Justice

If you study the translation of the Old Testament, you will see that it wasn't God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that God allowed his heart to be hardened. It would have been easy for God to change Pharaoh's heart and have him let the Hebrews go. That would have been much easier than to let him harden his heart and perform all those miracles and bring about all those deaths. It is a great testimony that God will not force a man to change his heart, not even to bring about His own purposes. If you really ponder and pray about it you will come to the conclusion that God allows all men to accept or reject Him, just as He did Pharaoh. I assure you it is the same God in both testaments. The thing people have the hardest time with is understanding why some things were done. The unknown is always the hardest.

Another less direct meaning might be in how we evolve in our understanding of scripture. There have been many times I have read a passage and understood it differently at that moment. There it was in front of me for years and years, and I had read it many, many times, but for the first time the words seem to jump off the page and I understand them for the first time. But, the previous 2 responses are the more direct answer.

The Jews I have known and spoken to have all expressed anticipation for a temple. They believe the reason they do not offer sacrifices anymore is because there is no temple. At least the ones I have spoken to are anxious for both to return.

Also, another reason for baptisms for the dead being performed in temples is so that only those who understand what is happening can witness it. The Lord taught that we shouldn't give meat before milk. What do you think the response would be by those Christian churches, if permitted to see baptism for the dead, who teach you do not have to be baptized? First, we should teach them the need for baptism. Once you understand that, you generally turn your thoughts to those who passed on without the chance. Only then can you understand. All things have a proper order. We can actually hinder someone's progress by teaching them about baptism for the dead if they don't understand the need for all to be baptized first.

I think the confusion that comes to many about this topic is that in the New Testament, most of the time they refer to works of the law they are referring to the Law of Moses. Since Christ was to be the great and last sacrifice, the Law of Moses was fulfilled. Included with this is the need for circumcision. Today we have clear vision of these differences. But, at the time of Christ it would take a Jewish convert a total change in belief in order to believe that the Law of Moses was no longer needed. In fact, the church let them continue to practice both, if they chose. That they followed the Law of Moses didn't matter as long as they followed Christ's Laws as well. Christ's Law was know as the opposite of the Law of Works, the Law of the Spirit or Grace. This can be compared to a Christian who accepts the Book of Mormon and converts to the Church today. It is a big life change and take a paradigm shift in basic beliefs for many. This same dilemma presented itself to the Church under Peter, just after Christ left them, but it was to accept the New Testament with Christ's Laws. The Jewish converts expected Gentile converts to live both laws as they did. Peter and Paul (mainly) taught them they only needed to live Christ's laws, and whether they live the Law of Moses was their choice, since Christ's Law was a higher law. If you read the New Testament with this understanding, then where most are confused about works and grace, you can see and understand the truth. So, when you see "we are not saved by works, but by grace," in the New Testament, what it is really saying is that "we are not saved by the Law of Moses, but by the Law of Christ," or not by the Old Covenant, but the New Covenant (the New and Everlasting Covenant). If this one truth was not twisted or lost then I bet the number of Christian religions today would be cut in half.

All Joseph asked of Heber is that first he be sealed to his daughter, then his wife. Heber did not fully understand this thing Joseph was asking. It is safe to assume that Heber felt Joseph was asking Heber to give up his daughter and then later his wife to him. That's why it was a test. Heber had to take Joseph at his word because of the incident with his daughter. I'm not talking about improper relationships. I am talking about a possible test. And, I'm suggesting that maybe that's all this other event was, with some exaggerated stories coming from both sides. It's a known fact that Joseph did test several brethren with this thing. Many did not pass. All I'm saying is it's possible that this was a test very much like was the pattern.

I often wonder why some, especially me, can see it and some, who seem to be honest in their intent, can't. It's really hard to express the feelings I have about being allowed to see it. When you know it's true, you know it's true. How can anyone watch one General Conference session and not know those men are of God? They are such a breath of fresh air over how the world teaches Christ. A prophet! May we all try to not take this for granted.

Remember the story about Heber C. Kimball and his daughter and wife? The very last detail where Joseph told Heber the Lord accepted Heber's faithfulness and that he could keep his wife for eternity, and then sealed them, might be a sign of passing the test, where possibly Henry did not. Only the Lord knows. I wonder if this was a pattern to test the "faithful" at their word where Polygamy was concerned. I also can't help but wonder what would have happened if Heber C. would have failed the test? Possibly it, too, would have ended much like this story did. Since it is a discontinued practice, and one that is foreign to us, it's really difficult to know what is expected of those who were invited to participate. Maybe it means that Henry didn't qualify for eternal life as Heber C. did. A lot to speculate on here. Certainly nothing to doubt whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet in this story. Especially since historians can't really agree on what is fact, and they don't know all the details of what was said to Henry. Things like this don't really bother me because I know that Joseph saw into heaven, and it appears some of what he learned by doing so bothered even him.

Even if you don't believe in the pre-mortal existence as we do, you have to believe what the Bible says is true. Listen to "God" speak, in the beginning when Adam ate of the fruit of tree of the knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 3: 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: The driving force behind this scripture is that man now had a body of flesh and bone AND knew the difference between good and evil. The prophet Joseph Smith taught that we needed 2 things to become like our Father in Heaven. 1) A physical body (which we obviously received through the Fall of Adam) 2) To understand the difference between good and evil (which God clearly says we acheived when Adam ate the fruit) So, when we received our body and understood good and evil we became like God. It would not be possible for us to understand good and evil without physical bodies, and it would also be impossible for us to choose good over evil without agency given to us over our physical bodies. This is more evidence that God the Father has a body, even though Jesus Christ had not yet received His. Notice that One is speaking to the other. Behold, the man is become as one of us That we can understand the difference between good and evil was brought about by having a physical body. If God the Father did not have a physical body it would be impossible for Him to understand us for what we do while we are in ours. He must have one if He is to understand all things physical and spiritual.

A lot of Christianity, especially mainstream, believes that those who God saves will not be judged, that judgment isn't really a "judgment" at all, but punishment. It seems people really can't agree on anything.

Wouldn't the fact that one has a body and one doesn't mean that they can't both be perfect? It seems something as important as a body, and what all that means and implies, would either be essential for perfection, or not required. If essential, then both would have. If not required then neither would have.

John 17 is the best *written* evidence in the Bible that The Father and The Son are separate personages. It is when Christ offered the great intercessory prayer on behalf of all who believe in Him. I'm going to post the scripture and offer comment. If you disagree with my comments or my interpretation, let's discuss them. John 17: 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: First of all, as others pointed out already, it's interesting that Christ would offer vocal prayer to "Himself" in the heavens if He was the same enitity or being as the Father. 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Clearly, this has the sound of plural or multiple, not singular. But, we're not at the good evidence yet. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Scriptures like these could be confusing to some who believe in the Trinity. It makes sense either way. 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. More confusing scripture. 10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. Here is where Jesus' purpose for this prayer is made known. Here is where we have to ask ourselves exactly what He's asking for. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy btruth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; We've established who He is praying for, now He will be very specific for what He is praying for. 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Very specific wording and very hard to misunderstand. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: Again. 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Again. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Here's the verse I want to concentrate on. 25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. If Christ was praying for believers to be "one" just as He and the Father are "One," which undeniably He was, and IF Jesus and the Father are the same being or entity, then WHY would He need to ask that the believers ALSO be with Him where He is? If He is asking for believers to be One in personage, wouldn't that be a redundant question, and be improperly worded as also? It can only mean that the Father and the Son are One in mind and will and purpose, and He is asking for believers to be One with them.

I learned one night while studying the scriptures what the purpose of the Holy Ghost is. I learned this way: In the pre-mortal existence we needed 2 things in order to become like our Father in Heaven. We needed 1) a body of flesh and bones and 2) the knowledge of good and evil. Well, we don't need revelation to figure out we have a body of flesh and bones. But, this little piece of revelation, greatly misundertstood by most religions, tells us what happened after we "ate of the tree" of the knowledge of good and evil: Genesis 3: 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil... Now that we had a physical body and the knowledge we needed, we became like Father in Heaven. So, in the pre-mortal existence, knowing we needed these 2 things, Heavenly Father called and ordained 2 of His greatest children to assist Him in bringing this to pass. Jehova was to assist in all things pertaining to the first, and the Holy Ghost (His name in unknown to us) was called and chosen to help in all things concerning the second. If you think about this and pray about it, you will see that scripture is consistent with these 2 roles. It is also consistent with the way the Priesthood is organized. The key is that it wasn't enough that we knew the difference between good and evil, but that we choose good over evil. Hence, this is the Holy Ghost's assignment, to help us choose good over evil.

This is like if someone came in your house at night with a gun and you had your kids hide in a closet. If the intruder asked you if anyone else was home, what do you say? Oh, no! I was hoping you wouldn't ask that. I can't lie, so they're hiding in the closet.

Some part of it, maybe a small part of it, is that the written word is so hard to express feelings. A smile goes a long way and takes so many words to convey. The bottom line is if someone says something that seems demeaning we need to ask before we get offended. We can learn a lesson from the NFL (National Football League). They have a policy, if not a rule, that their officials do not flag the first person to start any extracirricular activities (hitting someone from the opposite team after the whistle). They always flag the retaliation. They realize that the game gets heated and tempers might flare, but if someone pushes you, they are just venting. It's kind of a "turn the other cheek" rule, and I like it.

It's called faith. If it were fact and information then it would be proven for all, and faith would not be required.

Yep, Loudmouth hit it perfectly. You can also apply this to the other verse about a lady marrying 7 brothers, each in turn, and they all die one at a time.

I was given some insight into this many years ago. I haven't shared it with very many people. It is sacred to me, and I hope it helps. I've often wondered why Satan wanted to take our agency away. He could have planned to destroy God's plan many, many ways. Why agency? You know, that's what his plan was, right? He was going to make us do things right while we were exposed to the wrong. I wondered what he thought this might accomplish. You can reason this way: No agency means we can not make choices. No choices means no wrong choices. No wrong choices means no sin. No sin means no death or hell. No death or hell means nothing to redeem man from. Nothing to redeem man from means no need of a redeemer. No redeemer means no atonement. No atonement means no atoning sacrifice. No sacrifice means no pain and suffering associated to it. Satan was not willing to suffer an eternal suffering for us. So, he tried to change the part of the plan that would eliminate it. He wanted to redeem us without agency so he wouldn't be required to make the ultimate sacrifice for it. However, once in the flesh man had to have agency and learn good from evil, then learn to choose the good over the evil. Without both agency and the knowledge of good and evil it couldn't be accomplished. For this to happen, an infinite Atonement was required. This is why Satan's plan could not work. Lucifer wanted to be the savior but he was not willing to suffer for it. So, he attempted to change the plan accordingly. In short, he did not really care for us, even though he acted like he did.

Well, the Stake President who gave the fireside was President David A. Bednar. He said the 3 most righteous spirits in the pre-mortal existence were... Jehova (Jesus Christ) Michael (Adam) Gabriel (Noah) It makes sense if you think about it.

I haven't read the entire thread, but if the OPer still has any questions, all you have to is read the Bible Dictionary under a few related topics.

Any takers on the trivia question?

Our former Stake President taught a Fireside about this to the youth of our ward many years ago. It was the first time I really understood a lot of what this means for many scholars. I can still remmeber the trivia question he posed to the youth during that Fireside... "Who were the 3 most valiant spirits during the pre-mortal existence?"

I have had this discussion with protestants who believe in the rapture many times. I always point them to the preceding scriptures: Matthew 24: 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. The first question you have to ask yourself is who is this scripture speaking of? It is making reference to the Second Coming and comparing it to Noah and the flood. With a close reading you will see it is speaking of the wicked, not the righteous. they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark Once you realize this scripture is speaking of the wicked being taken, or destroyed off the face of the earth, you realize it's not a rapture scripture at all. We have a great example of this in the Book of Mormon, shortly before the Lord appeared to them. The hard part is teaching this correctly to someone who has believed the opposite for many years, possibly taught the rapture as a child. I believe there will be something similar to the rapture they teach. It is found here: 1 Thessalonians 4: 13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. This is not teaching rapture of the living, but the first resurrection of the dead. Obviously Paul would not be alive physically, but alive in the Lord. The teaching of the Church is that the righteous, even those who are living, will be caught up in the air to meet Christ when He comes, but will accompany Him back to the earth where He will live and reign for 1,000 years. Revelation 20: 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, These are all New Testament scriptures and can be used to discuss this with anyone who believes in the Bible. This subject gets deep fast. I have found it best not to get too deep, though.

I am not ofended. I just love this name... gives me opportunity for bad puns. Tom, I have learned that if you want to love someone all you have to do is serve them. I'm sure you can think of something. :)

I think the father was teaching his son a very important life lesson. Circumstances are everything when you consider quotes such as this. It's not like the father's son was going off to college. He was sending his son away for (presumably) 2 years to serve the Lord. The father was telling him to have his mind focused and stay sharp, in a very impressionable manner. To whom much is given, much is expected. For a young man given the priveledge of serving the Lord for 2 years, his father was holding him to a high standard. There are quotes in the scriptures similar to this. Alma 39: 3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel. 4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted. It's a big sin, yes, but to a missionary? It's even bigger.