Justice

I have a theory that fits the facts, that I beleive is true and was revealed to me in my studies. I would never have thought of it on my own. I don't say this to boast, but to say that there was a physical transformation that came over Eve. A key is found here: Genesis 2: 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both anaked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. There are very powerful truths found here about how Adam and Eve could have had a physical transformation. Remember, it was a commandment for them to multiply and replenish the earth. The frist questions that need to be answered are how did Adam know anything about a father and mother, and why was it necessary to "leave them" and cleave unto his wife?

Without beginning of days or end of years simply means He exists in eternity. He does not exist where days or years are measured. I believe the family of man has existed forever. But, if eternal man was not born, or brought into conscience at one moment, then that means we would all have existed for an eternity, and we would all be perfected or damned by now. All mankind would be progressed to their full potential by now if all have existed forever. And, the clincher, if all mankind has existed forever then there can be no more brought into existence, because they would not have existed forever. So, then what's the purpose for exaltation? What is God's work to bring to pass something that has already been done? I beleive the species of man is perpetuated each eternal round. It is enlarged; the numbers grow greater. We will exist in the eternities, but have not always existed. The same holds true for all who have come before and all who will come after. Interesting discussion. Thank you for the chance to organize thoughts and express opinions.

Thank you Old Tex. A breath of fresh air. :) I've thought of Adam's sacrificing without knowledge many times also, as well as Eve's choice in the Garden of Eden. We can learn from both.

It's not about timing, PC. All the "works" required for our salvation, or to answer the law of justice, were performed by Jesus Christ. The works we do are for a different purpose. Since Christ is the great Mediator now between man and justice, or between us and a just punishment, He can answer for us and extend mercy. What He will not/cannot do is extend this kind of mercy to those who cannot live the laws of any particular kingdom. In other words, it would not be "merciful" to extend mercy to one who enjoys being angry at others and allow that person to dwell with God. Once this person became angry at others, or at God, he would no longer have a place in God's Kingdom and would be cast out forever with no hope of restoration, just as Satan was. So, out of love, Christ will extend what mercy He can to each and every person based on where they would be the happiest... based on how they live their life. The mercy He will extend, therefore, is based on what law we choose to live. So, our "works" do not save us from death and hell... only Christ's do. Our works are performed out of love for Christ and His word, and He will/can extend a greater kingdom to those who love Him enough to keep His commandments.

I'm responding via private message to your question Tom. We're delving into things that are "caught and not taught."

I'm not sure that's conclusive. Just because He appears to man does not prove He has to exist in time. I guess I always assumed a portal opened up in time so that man could see into eternity. I had always believed that that is how He is able to show some men the past and future.

I guess I should have clarified. I was wondering how one could have a temple recommend if they only believe most of what the prophet says. If, as a member, your goal isn't to attend the temple, then I wonder why get baptized.

What about the temple?

Interesting. I guess the main point being that no matter how He measures time, He will never run out. So, He dwells in eternity.

:) Not at the present moment. I hope to be, thanks to all that Jesus Christ has done for me.

All valid points Finrock. We could endlessly debate this topic and give evidence on both sides. In any case, that's not the basis of my argument (that Jesus existed forever as spirit matter). Oftentimes it's the interpretation of the words that cause a stumbling block. I do not interpret "eternity" the same way most people do, nor do I believe the scriptures intended it to mean what most people interpret it as. I believe eternity is broken up into rounds, and not necessarily just "lasts forever." One can exist from "eternity to all eternity" without having existed forever. Since I don't exactly understand what is meant by "intelligence," other than it is linked to spirit matter in some way, I really can't offer any insight. But, I do know that a being can be "eternal" and exist for eternity and have a beginning. It makes perfect sense in my mind if you understand "eternity" the way I do. Time does not exist to God, so "eternity" is where or how He dwells. "As man is now, God once was..." God used to exist in time. He was not eternal then because He existed in time. Man has made the terms "eternal" and "forever" synonomous, I'm not sure scripture ever intended them to be. It's like if you say "for all time." It *sounds* like you mean forever, but you really don't. LDS believe that is the same as "till death do you part." Now, words do have multiple meanings. There may indeed be some instances in scripture, especially the Bible, where "eternal" is interpreted by translators to mean "forever." But, I don't think Christ could have existed forever and be the first born pre-mortal spirit at the same time. Also, I'm not too concerned about what mainstream Christianity says because they don't believe we existed before we came to earth. I would expect them to have little understanding of God's eternal nature. Very good discussion. I do appreciate your comments. They are valid for any seeker of truth.

As far as we know there are 3 different "states" or "estates" of man. 1) spirit body (pre-earth condition) 2) mortal body (earth condition, or physical body quickened by blood) 3) immortal body (post-earth condition, or physical body quickened by spirit) Number 3 is a resurrected "complete" man and this condition is technically known as "a soul" where the spirit quickens the physical body. If there are any other conditions before or after 1-3 it has not been revealed. Many believe revelation says our first condition was "intelligence." This is what the discussuion is about. I believe intelligence does not account for "conscience" and we were not individuals until we were born as a spirit body by Heavenly Parents. If it were otherwise we would not have been born by Heavenly Parents.

I may have said something that led you to believe I said the above. If I did, I want to clarify. The one issue your formulas don't account for is that Adam was born with an immortal physical body when the parents were immortal. I believe the condition of the mother is what dictates the offspring's condition, not the father. I don't want to get into details or evidence because it gets tricky and sticky fast. There are a lot of other things that have to be understood first. But, here is how I view it. mortal body (mother) = mortal body (child) immortal body (mother) = immortal body (child) spirit body (mother) = spirit body (child) Very simple math, huh? I know this raises a lot of questions (one major one anyway) for those who understand what I'm implying. But, it is possible and there is a way.

Respectfully, it's not an issue for me. Our pre-mortal spirits, the ones that made the decision to come to earth and receive a mortal body, are literally offspring of Heavenly Parents. It just wouldn't make sense any other way. Once again, read very close: Things that are physical (or earthly) are made to teach us of things that are spiritual (or heavenly). Believing that we are not "born" of heavenly parents is the same thing as saying Our Heavenly Father is not our Father, but someone who just created us. It's saying we are not His children and are kin to some kind of ant farm or experiment. It means God never was man, and it means the early prophets who taught this lied, or didn't know what they were talking about. We are His offspring; His race; His children; His work and glory. Again, read very close: Just as physical matter is eternal and our bodies were "formed and created" from it (by a mother and father), intelligence is eternal and our spirit bodies were "formed and created" from it (by a Heavenly Mother and Father). The truth is so beautifully simple. It doesn't need to be more complex. In any case, I know this is true, indepentant of any teaching or testimony that has ever been given. I know for myself just as surely as the Book of Mormon is true. Our spirits are offspring of Heavenly Parents. It is the highest reward given to the family of man... to be trusted with eternal offspring. This is why you must be married in order to obtain the highest degree in the highest kingdom. If you have not entered into the new and everlasting covenant you cannot fulfill the purpose of that glory, so there is no purpose for you being given that kingdom... unless you are sealed to an eternal companion.

A very profound comparison: Romans 7: 1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (for I speak to them that know the law,) or those that know Jewish law or the law of Moses. It doesn't say they don't have to keep a law, it says they are bound to another law, and that law is Christ's.

Christ said: Matt. 5: 16 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Was He speaking about good works of the law of Moses? No. Matt. 16: 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Works in the law of Moses? No. Here is the basis of the teaching, and what they tried to get across to ALL the converts, no matter their background: Romans 3: 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law [law of Moses] there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith [law of Jesus Christ] of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith [law of Christ] without the deeds of the law [law of Moses]. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision [law of Moses] by faith [law of Christ], and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law [law of Moses] through faith [law of Christ]? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Law of Works (or "the law") = Law of Moses Law of Faith (or "faith") = Law of Christ Circumcision = Jews Uncircumcision = Gentiles Prayerfully read this scripture a dozen or so times, understanding the above definitions, and the whole "works" issue in the Bible will become clear. Confusion solved.

Ahhhhh, but Paul was referring to the law of works, or the law of Moses. It was fulfilled in Christ, so one does not need to obey that law to exercise faith in Christ, repent, and be baptized. Christ never said we don't have to keep "His" commandments, but that we don't have to keep the law of works, or the law of Moses. This is the cause of the greatest confusion in the Bible about works. Too many people don't see that "works" is in reference to the law of Moses, and "grace" or "fatih" is in reference to the law of Christ. It was a big stumbling block for many Jews who converted to Christianity after Christ's resurrection and ascension. They believe all must walk the path they walked, through circumcision and the whole law, in order to be a follower of Christ. The Apostles were trying to not offend either group, knowing as long as they all accepted Christ and kept His law of Faith or Grace, then they were all Christians. If you read those tough scriptures, that seem to contradict each other, in this light it all becomes clear.

Certainly possible. This is the first time I've heard of this, so I can't really comment. My first question would pertain to the symbolism of sprinkling the lambs blood on the altar. It was in the similitude of Christ and His bleeding from every pour. What would be the purpose of sprinkling Christ's blood on the altar?

I am going to get a little technical with words, even though I know I'm saying the same thing you did. Maybe it would help to change the wording a little. It's not that children under 8 cannot break laws, it's that if/when they do they are not held accountable because they do not fully understand "good and evil." These fall more in line with a "transgression," which transgressions are covered by the Atonement of Christ with no repentance needed. When they understand (good and evil) they have reached the age of accountability, which can be different for each child. It is generally not exactly eight when a child understands. Often it is sooner, sometimes it is later. Eight is considered the age when most children understand and can repent. When someone breaks a law, it is based on their level of understanding whether or not it is a transgression or sin. So, maybe say "children are not held accountable for breaking laws until they reach the age of accountability?" I don't know, maybe this has nothing to do with the question, but I think it shows that if anyone, no matter the age, is possessed and has less say in their actions they are held less accountable. Does that make sense? Afterall, I think the real question is if a person is possessed are they accountable for their actions. My belief is anyone can be possesed, indiscriminate of age, unless Heavenly Father forbids it. I believe Satan's problem with possessing people is that many can come to believe in God if they are shown there is a devil. So, evil spirits only do so when they are desperate. So, if he posseses anyone, that gives God opportunity to intervene and show His power, as in the case of Joseph Smith, oftentimes converting many to the truth.

Hemi, I may have paraphrased that comment. It's been a long time since I had that quote hanging on the wall. I'm, still looking.

I've never read Bruce R's comment about that, but to me it just seems so beautifully simple... and truth tends to be. Where was there ever a child without a mother and father? I really do believe we out-think ourselves sometimes. I may be the most notorious for this. :) Although I don't believe it's always the case, I think Occam's razor has some application when pondering spiritual things.

We think alike. Those are all questions I have pondered. I hesitate to give my opinion to most of those questions. I don't believe God was ever alone. I believe Man and Woman have always existed together. I don't believe there was a "first man." Man has always existed. It's hard for us to comprehend this in our finite condition. Joseph Smith's comment "If there ever was a time when there was nothing, there would still be nothing," is the best statement to convey my opinion. Can't wait for the additional scripture!

I may have said it differently, but this is exactly what I said. :) There is no reference that they gave birth to our spirits, other than the obvious: God created Adam. Adam was born of a Father and Mother. God created our spirits. Our spirits were _______ of a Father and Mother. The only truth missing is a fill-in-the-blank. We know that gender is eternal, and part of our eternal nature. We know that "eternal life" is the ability to have offspring, the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, and that it is termed "the kind of life God lives." We know one must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (male and female) to enter the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. I think there is plenty of evidence. Things in the physical world are meant to teach of the spiritual world. I think it is implied, and the Spirit confirms it to me. The only word that can fill the above blank, in my mind, is born. Otherwise, you would not need a Father and Mother to create a spirit from intelligence, and it would not be necessary to enter the new and everlasting covenant of marriage to enter the highest degree in the Celkestial Kingdom, where the ability to have offspring is achieved. Doctrine & Covenants 76: 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! 23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father— 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

My point is that only a physical body can be "immortal or mortal," a spirit, once born (or created if you prefer), is always immortal. We are taught that "things that are physical are to teach of things that are spiritual." I believe this holds true for "birth" as well. The only facts I said were indisputable were: 1) Heavenly Father and Mother gave/give birth to spirit children (create spirit children if you prefer) 2) Heavenly Father and Mother gave birth to Adam's body of flesh and bone (created Adam's body if you prefer) Beyond that, the door is still wide open for all interpretation. I'm just saying that both are possible with "Man and Woman" when they are resurrected and perfected through the Atonement of Christ. I never attempted to explain how. The how is where the differences occur, not in the 2 facts I stated.

Not necessarily. I thought this for a long time too, but it isn't the case. All things come in order, and this is one of those truths that must come in order. The facts are, however, indisputable. Heavenly Father and Mother have given birth to spirits, or we would not be their offspring. They also gave birth to Adam's body of flesh and bone. Both are true, and both are possible.