Vanhin

I guess I'm curious as to what motivated the councils to adopt such a cumbersome doctrine to comprehend and explain, in face of direct statements from the Savior in the Bible that teach otherwise. Was/is it motivated by the desire to maintain a perceived monotheism at all cost? Or what is it? It seems it would have been far more consistent with the words in the New Testament to adopt a "one in purpose" understanding instead. Like how a married couple should be one (Gen. 2:24). Or like how we can become one with the Father like the Son is one with Him. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: (John 17:22) I used to think that last scripture I quoted was our ace in the hole, but Trinitarians never address that scripture, when it seems so plain. Any thoughts? Regards, Vanhin

So, how different is what Bishop Arius taught than what the Savior teaches in the Bible? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. (Luke 18:19) Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28) Regards, Vanhin

Oops. Indeed.

I think racial bias (racial favoritism) is a very unlikely reason for the ban, considering the fact that the only people affected by the ban were blacks of African decent (Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood - FAIRMormon). I make this point every time the discussion comes up. Blacks and people of color from other lineages were not banned from the priesthood. This includes Australian aborigines and some people from Southern India, who can be "blacker" in skin color than Africans. They were allowed to receive the priesthood and participate in all ordinances. Also, racial bias is unlikely precisely for the reason I mentioned in an earlier post, God allowed the practice until the revelation in 1978. It was His will, as far as I am concerned, we just don't know the reason for it. Regards, Vanhin

Jews can be either 1) descendants of Judah, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, 2) people of the ancient southern kingdom of Judah, or 3) people who practice the religion, life-styles, and traditions of Judaism but may or may not be Jewish by birth. It has become customary to use the word Jew to refer to all the descendants of Jacob, but this is a mistake. It should be limited to those of the kingdom of Judah or, more especially today, those of the tribe of Judah and his associates. (Guide to the Scriptures: Jews) Vanhin

Well obviously what he said applies to everyone in the Church, even if he was specifically addressing the comments of past leaders. The caution to not teach speculation as doctrine surely applies to all of us, and not just on this topic. Regards, Vanhin

By the same token, we shouldn't perpetuate the notion that the priesthood ban was a mistake. That notion is not substantiated by even Elder Holland's remarks. Elder Holland's point is that we do not know the "reason" for the ban, and that any attempts to give reason are futile, since God has not given a reason. He suggests that it would have been better for the saints to simply accept the policy on faith, like other religious matters (such as the word of wisdom). It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. Also, Elder Holland does not completely close the door on some of the speculation. For example, in the following quote he says we must not teach certain things until we know more about them Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ... Regards, Vanhin

To illustrate that the Bible is the first source for the doctrine concerning the plurality of Gods, here's a quote from a 2nd century church father. These are the words: ‘And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.’ In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us,’ [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, (Justin Martyr comments to Trypho Chapter LXII) Regards, Vanhin

That's interesting. Also it's worth noting, for trivia's sake if nothing else - that the Arabic word for God, "Allah" is a cognate of El, or Eloah. As is the Aramaic Elaha and the Syriac Alaha. Regards, Vanhin

The paradigm found in our scriptures, was introduced in the Bible first. From an LDS perspective the book of Moses validates the precedent set by the original text of Genesis, that plainly establishes a plurality of Gods. Just like the book of Moses reaffirms the plainly established doctrine found in Genesis that man, both male and female, was created in the image and likeness of God. So it cannot be said that there is little Moses can do to help from an LDS perspective. Perhaps the case could be made that there is little Genesis can do to settle the matter, but not Moses. Or that there is little anyone can do to settle the matter without resorting to modern revelation. Logic and reason alone will not convince the hearts of our sectarian friends. We should rather use the tools God prepared for that purpose, such as the Book of Mormon, and our other scriptures. It's far more important to establish the authority of those works first, before trying to convince them of the doctrines peculiar to our understanding of the Bible. Regards, Vanhin

Unless, of course, we utilize the book of Moses from the PoGP. :) And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. (Moses 1:33-34) Though thekabalist did not accept the book of Moses as authoritative to Jews, he did accept it as an ancient Hebrew volume that bore similarities to the relatively recently discovered book of Enoch. I wish he was still around. Regards, Vanhin

Well, I think Brigham Young was awesome. He's one of my favorites. I also think it is inaccurate to characterize the policy that banned blacks of African decent from the priesthood as a "mistake". It was a mistake for some to profess that the ban would not be lifted in this life time, and some of the reasons given for the ban were mere speculation, but there's no indication that the Church views the actual policy as a mistake. The ban endured, despite the numerous prayers of the saints and their prophets for years. It wasn't until God, by revelation, approved the lifting of the ban that it was lifted. I accept Joseph Smith through Spencer W. Kimball as prophets of God. So, I cannot conclude anything else except that it was God's will that it endured as long as it did. Regards, Vanhin

Hey Nathan6329, You are welcome here, and you are welcome to ask questions. Just relax. You don't even have to worry about the comments that you don't like. Read them if you wish, or not, and just move on. beefche was just making the point that in her opinion we shouldn't feel the need to defend our faith. That's just her opinion and suggestion, nothing to get upset about. I'm sure there are others who disagree with her. :) The whole idea about lds.net, for example, and the More Good Foundation is based on the call to not let others define our faith. In a way, to engage in this endeavor in the slightest, means we are "defending" the faith. Now that doesn't mean we need to be "defensive", and we shouldn't be. We can be more useful when we listen to one another, and practice tolerance and respect towards the beliefs of others. If we do it in the spirit of love and respect, we can actually help correct false information about us, and build understanding with those of other faiths. Regards, Vanhin

There are three individual persons in the Godhead. Each is a God, and they are "one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth" (see Mosiah 15:1-4). I believe in all three, and I worship the Father and the Son, in Spirit and truth. And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things. ... And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; 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 Ne. 25:16,29) The following link is a good reference as well. Guide to the Scriptures: God, Godhead And this gospel classic is so full of inspired insight. The Father and the Son - Ensign Apr. 2002 Regards, Vanhin

I would go to my home teachers and say "Hey, when are you going to come visit us?". Nothing wrong with that. Vanhin

Satan tells us two big lies. First, he tries to convince us that to sin is okay, or just once won't hurt (2 Ne. 28:8). Then once we are stuck in a life of sin, he tells us that we have gone too far and that we cannot repent enough. They are lies, plain and simple. Are There Points of No Return in Our Lives? Satan, “the father of all lies” (2 Nephi 2:18), “the father of contention” (3 Nephi 11:29), “the author of all sin” (Helaman 6:30), and the “enemy unto God” (Moroni 7:12), uses the forces of evil to convince us that this concept applies whenever we have sinned. The scriptures call him the “accuser” because he wants us to feel that we are beyond forgiveness (see Revelation 2:10). Satan wants us to think that when we have sinned we have gone past a “point of no return”—that it is too late to change our course. ... My dear young friends, when the captain of a long-range jet passes the point of safe return, and the headwinds are too strong or the cruising altitudes too low, he might be forced to divert to an airport other than his planned destination. This is not so in our journey through life back to our heavenly home. Wherever you find yourselves on this journey through life, whatever trials you may face, there is always a point of safe return; there is always hope. You are the captain of your life, and God has prepared a plan to bring you safely back to Him, to your divine destination. (LDS.org - New Era Article - Is There a Point of No Return?) I submit that whatever it is that one might have done, anything you can think of - even if you think you have blasphemed against God, and you still have a desire to return, do not give in. Sure, you might suffer the consequences of your sins, but I would not stop crying unto the Lord for forgiveness, and I would not stop trying to change my heart and make restitution before that great day of jugement, when we will be raised up and brought before the judgement seat of God. Whatever your final resting place will be, you are not going to be any worse off for trying to repent. :) Have faith in Jesus Christ and in his Atonement. Believe that it is sufficient to save even you from your sins, on conditions of full repentance, and then devote your life to working out your salvation with fear and trembling before the Lord. Remember the murderous people who became Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who once converted, buried their weapons of war so that they would never use them to shed the blood of their brethren again. You too can bury your weapons of war, and demonstrate to God you willingness to avoid the sin that plagues you now. We need a strong faith in Christ to be able to repent. Our faith has to include a “correct idea of [God’s] character, perfections, and attributes” (Lectures on Faith [1985], 38). If we believe that God knows all things, is loving, and is merciful, we will be able to put our trust in Him for our salvation without wavering. Faith in Christ will change our thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are not in harmony with God’s will. True repentance brings us back to doing what is right. To truly repent we must recognize our sins and feel remorse, or godly sorrow, and confess those sins to God. If our sins are serious, we must also confess them to our authorized priesthood leader. We need to ask God for forgiveness and do all we can to correct whatever harm our actions may have caused. Repentance means a change of mind and heart—we stop doing things that are wrong, and we start doing things that are right. It brings us a fresh attitude toward God, oneself, and life in general. (LDS.org - New Era Article - Is There a Point of No Return?) Regards, Vanhin

The light of Christ is a significat part of our existence and progression. One of the terms in scripture used to describe it is intelligence and it has always existed (D&C 93:29). Divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. It is the law by which all things are governed in heaven and on earth (D&C 88:6–13). It also helps people understand gospel truths and helps to put them on that gospel path which leads to salvation (John 3:19–21; 12:46; Alma 26:15; 32:35; D&C 93:28–29, 31–32, 40, 42). The light of Christ should not be confused with the Holy Ghost. The light of Christ is not a person. It is an influence that comes from God and prepares a person to receive the Holy Ghost. It is an influence for good in the lives of all people (John 1:9; D&C 84:46–47). One manifestation of the light of Christ is conscience, which helps a person choose between right and wrong (Moro. 7:16). As people learn more about the gospel, their consciences become more sensitive (Moro. 7:12–19). People who hearken to the light of Christ are led to the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 84:46–48). (Light, Light of Christ) Regards, Vanhin

Sorry, I've been stuck in facebookland posting old mission photos from the Finland Helsinki Mission - it's been great! I'll just use this same thread. Here's another great quote on creation and the purpose thereof. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received--of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. -Justin Martyr (AD 150-155) Regards, Vanhin

I have really been intrigued with the writings of Justin Martyr, the 2nd century philosopher turned Christian, whose works are among the earliest surviving Christian writings of the old world. In fact, I have had a hard time finding many things that he writes that disagrees with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, leading me to believe that he was a representation of true Christianity whose dwindling numbers were on the verge of general apostasy. At the very least, he was not far removed from the lines of authority and full fellowship. His arguments against the growing popularity of trinitarian concept of Godhead, and his compelling arguments for the reality of literal resurrection, are among my favorites. I may post something about those in another thread. But this time I wanted to quote Justin from his "First Apology" to the Romans concerning personal agency and predestination. Here it is. "But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made." (Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)) Justin could have taught that particular doctrine in one of our sacrament meetings and we all would have said "amen". Regards, Vanhin

Here's you problem. Adam partaking of the Tree of Life prematurely is not the same thing as "choosing God". Had adam reached forth and partook at that time, he would have forever been separated from God, not having been redeemed from the fall first. Partaking of the tree of life at that point was not an option and it was God who prevented it. That's just how it is. You mistakingly think that God placing the guard would prevent Adam from choosing God, thus taking away his agency. That's the mistake you are making. Adam could and did choose God, the only way that is possible - the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Like those in Lehi's vision, Adam traversed the strait and narrow path, held on to the iron rod, and ultimately partook of the tree of life, but he did so after having been redeemed by the power of the Only Begotten first. So, he did have the agency to choose God, even though he was prevented from partaking of the tree of life prematurely. Each of us has the same choice in life, but none of us has early access to the tree of life. The way is guarded by sentinels. Regards, Vanhin

God made coats of skin for them and drove our first parents out of the garden, and immediately placed the guard to keep the way of the tree of life, lest they return and partake of it and live forever in their sins. God prevented them premature access to the Tree of Life after the fall, so that they would have a chance to work out their salvation through the Atonement first. It's all really very simple. Everyone of us will have immortality through the resurrection. That choice was made by us already in the pre-mortal world. Our agency here and now, is about determining the condition, or glory of that immortality. We have been given time to prepare for that day of judgment. Regards, Vanhin

It was not possible for our first parents to partake fo the Tree of Life prematurely after Jehovah placed Cherubim and a flaming sword specifically to prevent them from doing so. They were left to die, as God promised, so that they could be resurrected through the merits of Christ. They were prevented from partaking in order to buy them some time, so that they would have a chance to repent and be redeemed from their sins before the day of their resurrection. Regards, Vanhin

Well, I think it can be established from the scriptures that people can have an appointment to die. For example, the scriptures teach us that a priesthood blessing will heal a person if he has faith, but only if he is not appointed to die at that time. And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed. (D&C 42:48) Regards, Vanhin

Yeah, to us displays of religion so openly are borderline priestcraft, but I think to much of his audience, that is the preferred delivery method. I personally think he should stick with politics and keep the religious sermons to a minimum - not that he should be afraid to speak about his faith or anything. But then again, I think he is making the point that faith and religion in our daily lives should not always have to be on the back burner, and that it does need to be a part of our system of values as Americans. Regards, Vanhin

I like Glenn Beck. I agree with him on many issues, and I'm glad there is a voice like his out there today. I'm glad he is a Latter-day Saint. I think he is doing what Church leaders have encouraged all of us to do, and that is be involved. He just happens to have a job where he is heard by many people. He's not "the prophet", but like many other people in history LDS and non-LDS alike, who have proven pivotal, I think Glenn Beck is an important player in matters concerning our country. I believe he is just as susceptible to inspiration as our founders were, or any of the noble civil rights leaders and individuals of the past. I think he represents many people who are like me, or who feel the way I do about things, and he gives us a voice. Though I consider myself an outspoken person, when my opinion is asked, but I don't really take to the streets and make a big deal out of it. We're not generally the "activist" types. So, for many involved, this is a new process - yet they have conducted themselves peacefully at every turn. I would like to consider the issues that people have with Glenn Beck, but I have yet to even see anything except ridicule and personal attacks against him. What does he say that you disagree with? Let's just talk about it. On the issues, I think if you disagree with Glenn Beck, you are most likely disagreeing also with W. Cleon Skousen and Ezra Taft Benson (among others) who hold the same views about the direction our nation has been taking. Those are among the many who have greatly influenced Glenn Beck's views. Regards, Vanhin