Finrock

Members
  • Posts

    1174
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Finrock

  1. If we were not conscience or individuals prior to being born as spirit children of Heavenly Parents, then the idea that we are co-eternal with God becomes nonsense. It also means there was a time when Jesus Christ did not exist. Jesus Christ is the firstborn spirit child of Heavenly Father. He is our brother. If what you claim is true, you are necessarily conceding that at some point Jesus Christ was not conscience nor was He an individual, hence he did not exist. One can't claim at this point that Jesus Christ has existed forever because his spirit matter (without conscience) has existed forever. This is like saying the Sears Tower has existed forever because it's matter has existed forever. Jesus Christ is a person and an individual. Spirit matter without conscience, is not. How can we contend as members of the Church that Jesus Christ has no beginning or no end if he has not always had a conscience or has not always existed as an individual. Saying that he existed as some spirit matter without conscience or individuality doesn't salvage the dilemma. It is just a technicality and a sham. Imagine this dialouge: Mainstream Christians: Isn't it true that Mormons believe Jesus Christ didn't always exist? Mormon: No, this is false. We believe Jesus Christ has existed forever......But, he didn't always have a conscience nor was he always an individual, but the spirit matter he is made of always has existed! Clearly the Mainstream Christian would hardly accept this as a satisfactory answer to their question. He would be more certain than ever, and rightfully so, that Mormons do not believe Jesus has existed forever. For a person to exist forever necessitates conscience and individuality, and not just the claim that their fundamental substance of which they have been made of has existed forever. It's just nonsense to claim otherwise. If Jesus Christ has existed as a conscience individual forever, then so have we. If Jesus Christ has not existed as a conscience individual forever then neither have we and neither has Heavenly Father. No special pleading allowed. Regards, Finrock
  2. I believe this: "...God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. 'The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.'" I also believe this: Scripture uses two primary terms in relation to this subject. Each term is related but has a different connotation and cannot necessary be used interchangeably: intelligence Intelligences Intelligence is light and truth. Spirit matter is intelligence because it is the substance of which Intelligences are composed of and it is only Intelligences that are capable of discerning light and truth. Some useful definitions: Intelligence: the ability to reason Mind: the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons Intelligences are eternal thus making intelligence eternal. Intelligences are "minds and spirits." If Intelligences are capable of discerning light and truth; if they are "minds", and if they are capable of enlargement, they must be sentient, and sentient eternally so. This much is obvious to me from scripture and from the words of the prophets, especially Joseph Smith. We are co-eternal with God. We are eternal in the same way as God is, except with less intelligence. God, being in the midst of Intelligences that were lesser than He is, acted out of His perfect love to lift us up and to enlarge our station. Lastly, I believe this We are the literal spiritual offspring of God. When a husband and wife join and produce a biological body, they are not producing the Mind or Intelligence of that person who is to be born in to mortality. Yet, there is no question that we are the literal offspring of our earthly parents. In the same way, that we are literally the spiritual offspring of Heavenly Parents does not contradict the truth that we are also eternal Intelligences/Minds, with sentients and the capacity to reason, to think, to perceive, etc. To deny the eternal nature of the sentients or mind of man, in my view, is untenable doctrinally and logically. But, more importantly to me, this understanding that I have described, more than any other understanding, makes the most sense and glorifies Heavenly Father the most and diminishes Him not at all. Kind Regards, Finrock
  3. Hello Alicia. I hope you are doing well today. I'm happy for your decision to be baptized. Also, I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to answer your question and concern. My advice is to answer the question honestly, no matter what. If you have ever done those things, confess them and be done with them. If you have repented and those things are no longer a part of your life then you are ready to be baptized. As Vanhin pointed out, the sins that are addressed in that question are serious enough that they would require members to confess them to the proper priesthood authority. In the same way you will have an opportunity to confess them to the proper priesthood authority for no other purpose than to get those things completely off of your chest and to make sure they are bygones. It is part of the preparation of being "born again". Look at it as an opportunity to leave all of the "sinful self" behind as you begin a new life. Regards, Finrock
  4. Good afternoon GlenbrookSouth! To answer your question: It does not mean that people who do not follow the LDS church will be going to hell. What it does mean is that anyone, whether members of the Church or not, who choose not to follow Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, will receive a reward based on the life they led, but they will not be able to live with God in his presence. The LDS church believes in various degrees of heaven, so to speak. We call them Degree of Glory. They are the Celestial Kingdom, Terrestial Kingdom, and Telestial Kingdom. All of these are a form of salvation. So, most people will not go to "hell", but will receive some degree of God's glory to enjoy forever. Even the most vile of people have an opportunity of enjoying some degree of glory, but only those who choose to follow Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will be able to live in the highest degree of glory, the Celestial Kingdom. I hope this answered your question and was helpful. Regards, Finrock
  5. Greetings Traveler! I have quick answers because I have little time, so I hope you excuse this reply if it is sloppy in it's presentation. Q: When is a government justified in using force? A: If an individual is justified in using force, then a government is justified in using force. (I know, it begs the question, but I can elaborate later...) Q:Is the use of force - in essence socialistic? A: I don't see the connection. Q: Who decides what is best for the society and how that society is governed? A: The people to be governed, limited by the inalienable rights of the individual. Q: What is the meaning of the word govern and what is a government? A: I would say to govern is to execute the will of the people governed and to protect the inalienable rights of such. A government is any person or persons who have been delegated by the governed to protect the people's inalienable rights. Q: Who in any government is free? Who should be free? A: What is freedom? What does it mean to be free? This needs to be defined first. Regards, Finrock
  6. Elphaba, Thank you for responding. First, I think there is just some mix up that has occurred. Just as Vanhin pointed out, the paragraph you feel I deleted, is actually from another post in this thread and it is still there. Also, I still do not think those last two quotes fit with what I was saying in the previous paragraph. I had suggested we define terms we intend to use and then use the definitions we agreed to use consistently. I then asked "Do you agree with this suggestion?" It doesn't make sense then for me to follow-up that question by stating "If you do not agree with them..." I didn't ask you to agree with anything that was plural. I had only asked if you agree with this one suggestion. And the second quote is even more out of place, as I wasn't giving any interpretation of the Church's position or anything such. It's just out of place. As Vanhin also pointed out, those last two quotes do seem to fit your response to my post better. You had just suggested that if I agree with your conditions, then all is good. Now, the controversial quote, flows quite nicely from that, "If you do not agree with them..." (them being your conditions). Is it possible that you accidentally mixed up your own draft in to your final response to mine and accidentally attributed those words to me? At this point, this seems to be at least plausible. I don't have much more to offer in regards to "proving" anything. I will make this my last word on this and hopefully this will be enough. In closing, let me just categorically state that I have no recollection of ever writing those last two quotes, not even as a draft. They are not familiar to me as something that is mine or my thoughts. I am willing to chalk it up as just some mix up or mistake. Regardless of your decision, know that I harbor no bad feelings. I am willing to move on and continue our discussion, but I do understand if you do not, because you still doubt my integrity. I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend! Kind Regards, Finrock
  7. I do not know. I have considered this before, but I have no hypothesis to offer. I have also found nothing in scripture that would give me even a kernel to start speculating on. I am sorry I cannot offer anything more substantive. Regards, Finrock
  8. Matter, which is what our physical bodies are composed of, is truth. Our bodies, by nature, are truth. Element, if eternal, is a component of reality. You can not have reality if there is no matter. I would say that our experience here isn't solely a spiritual experience, but it is a physical one as well. Our experiences as spirit beings in pre-mortal existence was limited, hence the reason why Heavenly Father designed the Plan of Salvation. Our progression would be limited without our physical bodies. We could not learn or understand many components of reality without our physical bodies. Regards, Finrock
  9. Good afternoon tomk! If I may, I would like to share with you my understanding of this question. What I present will be a somewhat philosophical answer, although I do not think that it conflicts with anything that is doctrinal. First, let me quote a couple of scriptures as a foundation for my response. I will also number them for easier reference. Please, consider the following: 1. "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy" (D&C 93:33-34). 2. "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (D&C 93:36). 3. "...f there be two spirits, and one shall be more intellgient than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal" (Abr. 3:18). Now, the first scripture pretty much teaches us that in order for us to have a fullness of joy, our spirits and our bodies must be inseparably connected. This does tell us the reason for our bodies. However, it doesn't explain why does having a fulness of joy require that both spirit and body be inseparably connected. In an attempt to answer this question, I will share with you my philosophical musings. We also learn from the first scripture that "the elements are eternal". The elements in this case is speaking to the material our physical bodies are made of: matter. Matter, is eternal. In the third scripture we learn that spirits are eternal. This is the other component of which we are made. So, both spirit and matter are eternal. Here, then, is my argument. If spirit and matter are eternal, then they are truths. Not just truths, but eternal truths. Eternal truth is what actually is and exist independently. In other words, it is absolutely real and is not contingent upon anything. I would now have you turn your attention to scripture 2 that I referenced. It states that God's glory is light and truth. God, as we know, has all light and truth and because of this He has a fulness of joy. Because matter is truth and if we are to attain a fulness of joy we must have all truth, we must have a physical body. Without a physical body, we would not have all truth, hence we could not have a fulness of joy. As beings who are working towards exaltation, we must have or posess all truth, else we will be lacking something and if lacking in truth, we will not have a fulness of joy. In any case, these are some of the things I have thought about when thinking about this question. I hope that you have enjoyed reading my post and that it has been edifying and helpful. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts and opinions with you. Regards, Finrock
  10. Good morning Elphaba! I hope you are doing well today. I am uncertain how you've drawn the conclusion that I am being dishonest. However, please consider the following: For the post in question, I originally posted it at 3:13AM, 5-22-2008. I then reread it and clarified a point that I was making. This edit was at 3:19AM, 5-22-2008; six minutes later. Your response to my post happened at roughly 8:30AM, 5-22-2008. Since your post, I have not edited any of my posts here in this thread. If what you claim is true, then you would have had to have copied my post sometime between 3:13AM and 3:19AM on the 22nd and then 5 hours later, when you decided to respond to my post, you would have had to have used the copy that you had made earlier to respond to my post. This just doesn't seem like a likely scenario. Is it your contention then that you copied my post between 3:13AM and 3:19AM on the 22nd, waited 5 hours, and then used your copy to respond to that post? Secondly, if you look at the last two quotes that are erroneously attributed to me, they do not even flow with what the rest of that post was all about. That particular post had nothing to do with what I believed the Church's position to be. It was a post intended to come up with mutually agreed upon definitions. An, one last note, your position seems to be immature in this case. Have I had a history of being dishonest or is there some past reference that you are using to make such a hasty decision about my integrity? Furthermore, there isn't any advantage of me denying those words even if the words were mine. What I mean is that it isn't like those words are of such a damning nature to my position that I would have any motivation to lie about them. It seems that only if I were a pathological liar that I would want to deny those words. Do you have any reason to believe me to be a pathological liar? In any case, I can certainly understand that if you doubt my integrity, it would be difficult to continue a conversation. I hope that I have provided sufficient evidence to alleve your concerns about this. I think if you consider what I have pointed out, that you will agree that I am not being dishonest. Thank you for letting me know of your concerns and at least allowing me to respond. You could have just not posted anything at all, and there would have never been a chance to clear this up. I hope you have a delightful day! Regards, Finrock
  11. Per the request of the OP, I will answer your question. Question: "...are you saying when jesus said to peter isnt valid?" Answer: I am not saying that. Question: " jesus said that he was going to build his church upon him and not even the gates of hades will overpower it, therefore, it cant be swayed or vanished or destructed, so wouldnt that mean that the church has always been since the day of pentacost and theyre wasnt some great apostacy?" Answer: It could mean what your post advocates if your interpretation and understanding of Matthew 16:18 is correct. Even if the interpretation of Matt. 16:18 that is being advocated by your post is true, it still doesn't preclude the idea that an apostasy occurred. The apostasy means that God's church and authority wasn't on the earth, not that it ceased to exist. Also, the restoration ensures that God's church is still alive and well, not having been affected by the "gates of hades" at all. Regards, Finrock
  12. You're welcome. I can guarantee you that I will not be offended. Very well. Regards, Finrock
  13. Hey mike_sweeney211! I hope you are doing well tonight. To address your question. I am not attempting to prove or disprove what the LDS church believes. I am simply pointing out the differences at the request of the original poster. Although I respect your inquiry, I feel that your question would veer from the intent of this thread and the intent of the original poster. In other words, it appears that your question isn't merely asked to illicit information, but it is advocating a certain position (your apparent position that no apostasy occurred) while in a very subtle way rejecting the LDS position. I will, out of respect for the OP, refuse to answer your question here. However, I'm certain no one would object to you starting another thread so that you can debate your beliefs against what the LDS believe. Kind Regards, Finrock
  14. We do not believe in predestination. We believe in foreordination. Which brings up another difference which isn't related to your question here. Namely, we believe that we existed with Heavenly Father as spirits prior to coming to earth. In the same vein, we believe that we are all literally the spirit children of Heavenly Father. Now, going back to foreordination. We believe that prior to us coming to earth, many of us, both past and present, were foreordained to certain callings. For instances, Abraham was foreordained to be a prophet. Foreordination, however, is contingent upon the personal choices of the individual thus ordained. So, a person may have been foreordained to a special calling, but if they live their life contrary to the commandments of God, that ordination will not come to pass. I hope that answered your questions and added some additional information as well. Regards, Finrock
  15. Good evening Sev3nth_Plague! Hey, thanks for coming here to ask questions about the LDS religion. I, personally, appreciate the opportunity to answer questions about my faith to the best of my ability. I see your question here, and I've thought about it a bit, and I'm having a hard time answering it! I've determined that it is difficult to answer because it is extremely vast in it's scope. But, I'll go with a few general ideas that more than likely will be different from most other Christian churches. * First, our understanding of the Godhead is different. Traditionally Christians believe in the Creedal Trinity, which is the idea that God is three persons, but of one substance. The LDS church believes in a Trinity, more aptly called the Godhead, which is that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are three separate persons, each an individual and distinct person. * Also, our understanding of God is different in that we believe that God the Father, God the Son both have bodies of flesh and bone, while the Holy Ghost has a spirit body, although it too is not immaterial. * We believe in modern day living prophets and apostles. Most Christian churched do not, or at least not in the sense of there being a prophet like Moses was a prophet. * We believe that marriages and families can be sealed together for eternity. That a marriage between a husband and wife is not just until death, but extends on to eternity, even after physical death. I don't know of any other Christian church that teaches this. * We believe in an universal apostasy which required the restoration of Christ's church. Most Christian churches do not believe that a universal apostasy took place, if any believe this. This is just a few that I can think of at the moment. Perhaps if you can narrow your inquiry a bit, I can come up with some other differences. Thanks again for the question and have a good evening. Regards, Finrock
  16. Good afternoon Xzain! Yes, you have understood that point that I was making. I appreciate your restatement of my point and I think it accurately reflects what I was saying in that case. I also was making the point that homosexuality is intrinsically sinful, apart from any law of chastity violations. Just as rape is intrinsically sinful, apart from any law of chastity violations as defined by the covenant we make to obey that law. For instance, one may be legally and lawfully wedded to a person, yet it is possible for one to rape their lawfully wedded spouse. Even though the covenant of the law of chastity would not be violated, the rape would still be sinful, within it's own right. Rape is sinful by nature. The same applies to homosexuality. It is by nature, sinful, and not just a law of chastity violation, which was the original argument of Elphaba. Regards, Finrock
  17. Good afternoon Elphaba! I thank you for taking the time to define the terms presented. I sense from your post that you were hesitant to define terms, perhaps because you feel that I may be trying to trip you up in your words. I assure you this isn't the case. My intention, as a student of logic, is only to try to facilitate a reasonable discourse. Defining terms is critical else our attempts at discussion will fall on equivocation and other logical fallacies instead of understanding and reason. I have quoted only the last part of your comments because if this part isn't resolved, then we can not reasonably continue our discussion. As mentioned above, my intention is not to tie to any set of words, but only for us to agree with a definition of a word. For instance, I've noticed that in past posts the words inclination, feelings, and temptation have been used interchangeably, but in another context those words have been used in a different sense. Because the usage of these words are not consistent, then it lends to misunderstanding. I might be using the same word, but because I am defining the word differently than the other party, we are not speaking of the same thing, and therefore can have no hope of understanding each other. This is why it is imperative that we agree on what words mean and use those meanings consistently. It is only reasonable. If we can not agree with terms or if one party will not agree to use terms consistently, then all hope is lost for that discussion. It becomes a guessing game, wondering does the person intend to use word X with meaning Y or are they using word X with meaning Z. It quite literally makes no sense, at that point, to continue. My hope now is to make one more attempt to see if we can agree on some definitions and agree that both of us will consistently use the definitions agreed upon. Just to reiterate, this isn't about limiting terms, but agreeing with a definition of any terms used. If another word works better in some case, then use that word, but it only is reasonable to make sure that the party you are speaking to understands what you mean by that word. What do you think about what I am suggesting? Does it sound reasonable to you? One last note. The last two quotes that you attributed to me, are not me. I do not know who posted those words. It appears that you have mixed two or more posters. Regards, Finrock
  18. Elphaba, Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. After reading the two posts you made in response to mine, I believe that in order to effectively continue our discussion, we need to insist on some definitions of terms. It appears that we are using the same terms but with slightly different meanings. Please, if you do not mind, will you define the following terms? I ask only to know how you understand them and are using these terms and am not asking necessarily any precise dictionary definition. Homosexuality Feelings Inclinations Temptations Homosexual act Lust Covet I think a lack of firm definitions for these terms is causing some misunderstanding. I also think that what you perceive as a disconnect between what I am stating and what is being stated in the interview with general authorities, is also caused by semantics. I think that your response to my question of legal marriage between homosexual couples and it's implication to the law of chastity is question begging. However, here again, we run in to an issue of semantics, so I am willing to concede this point on a more general understanding of the law of chastity, and will not hold you accountable for your apparently fallacious position . However, LDS members make a covenant with God to keep the law of chastity, which covenant specifically states that we will have no sexual relations except with persons with whom we are legally and lawfully wedded to. As it is defined here, homosexual marriage would satisfy the demands of this covenant. But, in a broader understanding of the law of chastity, other things such as rape and incest would also fall under the law. Regardless of this, I still contend that actions such as rape, incest, and homosexuality are intrinsically sinful and not just sinful by virtue of the law of chastity (although they can also be violations of that law). And just to clarify, because I say they are intrinsically sinful, I do not also mean to say that having an inclination towards such acts is sinful. Now, if you do decide to define the terms given (and you may add more if you see a need), and we agree on the definitions, then I would ask that any future correspondence between us, relating to this topic, be consistent in using the terms in the way in which we have agreed to define them. Do you agree with this suggestion? I also think that once we understand how we are using terms, I have a feeling that we will recognize that we are agreeing more than disagreeing. Have a wonderful night! Regards, Finrock
  19. Evening Topspin! I appreciate your response. You seem pretty passionate about this issue and I respect that. I hope you don't take my being critical of your post to mean that I hold any animosity towards you as a person. I certainly do not. I'm not sure I understand your response. You say that the church only condemns homosexual behavior. Well, I certainly agree with that. So, that's one thing we have in common. Now, you continue to post that it does not condemn homosexual feelings. I'm not sure I know what you mean by that, exactly. Consider this scenario: If I have sexual feelings towards a woman besides my wife, am I justified in those feelings? I suppose it all turns on how you are defining "feelings". If you mean by "feelings" that one is tempted by something that is a vice, but one does not desire nor dwell on that temptation, then I agree. This type of "feeling" is not condemnable, in my view. However, if you mean by "feelings" an inordinate desire for what is sin, then I'm of the opinion that this is condemnable. But, I think the larger point is this: If one condemns homosexual behavior, isn't that the same as condemning homosexuality? Because these concepts seem synonymous, I'm led to believe that you have misunderstood my post. In case there is a misconception, let me clarify that I understand the difference between temptation and actually acting on temptation. I also understand that lusting after that which is forbidden by God, even if we do not necessarily physically act out on our lust, is also sin. This we learn from one of the Ten Commandments: "...thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife..." Jesus further solidified this thought by stating: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Source). Jesus seems pretty clear in His commandment here. We can commit sin for not just behavior that we physically act out, but also behavior that we act out in our hearts. But, it seems that we agree on this point, so I will leave this at that. I suppose then I am back to this question: If homosexual behavior is condemned, doesn't this also mean that homosexuality is condemned? This was my original claim and I don't see any reason to believe otherwise, thus I feel justified in what I posted. Furthermore, my main point in my post was to illustrate how homosexuality is not just the breaking of the law of chastity, but it is a sin in it's own right. Meaning, even if a homosexual couple are legally and lawfully wedded, sexual relations between them would still constitute sin. It is the same gender sexual act or lust, that is sin, in addition to any violations of the law of chastity. I hope that I was able to clarify my position. Also, I hope that I correctly addressed your concerns and thoughts that you had written in response to mine. If not, please feel free to point those out. Even if we may not agree, we can at least make sure that we understand each other and if we must disagree, it will be a disagreement based on knowledge and not one of ignorance or misunderstanding. Enjoy your evening! Regards, Finrock
  20. Greetings Elphaba! I can appreciate your perspective. I also appreciate the effort you put in to state your case. I, on the other hand, feel that the scriptures bind us to condemn homosexuality, as we should condemn any other sin. I agree that committing homosexual sex is also breaking the Law of Chastity, but, if scriptures are to be believed, homosexuality is a sin in it's own right. Here is a sample of the doctrine: Lev. 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind; it is an abomination" Deut. 23:17 "There shall be no sodomite (a direct reference to homosexuality) of the sons of Israel..." 1 Cor. 6:9-10 "Abusers of themselves with mankind will not inherit the kingdom of God..." And there are others. But, I think the scriptures are clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin in it's own right just as viewing pornography is a sin in it's own right. One question that has not come up in the discussion thus far, at least I have not seen it, is what of countries or states that allow homosexual marriage? The Law of Chastity is that we shall have no sexual relations outside marriage and only have sexual relations with your spouse within marriage. If persons of same gender are legally and lawfully wedded, and have sex, they would no longer be breaking the Law of Chastity, however they would still be violating the prohibition against homosexuality in God's laws. Because of a lack of time, I can not iterate my point sufficiently. I recognize that there are points that require more support or fleshing out. If there are points that are unclear or lacking, I apologize. When able, I will come back and see if there have been any issues raised regarding my post and attempt to clarify. Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I wish you a wonderful rest of the evening. Regards, Finrock
  21. Good afternoon LanPingPug! I'm sorry to read of your difficulties with a person you care deeply about. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and offer advice, but, knowing the deep pain that can come when someone we love hurts us, I know it isn't so easy to be in such a situation. Joining the Church of Jesus Christ requires sacrifice. It sometimes involves us having to change years of habits or changing long held beliefs. It sometimes even means that we must choose between friends and family and the gospel. First, know that what you are experiencing is not unique. In other words, you are not alone. Others have gone through similar struggles and have come out on top in the end. Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding this. He said: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it" (Source). In the Book of Mormon we have a great example of one man who, once he had heard the gospel, was willing to do whatever was necessary in order to receive the promised blessings. We read from Alma 22:15: "And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy." Like the father of King Lamoni, if the gospel message is true, and you know that it is, then do whatever is required to align your life with it's precepts. The father of Lamoni was willing to give up his kingdom, even all that he had, in order to receive the joy that comes from pure gospel living. These situations are not easy, but God will bless those who sacrifice for His sake. I hope for you the best and pray for your success in accepting and living the gospel of Jesus Christ. Kind Regards, Finrock
  22. Good afternoon rhapsodyblue00! I hope you are doing well today. I appreciate your question and the opportunity I have to respond to it. I think you'll find that no one within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will advocate that Jesus had plural wives or even was married, as a matter of doctrine. You will find, however, some who hold this personal belief, either that he was married to one woman or had plural wifes. I do not know either way. What I do know is that marriage and sealing between a man and a woman is a sacred and righteous act instituted by God. I also know that when authorized and sanctioned by God, polygamy is counted as righteousness to those in such relationships. Both, under these conditions, are good and right. Therefore, I do not have any problem envisioning Jesus having a wife or multiple wives, as both would be good and right. But, regardless of my thoughts, I do not claim that Jesus was married at all, because it isn't something that is found in scripture or other binding doctrine. Thank you for the question. I enjoy being able to share my thoughts and opinions, in the hopes that they might be useful and helpful to others. Enjoy the rest of your day! Kind Regards, Finrock
  23. Good evening Snow! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions. We may not be in any disagreement because the position being argued has at least two folds, and you may just be arguing the one and not the other. But, there is the question of evolution and the question of the origin of man. On the general theory of evolution, the Church has no official stance. However, on the origin of man, there is, without a doubt, an official and binding declaration. Someone already posted an excerpt from what is actually titled "The Origin of Man", which is a doctrinal statement from the First Presidency in 1909. I will quote that excerpt again and would point out to pay particular attention to the second paragraph. It reads: "Adam, our progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of the pre-existence,-revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days, pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh, and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner. 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 declares 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; and 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" (Source). Now, my goal is simply to clarify that there is an official and doctrinally binding stance for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when it comes to the origin of man. Evolution is a broad subject matter covering adaptation to one's environment to crossing over to abiogenesis. One can reject one portion of evolution without rejecting the whole theory and based upon revealed truth, there are portions of evolution that we, as members of Christ's true church, ought to reject, namely any explanation that would suggest that Adam evolved from any "lower orders of the animal creation." Regards, Finrock
  24. Good Afternoon DigitalShadow! I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your post. For the most part I have read the responses that other's have made and your responses to those. I do not forsee me adding anything new to what has been posted except my own perspective on this issue. I hope that you find my post useful and edifying. I would like tackle what I perceive to be a misconception on your part. You wrote in your post that you would like to have a method to know truth more reliable than just "feelings". First of all, I agree with you. It is imparitive that one does not make a decision of such magnitude based merely on a feeling. The late President Hunter cautioned: "I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself" (Source). There is no doubt that some people do equate "strong emotion" and "free-flowing tears" as a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. However, there truly is a higher standard to a spiritual witness, which may not have anything to do with tears or strong feelings. So, the misconception I would like to clear is this idea that when one speaks of receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost, in the true sense, this isn't speaking to just a feeling, but it is speaking to a sense of enlightenment and profound understanding. Because these experiences are difficult to describe in words it often is misunderstood as sentimentalism (an experience any good drama, for instance, can reproduce). Now, as has been pointed out by others on this thread, the formula for receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost is not magic or anything particularly special. It essentially follows a pattern that most of us are already familiar with. Let me briefly describe this pattern so as to make certain that there are no misunderstandings. The first time we do anything, we cannot be certain of the promised results at first. This is applicable to almost anything that we might do. The first time I considered riding a bike, I was not certain at all that I could ride it. As a matter of fact, I would say that I knew that I could not ride a bike. I listened to what was explained to me about riding a bike. I beheld others riding bikes and I saw how they were doing it, but I didn't really know a thing about riding a bike. It wasn't until I actually decided to take a risk, based simply on a belief that I could be successful, that I began to learn, to know, how to ride a bike. As I practiced and continued to apply those things I've been told about riding and what I myself learned from failed attempts, I eventually learned how to ride a bike. I now know how to ride a bike. These same principles apply to gaining a knowledge about eternal truth. This is how you gain a knowledge about the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Vanhin quoted from Moroni the words of Mormon who, more or less, said that we could know what is right because it will encourage us to do that which is good. Galatians also describes the fruits of the Spirit as "joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance." These attributes are good and it is through these attributes that one can come to know what is true. The critical thing to understand at this point, though, is that when one feels and experiences these fruits of the Spirit, this is the Holy Ghost testifying of the truthfulness of whatever it is you are testing. However, you can not know these things if you do not begin to live the gospel principles that others have explained or born testimony of. Any more than you can know how to ride a bike, if you do not begin to practice on your own. As you begin to read the Book of Mormon, attend church, to pray, and to live the laws and doctrine of the church, you will begin to experience the fruits of the Spirit, and you will begin to know of it's truth because you will know that that which you do is causing you to do that which is good and that which is good can not be wrong or bad. Furthermore, God will bless your efforts as you begin to exercise faith, and you can know, through a spiritual manifestation, that these things are true. As has been pointed out, there is no other way. If you can not accept this method of coming to understand God and know truth, then you will remain in ignorance to these things for the rest of your life. There is nothing more profound or any other proof available. No man or woman will ever be able to prove to you that these things are true. Thank you for taking the time to read my post, if you did make it this far. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening. Kind Regards, Finrock
  25. Hi clay! You've gotten a few answers already, but I would like to share my answer with you. Spirit Prison is an area for those "...who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets." While in spirit prison, individuals will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, where "...after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation." In regards to how do you get to heaven, well, to state it briefly, the LDS believe that anyone who believes in Christ, is baptized and receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and endures to the end by remaining obedient to God's commandments, will get to heaven. However, our understanding of heaven isn't exactly the same as all others. If you want more information than this, please let me know. Thanks for bringing your questions here. Kind Regards, Finrock