Finrock

Good afternoon fatguy! I hope you are doing well. :) I don't mean to question your motives, but based simply on the content of your posts, you are using emotive and negatively charged words and phrases in your questions and comments about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In your posts you have also setup false dichotomies. It seems, based on simply the content of your posts, that you have already drawn unfavorable conclusions before you have asked the questions. I would suggest, politely, that a person such as you who is sincerely seeking answers and researching the LDS church, that instead of drawing conclusions, setting up false dichotomies and using emotive and negative phrases and terms in your discussion about the church, you present your language in a less judgmental and in a more respectful fashion. Again, I trust when you say you are sincere, so I'm only pointing out how your language on this forum is coming off. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good morning Seminarysnoozer! I hope you are doing well today. :) This is an old debate, but it is this part that I've never been able to make sense of. I understand that you may not have a perfect answer to my following questions, but I simply am asking what your understanding is and how you envision or think about these things when you are thinking about them. So, what do you understand this "material" to be by which spirits were formed? Why do you think it is called "intelligence" rather than "spirit matter"? I guess what I really want to know, according to your understanding, is that this "intelligence material" by which spirits are formed, does it have actual intelligence and self awareness, or is it just "material" and no awareness exist before it is formed in to a spirit body? Regards, Finrock

Hello brother! :) I think this post is confusing the argument that is being made. Justice's postion doesn't seem to be one of "existence" but rather about a "state of existence." The question is not did Jesus exist prior to becoming a spirit child of Heavenly Father, but was Jesus the Anointed One before He was a begotten spirit child of Heavenly Father? Further, if Jesus Christ is the Savior of all (defining all in the absolute terms you seem to be using) of mankind, is Jesus then the Savior of Heavenly Father? These aren't rhetorical questions and I invite anyone who has an interest to answer them. I don't believe that Justices position is about trying to bend truth to fit any temporal comprehension but simple a question of logic. Also, I think it is unfair to label Justice's argument as one that is being made to fit a temporal comprehension as opposed to the alternate view that you are postulating. It is a matter of each one coming from different theological and soteriological views and consequently postulation differing ontological perspectives. One important aspect that I see that is being ignored is that Justice is defining "eternity" as an epoch or generation of time. This is an important distinction and is supported by scripture. Your position seems to define eternity as a never ending continuity, which also has scriptural support. But, I think scriptural speaking, the view that eternity deals with an epoch or a generation of time rather than a never ending continuity, is a strong case. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Justice. I hope you are enjoying your day! :) If you are stating that the Lorenzo Snow "model" suggests that God the Father once acted as a savior, then I just wanted to point out that the Lorenzo Snow model as described in the Mormonwiki page does not postulate that God the Father once acted in the role of a savior. In fact, the model denies that God the Father was a Savior on another earth and states that Jesus' atonement was universal and boundless. Regards, Finrock

I firmly subscribe to the Lorenzo Snow theory as it is explained at the link provided by mikbone (link). Regards, Finrock

Unless we deny that Jesus Christ is a spiritually begotten son of Heavenly Father, then there was a time when Jesus did not command the authority and power of the Father. But, we know that, "[a]ll mankind are his [Jesus'] brothers and sisters, for he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim" (Guide to the Scriptures: Godhead). Further, Jesus made it clear during His mortal ministry that His authority and doctrine was derived from the Father. Said Jesus, the "Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand" (John 3:35; see also; John 5:19, John 7:16, John 8:28, Guide to the Scriptures: Godhead). Why would the Father need to give all things to Jesus if Jesus possesed these things "eternally"? In any case, Jesus made these statements for several reasons but one of which was to demonstrate to His believers that just as He has been given all things by His Father, we too, can receive all things by attaching ourselves to His lineage, by become His (Jesus') sons and daughters. Our missionary discussions and Gospel Principles manual make it clear that the Plan of Happiness is our Heavenly Father's plan, and new members (and sometimes long time members) are often corrected when they call the Plan of Happiness, Jesus' plan. It is the Father's plan. Scripture and other official sources makes it clear to me that Jesus did not always possess authority of himself, but that He possess it because it is derived and given to Him from the Father, who chose Jesus to be the Anointed One. Jesus works under the direction of the Father, to whom Jesus has commanded us to give deference and all glory. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Steve. It is a pleasure to meet you. I hope all is well with you today! :) I think the point that Vanhin is making is not that God used artificial insemination to impregnate Mary, rather that if mere imperfect mortals are able to impregnate a woman without her having intercourse, then surely God, the greatest of all, should have no problem causing Mary to become pregnant while she remains a virgin. If she had sexual relations with Heavenly Father, she could not be a virgin. Mormon doctrine is that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. This lays to rest any idea that Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon hordak. I hope you are doing well today! :) Heavenly Father is a man. He is actually the epitome of Man. It could be argued that we, imperfect mortals, are not Man. He is the Man of Holiness. If we want to be a true Man then we must become like God. Regards, Finrock

Good morning Justice. I hope you are doing well today! :) I guess with my original posting I wanted to establish that God works within periods of time. I think that we can infere from the fact that there was a finite amount of people in heaven prior to the creation even though God says that His creations are without end, that there are periods, or epochs, of creation. I do not believe that all of Heavenly Father's children were present at the counsel in heaven that was for those of us who have been, who are, or who will be residents of this earth. I also think that we use the word infinite in a too abosolutist fashion when evidence indicates that this use of the word infinite isn't justified scripturally speaking. I wanted to also ask if you will expand upon the idea of infinite in scripture being associated with the Priesthood? Regards, Finrock

How does scripture use the word "infinite"? What does it mean in a scriptural context? Regards, Finrock

Hello Seminarysnoozer. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) No, I wanted to see if anyone had an argument for the "host of heaven" spoken of in scripture to be infinite. So far it seems that the consensus is that this existence only represents a finite number of God's children. Regards, Finrock

What is 1/3 of infinity? Regards, Finrock

Good evening Traveler. I hope you are doing well today! :) I would like to ask a question for clarification. I'm not absolutely certain why at this point, but at a gut level I am skeptical of your position here. However, to further clarify your position I wish to ask if you are contending that all choices mortals make are never completely informed choices? Thank you for your time. Regards, Finrock

Good evening sd22! I hope all is well with you. :) I'm uncertain as to what you mean. Please, will you tell me in a different way what specifically are you speaking to and what can you not believe? Thank you for your time. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon WmLee. I hope you are enjoying your afternoon! :) Either intentionally or unintentionally you have ridiculed the Traveler. I don't believe his question is "stoner" talk. It is a legitimate philosophical question as to what is "choice"? And, you don't have to smoke pot in order to think it so. The Traveler's premise, I believe, is that we do not have full knowledge and therefore he concludes that we can not have real choice without full knowledge. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? Regards, Finrock

Good morning sd22. It is a pleasure to meet you! I hope you are doing well today. :) I only wanted to share some of my thoughts that I had when I read your post. I've heard similar sentiments from many different people over the several years that I have been actively involved in the church. I've also served a mission. On my mission is when I was exposed to many arguments and alleged evidences against the church. When I returned home from my mission I explored all of the negative things I heard about the church. I've had discussions since then with many more people and have been introduced to new contentions against the church. I've studied church history. I've read accounts and histories from many people that shed a negative light on Joseph Smith. In short, I believe I have had access to the same set of data that you and all others in the world have had access to in regards to the church and I have not kept my head burried in the sand. I faithfully explored everything that I have ever come across that has been a potentially dilemma to the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have ignored none of it. And in each case, each instance, and everytime, without fail, I have come up from my exploration, my studies, and diggings with a stronger faith and a greater assurance that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indeed the true church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is a prophet, and so forth. My faith has always increased. My point? The data is the same, the only variable is the individual. Kind Regards, Finrock

Hello ErikJohnson. It is a pleasure to meet you! I hope you are enjoying your afternoon. :) I dont't think that the scripture in Jude is speaking to a type of contending that we might normally associate with in our current times. Also, the context of Ballard's counsel and that of the Book of Mormon is that to "contend with anger" is of the devil and not that all contention is of the devil. Now, it is true that two or more parties can "contend" in a civil and respectful manor. However, the tendency has been, at least in my experience, for some non-LDS groups or people to justify uncharitable conduct, words, and actions by using scriptures such as Jude, proclaming they are only "earnestly contending for the faith." Now, if you read the full chapter of Jude, you find that in later verses the counsel is in fact that we should show mercy and Christian love even towards those that are sinners and blasphemers. In short, the counsel is to love the sinner but hate the sin. I think that all in all your position is setting up a false dilemma. In fact the LDS position is that we are to strive earnestly to keep the gospel of Christ pure and to stand up for what is right in a charitable way, heeding the promptings of the Spirit and acting according to those promptings. But I think we earnestly contend for the faith moreso by actually living the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than in trying to intellectually defeat our opponent in a battle of wits and scholarly supremacy. Kind Regards, Finrock

Hello Jamie123. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) Your assumptions are based on scientific assumptions on what they believe people understood back in the olden days. For instance just recently archeologist found bones that had clearly been amputated in which "cientists found that a remarkable degree of medical knowledge was used to remove the left forearm of an elderly man about 6,900 years ago..." (Source). So, my point being that we often underestimate the knowledge and intelligence of people who lived thousands of years ago supposing that they did not know or recognize scientific facts that we now do. Therefore it is merely a personal speculation to assert that Abraham was using the term "star" generically instead of in a specific way to designate what we now understand a star to be. Regards, Finrock

Hello WmLee. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) Which part(s) of my comments did you think were wrong, mistaken, or misinterpreted? Regards, Finrock

Hello mysticmorini! I hope you are doing well today. :) When a man receives the Melchizedek priesthood, they receive it with an oath and a covenant. Partial to this oath and covenant is that a Melchizedek priesthood holder will serve as a missionary...forever. For a Melchizedek priesthood holder, serving a mission is a commandment. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon OmahaLDS. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) I believe that the last couple of sentences in the Proclamation to the Family qualify as commandments to government and nations: "[W]e warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." Regards, Finrock

I'm not trying to drag this little spat any further than it needs to be, but since I don't know of any other place to post this, I'm going to make my comments here and then keep quite about this. I'm not understanding the level of disparage being directed at volgadon. Now, I can understand the fact that this forum has a very specific purpose and strict rules as to what types of comments and questions can be raised. However, apart from that, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with volgadon's questions and comments. In fact some venue to allow points brought up by thekabalist to be peer reviewed can only be a good thing. Let me make it clear that I understand that thekabalist is not making truth claims. He is simply providing his perspective which he admits is speculative. However, why could we not allow others to explore these perspectives to see if perhaps they do have some scholarly value. Maybe not in this forum, but create another forum where thekabalist speculations and commentary can be further explored. Not for the sake of calling in to question the intergrity of thekabalist, but imagine if some of the claims that thekabalist has made can be confirmed by scholarly analysis? Anyways, I think volgadon is being treated unfairly and is being disparaged simply because he might disagree and that to me is the greater offense. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good morning thekabalist! I hope you are having a great day. I wanted to ask for your opinion on something that Nephi stated in the verse below from 1 Nephi 14. I hope you don't mind. I've bolded the point that I wanted to ask about. If you note, Nephi states that those who are disobedient will be utterly destroyed but he makes a point to specify that this doesn't mean it will be "the destruction of the soul." In your opinion, why do you think Nephi emphasises this point? What significance coming from a Jewish perspective, if any, would you place on this thought? Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon thekabalist! I hope you are doing well today. I wanted to comment on this quote from Resh Lakish. Later in the Book of Mormon Lehi, the father of Nephi, said the following: "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy" (2 Nephi 2:25). Unlike much of the rest of Christendom, the LDS believe that the fall of Adam and Eve to be a necessary and also a desirable event, without which, like Lehi states, the rest of us could not be because Adam and Eve could not have children until after the Fall. It appears from the Resh Lakish quote that this idea, atleast, was not foreign to ancient Judaism. Regards, Finrock

thekabalist, It is a pleasure to meet you. I am Vanhin's little brother. Vanhin has talked much about his interactions with you and your comments and posts both at Christianforums and here. I have since been reading your commentary and insights and it has been a great pleasure. Insofar as your comments concerning Lehi's Dream, I'm impressed with what you've provided as a possible meaning of the text. In particular, I find your comments on what the rod of iron means to be amazing, especially given the fact that you have not read the Book of Mormon before and have not been taught the Mormon understanding of these things. We understand, as Nephi later indicates, that the rod of iron represents the Word of God. Anyways, I wanted to introduce myself and thank you for taking so much of your time to add your commentary and other thoughts. I look forward to more. :) Kind Regards, Finrock