Dale

It's true that LDS have a non-disclosure covenant not to discuss the detail's of temple content. I think it's both sacred and secret in some respect's. The sacred not secret explanation never helped me not think it was not also secret. I know publishing the content to non-LDS would not help them accept temple practice. Some would say it's no longer secret, but that they sure do not like what goes on in there. And they would whine that they kept it secret for year's though. You can't win if a person is predecided to be prejudiced against what LDS member's do in the temple. Us RLDS rejected the need for Temple practice. I read Ex-LDS transcript's and saw limited re-enactments in anti-LDS film's. Out of respect for LDS i tell people i do not discuss what they cannot. My response to people who have concern's is just to state my opinion that i think the temple content is beautiful.

I was LDS back in 1979. I was baptized Community of Christ/RLDS in 2005. We had a reputed situation once where Frederick M. Smith had recieved a revelation. And he took it to our twelve apostle's at that time, and they doubted it. So he reportedly ended up re-writing the document. I do not know if the story is true. But Ex-RLDS turned Evangelical R.C. Evan's in an Anti-RLDS book he wrote recalled the event. It bothered him that a prophet would write again a revelation. I could see those in the LDS leadership who firmly supported the policy in the LDS First Presidency, 12 reacting similarly. So if a revelation had been given before Spencer W. Kimball i think pretty confidently it would have been rejected. I think they would feel the revelation if the fictional one had been given earlier that it was of man, or the Devil. I doubt they would feel they would be arguing against God.

I would say you can never know 100% that anything is intellectually true. You can have degree's of confidence the Bible is true. But no amount of book learning will make you 100% confident in anything. Doubt's and question's regarding religion is normal even for the most knowledgable believer's. I am inellectually mostly confident in the Bible. I have a few area's where i have question's about Bible reliability, but not much. I do not see the manuscript evidence against the New Testament reliability that great. I see evidence for New Testament manuscript's as existing far earlier than 200 year's not 400. The original book's are gone but early Christian writer's cited what book's they had. I have read some of the lost book's of the Bible. I do not have a testimony that they are scripture. If the author's of a lost New Testament book was not an Apostle why should i think their book scripture? I have had a life of problem's and turmoil though i am also a good person. I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis i think in 2002. My leg's work, but not enough i can drive anymore. I just know God did not have anything to do with making me ill. Religion will not take away or solve the difficulty of life's problem's.

It is possible to have a false assurance of salvation.

One of the earlier question's raised related to God and sex. It reminded me of reading Floyd Mcelveen's book where that critic did just that. It was his way of trying to get his reader's upset at the LDS idea of a married God, and him having spirit children. I think some of his effort was aimed to upset women readers. He spent a lot of time bashing eternal marriage. That women would be eternally pregnant. He only presented i think Matthew 22 against the idea of marriage in heaven. Jesus gave an answer based solely on the interpretation of law of Moses. Moses law is not the final authority regarding the matter. The law and it's rule's were abolished. Nothing would prevent Jesus from learning something in the afterlife regarding eternal marriage which made his idea of no marriages wong.

Personally i am not upset at LDS thinking God has with his wife spirit children. If they know more than i do about the matter that's ok with me. And i do favor the idea Jesus created spirit's, but it does not matter to me so much whether they are born, or uncreated spirit's as in Joseph Smith's idea. I find the last two ideas as speculative. But i feel some LDS critic's upset by what they regard as endless celestial sex is not something i am upset over. LDS never talk of "endless celestial sex" LDS critic's alone brought together those three words to mock the spirit children idea. I am reading again a book entitled Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith by Floyd Mcelveen. And instead of focusing on the positive aspect's of being spirit children of God he mock's a bunch of time's the wonderful idea of the Heavenly Father and Mother having spirit children together. I recall Gilbert Schwarffs the author of the Truth About The Godmakers saying something about critic's objection to either eternal pregnancy, or the sex. I may have spelled his name wrong. I recall him as writing he was uncertain if LDS official doctrine was clear on whether God's method of having spirit children is the same as man's way of having physical children. I think the question's are great. They indicate areas of concern people have about LDS doctrine. I have not found any church free of what outsider's might think heresy. I do not think Evangelicalism as orthodox as they claim, and i have come to think Mormonism more true than they think.

That's a good clarification.

The basic thing about the Van Hale article is the idea of being born spirit children of God was not Joseph Smith's idea. What became modern official LDS doctrine was based on an early misunderstanding of what he felt in regard's to the matter. I refer to the article if anyone is interested in finding out what Joseph Smith's idea was. The article contain's enough documentation that i see it as hard to argue against. If Van Hale has misunderstood his subject i can't see it. I only disagree with him on a couple of point's. I also pointed to the article only for the information it contain's. Van Hale is LDS and i prefer to let him as an LDS member represent his position. One can easily find LDS who might disagree with him.

Not mentioning seeing the Father is resolved in an article by Bob Bobbitt entitled First Vision: Another Perspective. Restoration Apologetics FAIR Wiki also deal's with various First Vision Issues. Go down until you find Specific First Vision Issues. First Vision accounts - FAIRMormon But at FAIR's wiki i see the problem of the number of person's he mentioned seeing in the 1832 account resolved. The difficulty of the angel's mentioned in the 1835 account was resolved. I never read an account of the vision By Joseph Smith himself that said Moroni appeared in the vision. The FAIR Wiki page has a number of statement's made by other men that mention Joseph Smith saw an angel. If he decided people would object to seeing the Father based on John 1:18 i could see him intentionally not mentioning the detail. It does not mean he lied in later account's though. I am not certain mentioning seeing the Father is a true contradiction. To me it's unfair to accuse a guy of lying just because he contradicted himself if that's what he did. Jesus may have indicated in Luke 24:30 that his spirit body resembled other spirit's. If Jesus had form the Father can also be either a personage of spirit, or of spirit and flesh like the resurrected Jesus. Ether 3:15 has men's mortal bodies created after the image of Jesus pre-mortal spirit. Yet it describe's him and the Father, and Holy Spirit as one God anyway.

Mormon Miscellaneous has an interesting article entitled The Origin of the Human Spirit in Early Mormon Thought by Van Hale. Articles & Papers

Wanderer-Unless you were in an Evangelical church and took a class on witnessing to Mormon's you would not know the arguments. Most churche's i know of have no interest in exposing Mormonism's so called error's. They might disagree with the LDS, but they are no vocal enough to get into that.

I do not see LDS belief as saying Jesus and Lucifer were ever equal's. Lucifer was of lesser position than Jesus when he was still a good angel. Remember Lucifer only became evil at some point. Collossian's 1:15 regarding Jesus pre-existent spirit being firstborn is interpreted by Evangelicals as meaning pre-eminent. I have seen a word study countering that opinion and it does mean born first. Jesus intelligence was uncreated, but i think he had a created body as much as Satan did. I think myself that LDS are wrong about the literal spirit children idea. I am by the way a member of the Community of Christ (formely the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint's.) So i am in a related church to the LDS, but we are two different denominations. I think Jesus created spirits. But indeed the created part's of Jesus and Lucifer can indeed be spirit brothers. I see God's intelligence as alway's existing. I see that as meaning his personality has alway's been around. I understanding LDS belief as saying that intelligence was alway's around. But that at some point the Father had a spirit body, and physical body that whatever part of God was uncreated. I thnk Jesus is two distinuishable from the Father to count as the same being as God. The scripture's mostly seem to require that belief, but not all. Some scriptures like John 17:21,22 seem to treat the Father and Son as two person's defineable like two men are person's. Those who wrote the creed's to escape such clear meaning tried to say the person's of God were like the person's of an actor. They knew the three were not mere role's of God and that Jesus never meant that, but they thought this unbiblical idea harmonized the idea of the person's with mono-theism. I am not certain LDS have ever said Jesus was just a God. I have seen them say he's God. They see him not as the same being as the Father. So that would in a sense make him a God so i do not object to such language myself. Isa. 43:10 is a mono-theistic verse, but i see John 17:21,22 as a departure from that. Only distinct person's can be one in purpose with other person's. Why can't Jesus be both a God and a God? I am not certain Psalm 90:2 require's the belief God was alway's been in the role of God. Psalm 103:17 use's similar language in application to us and that "from everlasting to everlasting" that the mercy of the Lord was upon us had a beginning. Do you have a specific scripture that you feel preclude's Jesus from becoming God at some point? In regards to the Holy Spirit i see LDS as thinking the Holy Spirit is a personage. But that he has much omni-present capabilities so is not limited by him being a personage. The 1835 Lecture's on Faith an early LDS book described the Holy Spirit as the mind of Father and Son. LDS see the Father as being married. Sex and marriage go together. Jesus the man as God may have had sex and may have been married. Jesus was called Rabbi which if i am informed correctly was used in application to married men. In John 11 Jesus called out a woman in mourning which only a husband could do. One guy suggested John 2 has Jesus in charge of the wine which was the duty of the bridegroom. The early part of the chapter treat's Jesus as a guest unless of course some corrupt scribe , or Group couldn't stomach that so changed it. If Jesus is the same God as the Father God and not just a God the Godhead had a physical body that may have had sex. I am not certain the argument's for a married Jesus are valid. But i have never seen LDS critic's who have mocked the opinion of some past LDS leaders that he was ever refute the arguments. The arguments have been around for year's in an LDS book called the Gainsayers by Derrick Evenson. The author is no longer LDS, but his argument's for a married Jesus should not be rejected because people prefer to have Jesus unmarried. I do not see LDS as saying we can be equal to Christ. The person's that become God's in LDS belief are subordinate to the Trinity, or Godhead. The LDS couplet about "As man is God once was and as God is man may become" is not for all the gods. But any independent God will not be before, or after the Godhead except in an independent real that does not compete with God's. LDS do not accept man and God have vast differences. They see Jesus as having a spirit body that resembled the spirits of other men. (Luke 24:39) One scholar i know compared the vastness of God's spirit to that of the ocean. John 4:24 i think Jesus was calling both person's of spirit along with the Holy Spirit as spirit. If Jesus was not formless in-between his death and resurrection that's what he was doing. Why would the Father have to be formless if Jesus as God had form? I am not certain of some of the LDS idea's myself. my denomination does not accept the idea's of men becoming God's. And officially have a Trinitarian view of God. But not being a creedal church we have had much Anti-Trinitarianism also. I am not a real fan of all the Trinity idea myself.

In regard's to Deut 6:4 Jewish apologist's see the idea of the three and one as heresy. Paul basically expanded on the idea of Deut. 6:4 to make allowance for the Father and Son as God. The New Testament treat's the Father and Son as person's which sound's close to the idea they are two God's who are one God. The creedal writer's avoided that understanding by adopting the latin word persona. Basically the person's of God are no more person's than the person's of an actor in a play. So the creed's do not mean the three are person's as three men are person's. God alone is the only person who is God in the creed's. The word they adopted was misleading because the creed's do not say the three are mere rol's of God. The three are aware of each other which i see tri-theistic like. Tri-theism is the idea of three self aware God's. Without the latin word persona i see the creed's blending mono-theism with aspect's closer to tri-theism than the three unaware person's an ancient actor play's in a play via face mask's. The person's of an actor in a play are dumb. I think Jesus in John 17:21,22 meant he thought of himself and the Father as two person's. I doubt he meant it figuratively. I doubt he meant anythink like him and his Father were one God who were like the person's an actor played in a play. To be one in purpose with another you have to be a person yourself. I think the Trinity idea fit's scripture closely at time's, but at other time's not so clearly. With LDS and the poly-theism charge. The idea does include the idea of more than one God. But without that persona word the creedal writer's would have been without the ability to explain how the Father and Son were not two God's like individual's.

The best book on the Trinity i have ever found is Understanding The Trinity by Allister E. McGrath. Many people call thing's heresy because they think their idea's perfectly match the scripture's. The Trinity idea is one idea of God, but i don't see it as an unquestionable idea. With many scripture's they seem to fit the Trinity, but other's i think not so clearly.

I have quite a bit of experience with mainly Evangelical objection's to LDS belief. FAIR has done a masterful job at it's main website and it's FAIR Wiki in answering many such objection's. I kind of like it's reply to 50 common Anti-Mormon question's. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage One Evangelical concern is that LDS don't believe in the Bible alone. And that LDS believe in a different Jesus one of the false one's that Paul warned of.(2 Cor. 11:4) I don't think either objection has merit that i would embrace the closed canon idea, or their Jesus as a better theological Jesus than the LDS Jesus.

Elphaba-That's interesting information.

Elphaba i did not know that. You are more knowledgeable than i am. I never heard that before. But if God knew people would argue with him i could see him waiting on giving a revelation. People around the prophet would have said the prophet got a false revelation. So i could see the Lord waiting for the leadership to be receptive. it would be better than wasting time giving a revelation the other leader's would blame on man, or the Devil. Answers from God come in the form of yes, no, go or pause. David O. McKay sound's to me like he was told to pause. He wasn't told no, but he wasn't told yes, or go either.

Most of the time when the issue come's up it's individual's picking on me, the LDS, and Joseph Smith. They can't see how Joseph Smith could have seen the Trinity, or Godhead as God's with so many scripture's like Isa. 43:10 contradicting that. I think Joseph Smith as one of the root's of his idea rejected the latin word persona. He felt the three were modern person's not the person's of an actor. Modern revelation played a factor, but he doubted the creedal idea of God. The whole purpose of the creedal writer's in adopting the persona word was to harmonize the three person's with absolute mono-theistic idea's. I understand the Trinity. A book i have entitled Understanding The Trinity by Allister E. McGrath helped me understand the idea greatly.

I am community of Christ/RLDS which does not accept D.& C. 132 as scripture. We felt it contradicted the scripture's. The Anti-Restoration writing's i read sometime's as a witnessing ploy hit the reader with lists of reputed contradictions within the standard work's. Or they will try and show a modern LDS, or Community of Christ prophet contradicting the scripture's in what they say. I generally have found though i am not an expert that i can find many personal solution's to so-called contradictions that satisfy me. I see room for seeing a prophet have major or minor view's that disagree with the scripture's. Prophet's are human. They can misunderstand what is in the scripture's are saying like anyone else. So i have found if i find something in an official statement, or publication that i think wrong i don't see that as sufficient reason for rejecting a prophet. The LDS leadership pretty much keep's to popular LDS doctrine. I do not see it likely that an LDS prophet would give a revelation that contradicted the standard works. Any revelation that contained a major contradiction to the standard works would be stopped in the leading quorum's of the LDS Church. Unless the LDS leadership felt it true it would not go to the LDS people.

My copy of the Gainsayer's by Derrick Troy Evenson contained the argument. The author is not LDS anymore. That does not mean the book is not good. Without the original of John we could not check for variants.

Anthony-A spirit body would be a spirit without a body. (Luke 24:39) I would see a spirit body as being in the form of a man, or woman. Zachariah 12:1 has the spirit created by God. That when we die we leave or physical bodies. I had a couple seeming out of body experiences in my life and i felt i had form. I could have hallucinated, but i think Jesus knew the body had an intelligent spirit within it. I see the future resurrected body as being spiritual, but it is not to me the only kind of spiritual body. I think Jesus was a personage or having a spirit body in other word's after he died. After he rose from the dead he was a personage of spirit and flesh. I do not object to God being a personage of spirit. I am not LDS, but Reorganized LDS and we do not see the Father as having a body. With Old Testament appearence's of God LDS and other faith's interpret the scripture's far differently. To some God appeared in form only for the occasion, but has no true form like that of a spirit without a body. I take such experience's more literally so am open to God having form. My church is not creedal, but officially my church endorses the creedal idea of God. But we have had Anti-Trinitarian view's of God also. We arn't a creedal church, so member's can disagree about God. But in the creed's the three person's of God are distinctions within God. And the only personage of flesh would be Jesus resurrected body. The distinctions are distinctions not personages as that would make them distinct being's. Does my long winded explanation help you?

The Book of Mormon appear's to give Jesus the status of Almighty God also. It never treat's worship of the Son as we would the Father improper. Only in 3rd Nephi does the distinction between the Father and Son come out. Ether 3:15 has us created after the image of Christ's spirit body. I do not find the book modalistic as some see it, so i think it likely the Father is a personage also. Though as a Reorganized latter Day Saint i see him as a personage of spirit. I do not care if he had a body as i see room for LDS seeing God as having a body. I was not convinced by the basic Anti-mormon scriptural arguments against God being a personage. I also see the Father and Son as two person's as much as two of us. Jesus in ancient time's and in the D.&C. speak's as if he were the Father's personality. But i doubt the two can be crammed into together into literally the same being, but they pretended in Isaiah to be the same being. Isa.43:10 and other similar Isaiah passages do affirm the exclusiveness of God. I just see that exclusiveness falling apart in the New Testament because i see the Father, and Son as to much person's not to be called person's. The creed's may say they are person's, but that's not what they mean. The person's of God were likened to the person's an actor played in a play via face mask's. The creedal writer's were aware the person's of God were aware of the other person's of God. And that the three were not mere role's of God, but that's how they badly fit the idea with absolute mono-theism anyway. They knew if the three were admitted to be defined as individual's like three men the creed's would wander into teaching poly-theism. God is responsible for letting the Son speak as the Father himself. I do not ask God to explain himself, but unless the Book of Mormon, and Bible has been tampered with God inspired mono-theistic idea's of God. I think we can trust Deut. 6:4 as saying what the original did. I think the idea of the distinct person's of God was kept a mystery back then. Lot's of LDS critic's like to point out how poly-theistic Joseph Smith was. But poly-theism is the idea of more than one God. I don't see the three as being able to be literally the same being. So i see some Biblical poly-theism not the un-qualified mono-theism that's supposed to be there.

I read someone propose John 2 as suggesting Jesus was the bridegroom in the story because he was in charge of the wine. I am not sure that is correct. But the early portion of the text treat's Jesus as an invited guest. It would be an example of a place where a scribe, or group feeling uncomfortable with the idea of a married Jesus could have inserted the invited guest part. Of course i havn't seen any scholar's verify that Jesus had to be the bridegroom just because he had something to do with the wine.

Perhap's the reason is there was no great desire to see if God would earlier change the policy. And i think earlier LDS leader's felt the policy was of God, so they never questioned it. And since they felt God had not spoken to them to lift the black ordination pro-hibition they continued it one prophet after the other. Perhap's Spencer W. Kimball was the first to really desire God to lift the ban. So he was motivated enough to ask God and got a positive clear answer, and the other's wern't motivated enough for change.

You are correct creation ex-nehilo is not just an Evangelical idea. I am not alway's as precise as i need to be. I might doubt the latin word persona, but i see it as the only way to define the three persons as non-person's. They can't be defined in the modern sense as person's or the creedal idea of God wanders into tri-theism. But the creed's also do not teach the three are mere role's of God. Some LDS have misunderstood and thought the Trinity idea made Jesus a ventriloquist at his baptism. That is an bad argument some LDS have raised to prove how absurd the Trinity idea is. John 17:22 say's "that they may be one, even as we are one" which sounds tri-theistic to me. I can't be one in purpose with myself, but only with other people. Yet the three person's of God are supposed to be one in purpose with each other without being three people. With the Trinity idea other than the body of Jesus the spirit part of God must have no form. The three parts of God must exist as part of the same being, and not as two personages. The spirit of God is ever-where present without end to how big God is if i understand the Trinity right. If Jesus in-between his death and resurrection was a personage that would mean he had a spirit body. If he had no spirit body he would be a distinction within God without a spirit body. It is my understading LDS only feel the spirit and physical body of the Father was created. But that his intelligence was uncreated. In my Community of Christ we do not see the Father as having a physical body. My church has a Trinitarian view of God. But not being a creedal church we have had Anti-Trinitarianism also. Those who believed God and Christ were two personages were strict mono-theists. Out of fear of being seen as teaching they were two God's they equivoqated on the deity of Jesus. So that the Father alone was literally Almighty God.