Vanhin

I agree Hemidakota. I think there is actually something to the doctrine, but not as it is understood on the surface. Vanhin

Here's some help from the Guide to the Scriptures on the topic. Concerning the term soul: The scriptures speak of souls in three ways:1 spirit beings, both premortal and postmortal (Alma 40: 11-14; Abr. 3: 23);2 a spirit and a body united in mortality (Abr. 5: 7); and 3 an immortal, resurrected person whose spirit and body have become inseparably connected (Alma 40: 23; D&C 88: 15-16). Guide to the Scriptures: Soul Concerning the term intelligence(s): Intelligence has several meanings, three of which are:1 It is the light of truth which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed.2 The word intelligences may also refer to spirit children of God.3 The scriptures also may speak of intelligence as referring to the spirit element that existed before we were begotten as spirit children. Guide to the Scriptures: Intelligence, Intelligences Those also happen to be my understanding of the terms as I have gained them through scripture study and personal revelation. For those who don't know, the Guide to the Scriptures are included in all the new foreign language missionary editions of the Book of Mormon, and it "can help you answer questions about the gospel, study topics in the scriptures, prepare talks and lessons, and increase your knowledge and testimony of the gospel." (Guide to the Scriptures). Oddly, any equation that treats "intelligence" as something other than light, spirit or spirit element is missing from both the scriptures and the helps. Like many contemporary prophets and apostles have taught, President Hinckley taught that "Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity" (LDS.org - Liahona Article - In These Three I Believe). Spirit (intelligence) + Physical Body = Us right now. Regards, Vanhin

There is a chance that we simply do not understand what Brigham Young actually meant, and he is not here to explain himself. At the same time he gave countless sermons where he taught the proper understanding and doctrine of God the Father. So, why he ever taught Adam-God is just a mystery. :) We can ask him about it later. Vanhin

Brigham Young did teach on only a very few occasions the doctrine called Adam-God. He seemed to believe that he was onto something. However, it was not scriptural then, nor is it now, and it never became the official doctrine of the Church and represents his own personal opinion and speculation. The Church has repudiated the doctrine. One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.[5] In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God: We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.[6] Source For more on the matter see Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God - FAIRMormon. Regards, Vanhin

Seriously, you need to just talk to your husband about it in private. Decide together on what to do from there. If this is a problem that he really has (not just spam), then encourage him to go with you to talk to the bishop in order to start the repentance process at the very least. Regards, Vanhin

"We are then ready to ask our Heavenly Father sincerely, in the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ, if the things we have learned are true. Most of us will not see God, as the prophets have, but the still, small promptings of the Spirit—the thoughts and feelings that the Holy Ghost brings into our minds and hearts—will give us an undeniable knowledge that He lives and that He loves us. Gaining this knowledge is ultimately the quest of all God’s children on the earth. If you cannot remember believing in God or if you have ceased to believe or if you believe but without real conviction, I invite you to seek a testimony of God now. Do not be afraid of ridicule. The strength and peace that come from knowing God and having the comforting companionship of His Spirit will make your efforts eternally worthwhile." (Elder Robert D. Hales, LDS.org - Ensign Article - Seeking to Know God, Our Heavenly Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ) I can find quote after quote from prophets and apostles, and from the scriptures, that say the same thing. You don't have to see to know something. Regards, Vanhin

Thanks. Were your sins actually forgiven? What I mean is, did faith in Christ and full repentance work for you like the scriptures teach that it should? Was the burden of your guilt lifted? Sincerely, Vanhin

That's cool Hemi. Thanks for sharing. However, one can know for sure that God exists without seeing him in this life. The truth is, we have all already seen him. Regards, Vanhin

Hey Hemidakota, Thanks for reading and responding to my post. As Elder Maxwell pointed out, perfect knowledge in the "broadest" sense is not attained until the perfect day. But as Alma pointed out, a perfect knowledge about certain truths can be attained before that time. A perfect knowledge of the reality and existence of God can be attained before that "perfect day", for instance. That is what this thread is about. The OP can attain for himself the knowledge that there is a God in Heaven. By the power of the Holy Ghost, he can hear the voice of the Lord, like many of us here on these forums have already. I myself have a perfect knowledge that there is a God in heaven. I don't have a perfect knowledge of everything, but I do know there is a God. I also have a perfect knowledge that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God. I know this because I strive to live his teachings, and the promised blessings have followed. Through my faith in Christ and His Atonement, I have repented of my sins, and received a remission of my sins. The burden of my sins have been lifted, and my guilt has vanished. So I know with assurety, that Jesus is the Christ. What other proof do I need? The Spirit bears witness to my spirit that He is the Messiah. Regards, Vanhin

I would call it faith, because that is what it was that allowed him to see the finger of the Lord. That's what the Lord said too. So I'm going to stick with that. And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. (Ether 3:9) You don't have to see something to have a perfect knowledge. That is not in harmony with the scriptures. Knowledge that saves us, comes by the power of the Holy Ghost, as the scriptures and prophets (not authors engaged in priestcraft) teach us. However I do agree that Christ shows himself to those who have faith in him, who like Mahonri, know already that God exists, though they may not know all things. Moroni concurs. And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. For it was by faith that Christ showed himself unto our fathers, after he had risen from the dead; and he showed not himself unto them until after they had faith in him; wherefore, it must needs be that some had faith in him, for he showed himself not unto the world. (Ether 12:6-7) Alma teaches that regular old people, who only have a desire to believe, can gain perfect knowledge. When the seed has only sprouted, we can perfectly know that it is a good seed. And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand. (Alma 32:33-34) For anyone reading this. Don't be fooled. You don't need to be at some mysterious pinnacle in your life to know that God exists, and you don't have to see Him to know Him. You can know this thing perfectly by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the process that Alma teaches. Perhaps because of you faith, God will appear to you. That can happen, but if it does not happen in this life, it makes no shred of difference. In the end you will converse with the Lord through the veil, and enter His presence because you have been true and faithful in all things. You will not know any better then than you can know right now, that there is a God. Regards, Vanhin

Well, I hear you. Each case is different. However, if an individual casts the seed aside because of their unbelief, then the experiment ends. How can you expect the desired result if you end the experiment prematurely? If you have not cast the seed aside, and have planted it in your heart, and you nourish it and allow it to grow, then it will grow - if it is a good seed. I'm not talking about Mormonism alone, I'm talking about anything that claims to be truth. In this case more specifically, about the existence of God. But let's take a smaller step than that to begin with. What is something moral or good that you subscribe to? Regards, Vanhin

Knowledge can in deed be obtained, and those who have obtained it are in no better position to cause others to believe their claims than those who have not obtained. However, those who have obtained knowledge, are in a position to instruct others on how they can obtain it for themselves. I'm certainly not making the argument that claiming something makes it so. So, I can't really address that one any more. The Brother of Jared's faith allowed him to see the finger of the Lord. But clearly his knowledge of the physical reality of God was limited enough for him to admit that, "[he] knew not that the Lord had flesh...". So even then, his knowledge was not perfect. He saw the finger of the Lord because of his faith (see verse 9), not knowledge. However, we learn from the record that the Brother of Jared did know something. What was that? He knew that the Lord was a "God of truth, and canst not lie." That knowledge along with his faith, qualified him to be brought back into the presence of the Lord. He didn't know the reality of God any more at that point than before he saw God. You are badly mistaken if you think that individuals must actually see God to know that He exists. If I have misunderstood your point, I apologize. You cannot ignore all the other scriptures, especially the ones I quoted earlier, that teach us that we can indeed know the truth of all things by the power of the Holy Ghost. Let me ask you a question. Have you ever truly repented of your sins, and felt like you were forgiven? Regards, Vanhin

I like this video. Regards, Vanhin

Hey there Intrigued. Belief, or even just a desire to believe is a necessary part of the experiment. Unbelief will render invalid results. I don't understand what it is you are having an issue with exactly. It appears that you think that "having a desire to believe" and "unbelief" mean the same thing. I don't think they are the same thing since desiring to believe is sufficient to reach the desired result and unbelief is not. It is no different than any other experiment. If a child reads in a science book that they can create a multi-step reaction by combining vinegar and sodium bicarbonate, but he uses dirt instead of sodium bicarbonate, when he performs the experiment, then why would he expect the result that the science book promised? That is exactly the same. Faith, or even a desire to believe, is necessary for the experiment that Alma is talking about to produce the desired result. Maybe I am misunderstanding your issue here. Feel free to clarify. Regards, Vanhin

It doesn't matter what kind of knowledge is in question spiritual or otherwise. All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole, and I don't think there is a need to compartmentalize truth. Just like experiments that test the validity of a hypothesis using the scientific method, one can experiment with the word of God, to see if it produces valid results. Alma taught this very thing. "But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." And then, as one who knows, he describes the experiment that yields the desired result. "Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions...[and so forth]" (Alma 32) Regards, Vanhin

Then "know" would be the right word for those who actually know it. Like all other knowledge, this knowledge can be checked, tested, and validated by others as well. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5) The scriptures assure us that knowledge on matters like this can be obtained from God. Alma 32, for example, makes this fact pretty clear. Regards, Vanhin

Yeppers. Pray. Even those who have not yet received the gift of the Holy Ghost, can receive answers to their prayers, by the Holy Ghost no less... Missionaries all over the world count on that fact (Moroni 10:3-5). So, why not you? And don't forget, you have the Spirit of Christ, and if you will heed the dictates of your conscience, you will once again be led to Christ, and full repentace. You can then renew your covenant through the ordinance of the Sacrament, thereby maintaining a remission of your sins. Then the Holy Ghost can dwell in you as that constant Companion that you desperately long for. Regards, Vanhin

And I'll just throw this in there to support my theory. Joseph Fielding Smith said, “When the Savior came to the Nephites, he established the Church in its fulness among them, and he informed them that former things had passed away, for they were all fulfilled in him. He gave the Nephites all the authority of the priesthood which we exercise today. Therefore we are justified in the belief that not only was the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred, but also the Aaronic, just as we have it in the Church today; and this Aaronic Priesthood remained with them from this time until, through wickedness, all priesthood ceased. We may be assured that in the days of Moroni the Nephites did ordain teachers and priests in the Aaronic Priesthood; but before the visit of the Savior they officiated in the Melchizedek Priesthood.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:124-26.) Just like the Church that Christ established in Palestine, the Church in ancient America would have had both priesthoods after his visit. Regards, Vanhin

You are making that up. Explain to me why "teachers" could not administer the sacrament then, but elders and priests could? The evidence clearly points to both priesthoods being in operation among the Nephites. Regards, Vanhin

Hemi, Just follow along with me for a minute. I'm not saying that the Church operated under the Aaronic Priesthood among the Nephites, nor am I saying that Moroni held the Aaronic priesthood. I am saying that based on Moroni chapters 3 and 4, it appears that the Aaronic priesthood was in operation under the direction of the Melchizedek priesthood, much like it is in the Church today, but not exactly. For example, Moroni 3 teaches us that the disciples of Christ were called "elders", which is the proper title for any Melchizedek priesthood in the Church. We are the "Elders of Israel". Specifically it is referring to the twelve disciples as elders, and that they have the authority to ordain "priests" and "teachers", which are offices of the Aaronic priesthood. How do I know those offices ar specifically Aaronic? Becuase of two things. 1) In Moroni 3, priests and teachers are ordained to "preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ". That's fine and dandy, and it can be argued that that is what all priesthood holders are called to do. However, that is very similar to the ordination Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received at the hand of John the Baptist: He specifically mentions the "gospel of repentance" and the "remission of sins" in conjunction with the Aaronic priesthood. 2) In Moroni 4, only elders (Mechizedek priesthood holders) and "priests" can administer the sacrament. The office of "teacher" is not listed. The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church (See Moroni 4) So, clearly, the office of priest and teacher in the Book of Mormon, are Aaronic priesthood offices, since a teacher cannot administer the sacramanet, but a priest can - just like in the Church today. And what you said about Mulek is how I see it too, it is possible that Levites were among the Nephites. But... we obviously don't need Levites to operate Aaronic priesthood quorums in certain circumstance when we have the Melchizedek Priesthood, like in the Church today. I am saying that it appears to me that both priesthoods were in operation among the Nephites according to Moroni 3 & 4, being directed of course, by the disciples of Christ who were "elders" in the Melchizedek priesthood. Regards, Vanhin

Hemidakota, What about my post above? Read Moroni 3-4. Thanks, Vanhin

Hey Snow, Clearly the Church has spoken on the matter and does have an official stand. I never could understand why anyone would make the statement that the Church has no official stand on evolution. Finrock is not the one laying it on thick, the First Presidency is. The following is from the subtitle of the above statement. In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. So, it is expressing the Church's doctrinal position. If you say otherwise you are ignoring the facts presented in the proclamation. Here is a specific excerpt for you to respond to. It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father. True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man. What do you think those two paragraphs are saying, if not the Church's position that our race did not evolve from lower orders of animal creation (evolution)? Regards, Vanhin

Adam was not the first man "ever", just the first man of all mankind on this earth. Clearly God the Father, who is a glorified Man with a body of flesh and bone, was a Man before Adam's tenure on this earth. So, that kind of kills the rest of your reasoning. Plus, I already showed from our scriptures that when God creates a world to place man on, he names the first of all men Adam, and that this process has been going on long before our earth and our Adam. JohnnyRudick's "first American" example is not that far off, IMO. Regards, Vanhin

Right, because some who subscribe to the evolution idea, believe that is what "from the dust of the earth" means, and ultimately a non-human species would have to beget Adam in order for their theory to be true and the scriptures to be true at the same time - since Adam was the first man. This would mean that Adam's parents were not mankind. It is absurd. However, even if I was saying what you thought I was saying, it's not out of harmony with what you were saying. :) Adam's immortal parents, would still be "mankind", same species as we are now. We are the same species of being that God is, though He himself is a glorified Man. Regards, Vanhin

You don't know it wasn't, and I didn't say it was. For those who belive God created man by evolution, I was saying that only mankind can beget mankind. In other words, "IF" Adam was born he was born to a man and a woman, not to another species. I was trying to demonstrate that evolution cannot be the way God created Adam. Regards, Vanhin