views do not reflect the teachings of the Church and reflect a revisionist theory of Mormonism which should be rejected.
You are not authorized to explain what official doctrine is to anyone. And, you don’t know what it is.
Do not go around telling people what is official LDS doctrine. You don’t know it and you have it wrong.
Don’t confuse God and gods. Our discussion is in English, I expect you to use proper conventions for discussing Deity. Failure to do so negates anything you say as it is fallacious on its face.
I haven’t done any such thing…[/quote]
Yes, you have. And you are continuing to try and avoid admitting to any error in your arguments.
You have made so many thus far, but refuse to acknowledge any of them.
You have proved none of your points, but keep clinging to them. And now you have started to appeal to the audience for support talking to Satellite TV and trying to “explain me”.
But the simple fact is, you don’t know the doctrine and have set yourself up as a teacher of people about Mormons. You’re a false teacher in this arena.
My reading of Genesis is the official one, its according to LDS doctrine, it’s in perfect harmony with LDS scripture.[/quote]
You haven’t showed me a single LDS Scripture which says that Jesus created on behalf of the Father.
But you told me that ‘from 26 it is reasonable to interpret the passage as a whole to indicate additional participants’. You have to make up your mind which view you’re going with. Were there additional participants or not?
I am not applying the grammar of the BOA to the BOMs or Genesis. I am pointing out that the BOA says that ‘Gods’ created, and that the BOMs says ‘God’ (singular), created, and that Genesis says ‘God’ (singular), created. I have pointed out that the BOMs and the BOA contradict teach other, with only the earlier BOMs agreeing with the Bible.
You haven’t shown me one yet. Do LDS Scriptures say that ‘the Gods’ created, or not? Plural ‘capital G’ gods or not? Is that a capital ‘G’ there in the BOA or not?
It is not a fallacy or an assumption. It’s a rational conclusion based on both positive and negative evidence. Negative evidence because:
There is no evidence that Smith translated anything from the Book of Abraham
There is no evidence that the papyrus known as the ‘Book of Abraham’ contained anything which is now in the LDS English BOA
There is no evidence that the papyrus known as the BOA was in fact a legitimate writing of Abraham as claimed
This means that the LDS Church has nothing whatever to support its claim that Smith really ‘translated’ the BOA, which means that the assumption is on their part that he did.
Positive evidence because:
Literary analysis of the relevant section of the BOA proves the KJV English Vorlage, combined with Sexias’ Hebrew grammar (as I mentioned before):
[quote=“Egyptology and the Book of Abraham”]'Joseph’s Hebrew learning is reflected in the creation story of the Book of Abraham. This ties it more firmly to the Bible as a source.
Instead of the KJV’s “without form and void” for the Hebrew tohu vavohu, the Book of Abraham uses “empty and desolate”; instead of KJV’s “moved upon the face of the waters” for the Hebrew merahefet al pene hamayim, Book of Abraham has “was brooding upon the face of the waters”; instead of KJV’s “firmament” for Hebrew raqia, Book of Abraham has “expanse”; in addition to KJV’s simple “divided the light from the darkness” for Hebrew wayyavdellhivdil ben haor uvenhahoshek, Book of Abraham adds a gloss “divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.”
These differences or additions are all found in Joshua Sexias’ Hebrew grammar. Hebrew knowledge and use of the Bible is being reflected here, not Egyptian and the used of an Egyptian text.'[/quote]
In early editions of the BOA not all the verbs were pluralized (a couple were missed and had to be pluralized in a later edition):
Examinations of the material allegedly translated have proved that the text is not what Smith claimed (here)
You really don’t want to pick this fight.
How am I confusing them? What does that mean? If by ‘treating them as equal’ you mean I’m treating them both as LDS Scripture, that’s true. They are. If that’s not what you mean, then what do you mean?
I’m quoting LDS Scriptures, which say ‘the Gods’ created. It’s simple.
But you already acknowledged that this was just your own personal interpretation. So it’s not LDS doctrine.
I have been through this with you before. Smith insisted ‘elohim’ was a plural, which is why your doctrine is at this point in the first place. You also said that despite the grammar of Genesis 1:27, it doesn’t say only one person created. You claimed that on the basis of verse 26 we have to understand verse 27 as saying that other participants were involved. Your words were ‘from 26 it is reasonable to interpret the passage as a whole to indicate additional participants’.
Firstly what’s on that Webpage is the sanitized ‘milk before meat’ (it is not the whole truth about what Mormons believe or what the LDS teaches). Secondly LDS Scripture says ‘the Gods’ created (and a continuum of LDS teachers, texts, and apologists insist that a polytheistic ‘council of gods’ created). Thirdly Smith’s beliefs and teachings changed as I said they did (I note that you made no mention of this), and the Scriptures he ‘translated’ at any one time reflected those changing beliefs. It is not speculation that others were involved, it’s LDS Scripture and teaching. Your own words were ‘from 26 it is reasonable to interpret the passage as a whole to indicate additional participants’.
If that were the case, you would have known of Smith’s changing beliefs and the differences in Scripture which resulted. You would not have been caught out by the contradiction between the BOMs and the BOA, and you would not have had to invent an ad hoc harmonization which you admitted yourself is your own private interpretation, not LDS doctrine.
It’s ironic that you have repeatedly accused me of not knowing LDS doctrine when several of my posts have been almost word for word presentations of content from Ensign articles, and I have even quoted LDS Scripture directly.
I have used the common English convention, referring to God with a capital ‘G’. I have also demonstrated that LDS Scripture refers to ‘capital G’ Gods plural, and that LDS writings sometimes refer to capital ‘G’ Gods and lowercase ‘gods’ without making any formal distinction between the two.
I haven’t proved these?
That LDS Scripture refers to ‘Gods’ (capital ‘G’ gods)
That LDS Scripture contains a contradictory record of the creation (one account says ‘God’ created, another says ‘Gods’ created)
That authoritative LDS commentary on LDS Scripture insists that a council of Gods created
That your interpretation of ‘Gods’ in BOA is your own personal interpretation, not official LDS doctrine (’ I do not know the official position of the Church on this matter, so the following is my personal opinion only, I do not mean to try and tell you what is officially doctrine on this’)
That Smith’s beliefs changed over time, and the various Scriptures revealed differed according to his revelations
That the question of Book of Mormon geography has been absolutely central to the LDS Church ever since the Book of Mormon was published
That over the last century the Church has issued many teachings on the subject through its General Authorities and literature, and hundreds of books have been written by LDS members
That LDS scholars appeal to ANE polytheism in order to defend the LDS belief in gods, plural, who are not the Father, son, or Holy Spirit
I haven’t made any appeals to the audience, still less to STV. I know more about LDS beliefs than he does.
I do know the doctrine on which I comment in this thread. As for knowing the doctrine, look at your own comment on the doctrine under discussion:
[quote=“RDO”]
I do not know the official position of the Church on this matter
, so the following is
my personal opinion only
, I do not mean to try and tell you what is officially doctrine on this.
My reading of Abraham is that “Gods” refers specifically to the pre-mortal Jesus and God the Father. I would assume the use of the plural ‘s’ is because the Holy Spirit was not mentioned there. God+God=Gods in the translation. We are still left with Jesus as God and God the Father as God, but they are still one God. [/quote]
So you’re clearly not the one to be telling me what to believe about this issue.
Elohim is plural. So someone is lying, or wrote down the wrong words.[/quote]
Okay. So then that answers my question. In Judeo-Christianity, talk of multiple gods is a big no-no. There’s one god and one God. End of discussion.
Mormons are not Christians.[/quote]
No, that’s a pretty bad argument. A Christian is someone who believes Christ is the son of God, the Messiah, and who follows (or attempts to follow) the teachings of Christ.
Beyond that, there are a wide variety of beliefs that are possible. You can believe God and Jesus are the same being. You can believe they are different beings but made of the same substance. You can think they are separate individual beings. You can believe they have a divine feline named Hello Kitty.
The nature of God is also debatable among Christians. However, there is a basic definition of God that I think should be met-- that God refers to the Supreme Being and that there is nobody above God. It is also important that Jesus refer to the one recorded in the Bible, not some “Hay sus”, all though details concerning what the Bible means can be widely disagreed on.
Admittedly, some groups consider agreement to some of the councils held by the early Catholic Church to constitute Christianity, but that is them defining themselves as the true Christians. Instead, that should determine orthodoxy with Protestantism and Catholicism.
Christians are also monotheists. And I say that as a Christian who still classifies Mormons as Christians. It’s not consistent of me, but it is charitable since Mormons are polytheists and argue that polytheism was the original orthodox religion of the Hebrews which has been ‘restored’.
No duh. Thread topic is about what Mormons believe.[/quote]
I thought it was Are Mormons Chrisitians?.. but hey if it’s what momons believe then yes. I accept smith is a prophet… for mormons.
I mean why start a thread about what mormons belive… we just leave that up to the mormons to discuss. But as you said before they can belive anything they like. So what does it really matter what mormons or christains or islamists beleive.
Whatever they believe is true for themselves and thats fine by me.
Actually, you quoted a number of them yourself. But I gave you the official LDS website which pretty much gives straight doctrine. Yet, somehow, you don’t accept that.
I’ve already made that clear. 26 and 27 are both correct. God created the universe. He invited others to participate in the creation of man. 27 does not refer to anyone else, but it does not exclude anyone else, either. If you disagree, you’re wrong. The linguistic rules of entailment apply and reading exclusion from that verse is a mistake, one you have made repeatedly in this conversation.
Yes you are. You did so repeatedly. You even make the error of saying Joseph Smith translated “Elohim” differently in Abraham when it was not from Hebrew. You were wrong and you were trying to say the two were the same. Admit your mistake.
Which is another text analysis error. You’re making the same mistake that atheists make when attacking the gospels. They take two accounts and equate them, find a point of difference, and claim they are contradicting each other. But the answer is that they are all in harmony, just relating from a different point of reference or using different terms.
In Genesis/Moses, the author is referring to God’s creation of the universe. In Abraham it goes into more detail including Christ through the referent Gods. (Again, I must admit here that I am giving a private interpretation on this specific point.)
You haven’t shown me one yet.[/quote]
I’ve shown you dozens, but you either just ignore your error or think you didn’t make one and trust your own reading.
All the above arguments were bogus or slanted beyond help. And you’re still wrong. Every time I shut down one of your arguments you crop up another old tired anti-Mormon line that’s been debunked before. I’ve read all about the arguments about the Book of Abraham and you quoted some fabrications that were debunked.
I’m quoting LDS Scriptures, which say ‘the Gods’ created. It’s simple.[/quote]
You are saying that LDS don’t believe Christ created under the direction of God, which is how LDS view the Book of Abraham. You say “Mormons don’t believe X” when I just showed you that they do from the official website. It’s a clear, simple, and basic doctrine of the Church taught all the time and yet you say we don’t believe it.
Why? Because it contradicts your false and discredited argument. You don’t know our doctrine. You can quote our scriptures, but you clearly have your own ideas about what it means to us and that flies in the face of what we really do believe.
It fits. It harmonizes it. You are saying there’s a contradiction when there is none. I explained one possible way it works. Your argument is defeated.
You must show that in official LDS teachings that the word Gods in the Book of Abraham refers to some entity other than Jesus or the Father.
I have been through this with you before.[/quote]
Yes, so don’t bring it up again. I already explained it and you failed to make your point.
Utterly false. Everything I have seen on that website is a perfect description of what Mormons believe and is taught. I’m a Mormon, so I should know. You have decided from reading anti-Mormon sources and listening to internet chat that you know what is taught.
Who are we to believe? A non-Mormon who is trying to disprove the Church or the Church’s official website?
Yeah… so… that’s God the Father and Jesus. God + God=Gods=God. You ignore everything but what you want to see. Modern apostles preach Christ is the creator under God. It was taught thousands of times. It’s what we believe, but you want to understand it a different way and say we have to believe what you think we believe.
No, now you are guilty of telling Mormons what they believe as I said earlier.
If that were the case, you would have known of Smith’s changing beliefs and the differences in Scripture which resulted.[/quote]
Or, I could be aware of how anti-Mormons interpret that to be the case. I don’t think I’ve read a single thing you’ve posted I haven’t read at least once before this discussion. I just see things from a Mormon perspective, while you keep arguing one that is clearly not LDS and trying to call it LDS doctrine.
BOM usually refers to Book of Mormon. You’d know that if you were Mormon. We refer to the Book of Moses as just Moses. However, I wasn’t “caught” by a contradiction. Instead, you were caught in making a poor analysis.
You love to say the word ad hoc. My interpretation of Abraham is in line with everything I know about the gospel. So, I’ve never needed to check to see if it’s been stated officially or not. However, knowing you would likely take what I say and try and repeat it elsewhere and foist it off as what Mormons believe officially, I made it clear that I was not giving you official doctrine here.
The majority of what you write is your words. You quote some Ensign articles and scriptures, but then you go off on what you think we think they mean. And you’re wrong.