Justice

Ouch. Yeah, I see now I did it twice. You're kind to accept it as a typo. But, when I get something stuck in my head, I go with it... good or bad. :) Another thing I like in this article (something I learned in the college courses I took) is that the word used in Greek for "one" meant one in unity. Greek had a word for being numerically one, but it wasn't used. I had forgotten some of the detail surrounding that.

Blah! Typo. Yeah hard for it to be in the 4th century and be in 425. At least I got the century right. :) My reason for posting was to draw attention to that quote. I really wasn't wanting to discuss the Trinity again. It's just that the quote was made about the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Trinity belief. It seems it's a popular topic.

Here is where we need to discuss what we mean. I meant that it actually came about; was finalized, in the 4th century at the Council of Nicea. It started in the 3rd century, yes, but was by far a minority view. You say "a lot" believed it, but that is relative. The first written version of the "Trinity" belief was included in the documents that resulted from the Council of Constantinople. But, even they admit it needed clarification because it was very difficult to understand. They revised it, or finalized it, and published it as a result of the Council of Nicea. I don't know what changes were made to it at the Council of Chalcedon. My guess is very little since the creed from the Nicea is still the one in general use today. The Trinity was not taught by Christ, or any of the Apostles. It does not appear in the New Testament. It wasn't until about 200 years later where it first started surfacing. It's also interesting how it was very much like the philosophical views of the day. There was definately some Greek "logic" used in arriving at the belief. In any case, that 1 John chapter 5 was changed is undisputed. In fact, John 10:30 is one of the main verses used to support the doctrine. But, a proper understanding of the Greek sheds light on the "interpretation:" Note that “one” in this verse is neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. Nearly all of the people, articles, and books cited in this article aren't LDS. It also gives a considerable amount of "early Church" (pre-300 AD) sources as evidence.

I was reading about the early church, and how the belief of the Trinity came about in about the year 425ish. It speaks about John 5: 7-8, and how it was changed in the 4th century to make the Trinity belief seem more sound Biblically. Here is how the verse stands today in the English Bible: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. There is an amazing history linked to these verses. Here is how they appeared before it was changed in about 425: 6. There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one. That's it. Nothing about the "Trinity." It was translated as above in the original Greek New Testament. After a huge uproar from the Catholic Church, he said if anyone could find a single instance of the passage in Greek that was according to the new English wording, he would include it in the Greek. Scholars agree that the single copy produced was a fake, but he was true to his word and added it. However, apparently it still does not appear in the German Bible today. Anyway, I came to a statement that hit me. I feel this perfectly describes anyone who would hold so tight to their beliefs, as to not even give modern revelation a read. People cared more about what their dogma, creeds, and councils had taught than what the word of God actually said. It's a very interesting read. Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

I'd like to see your thoughts on what it means to be created in the image of God. Or, even broader, I'd like to see your favorite scriptures and comments about the character and nature of God. Thanks in advance!

I'm kind of moving along this line... I see some symbolism in these verses to "skin girded about their loins" to circumcision. I think other phrases near to or associated to it are also interesting. If you consider the state of innocence Adam and Eve were in while in the Garden of Eden, how they knew not their nakedness before God and each other, and then God covered them with a skin after they ate the forbidden fruit, some of the symbolism comes out if you consider circumcision "removes the skin." I believe these verses are worth study in relation to this topic, noting they are referring to the "uncircumcised:" Alma 3:5 Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. Alma 43:20 Now the army of Zerahemnah was not prepared with any such thing; they had only their swords and their cimeters, their bows and their arrows, their stones and their slings; and they were naked, save it were a skin which was girded about their loins; yea, all were naked, save it were the Zoramites and the Amalekites; 3 Nephi 4:7 And it came to pass that they did come up to battle; and it was in the sixth month; and behold, great and terrible was the day that they did come up to battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood. Enos 1:20 And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us. These stories are all types of other things and make for interesting reading if you can understand even part of the symbols.

Not if you follow the law, but the curse is activated if you don't continue to keep the law, not just for being under the law. Look at the text closely. If you live by the law you are not cursed, only if you are under the law and don't live by it (which no one did). But, that's not to be confused with the law itself bringing the curse. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Again, it's not saying if you are circumcised and then come to Christ He availeth you nothing, but if you are circumcised and don't come to Christ. You remain in the curse if you don't follow the law perfectly, which no one did. Christ redeemed them from the curse (of not keeping the law perfectly). 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. I'm not sure what version of the Bible you are quoting but it's foreign to me. To make sense of it I had to read the KJV. Personal preference, you know. The yoke of bondage (in verse 1) is equal to having to keep the whole law in order to not come under the curse. It really is as simple as reading it with the law = Law of Moses and faith = Law of Christ (Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Actually, a literal translation from Hebrew to English is quite interesting. King James Version Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Young's Literal Translation Genesis 3:13 And Jehovah God saith to the woman, `What is this thou hast done?` and the woman saith, `The serpent hath caused me to forget -- and I do eat.` Parallel Hebrew Old Testament "Caused me to forget" is quite interesting to LDS who are looking for symbolism.

Thanks, Dravin. All correct. And, a question I'll add to yours, mnn727, is: Have you ever had kids? My answer would also be yes. I'm sticking with my definition. Selfishness and love cannot reside at the same time.

I like Romans 2. 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; ) ... 25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. If you understand that "the law" is speaking of the Law of Moses and not the Law or laws of Christ, (called Law of Faith in the New Testament) then it makes scriptures like this much easier to understand. So, when you read Romans 2 assume the Law of Moses when it says the law and it makes perfect sense what they are saying. To me, it is saying that it is important for one to live the law they believe. Since these are Christians, they need to live the Law of Christ (faith), whether they be circumcised or not. Whether they live the Law of Moses is entirely up to the individual, but the Law of Moses can't save because it's a precursor to lead us to Christ and His law or Gospel, which is the law that saves. Many have taken it to mean works are not necessary since the works of the law were done away. But, a studious reading will show that it is referring to the law of Moses, and not commandments in general, especially Christ's commandments. Christ did give commandments, and they are to be followed if you claim to believe in Him Romans and Galatians are the best two chapters in the Bible for dealing with the "Law of Moses" verse the "Law of Faith." Again, if you read the New Testament with the understanding that the law of works means the Law of Moses, and the law of faith means Christ's commandments and Gospel, it makes pefect sense. Take these scriptures for example in Romans and Galatians: Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. law of works = Law of Moses, law of Faith = Christ's commandments and Gospel. Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. the law = Law of Moses, faith = Christ's commandments and Gospel. Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Continue the this pattern in all these scriptures and they become perfectly clear. Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Galatians 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Galatians 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

...my former Stake President. He's an awesome speaker, for sure. But, he's a very awesome person as well. He's one of the few people you meet in life that talks a BIG game, but walks every step of it.

I think he is speaking about their belief and intention. If the leaders of the Church, the Apostles, make an official declaration (as it appears that they did at the time since it is in scripture) that Christ is the way, and not the Law of Moses, and a member still feels they have to go through the Law of Moses first, and teaches others to do so, I think that would be a problem. If people who read the Bible would see that "the law" or "the law of works" IS the Law of Moses, it would be much easier for them to see how works and faith grow together. I would love to sit in your class.

Yep... agreed on all accounts. Right now I am discussing the Bible with a friend at work who literally shuts down when I bring up the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, so currently I have to stay in the Bible, and was the basis of my comments. But, yes, when he stops shutting down and opens his mind a little, I'm excited to show him how and where I get my beliefs. He mentioned to me yesterday that the on-line Bible he used to search with is shut down (wanted to say that's what he gets for using fly-by-night sites for his scripture study, and that if he wanted one that would be available through the Millenium he could use our Church site, but didn't). I suggested he try the Church's award winning scriptures on the LDS web site. After a 10 minute discussion where I tried to convince him that the KJV on the web site is the same as the one he brings to study with, he refused. Long way yet to go... But, I don't give up easily and I actually enjoy the challenge.

I do this all the time. I figure if I expect to be understood then I have to seek to understand. Often, understanding how others interpret a scripture will lead me to another that I use to interpret the one in question. So, then I can share that scripture and hope they understand what I'm saying. It works great until I realize the scripture I use to interpret the one in question with is actually from the Book of Mormon! Then I have the opposite of an "aha" moment. I have a "doh" moment. One way I believe scripture discussions fail before they even begin is that each side expects that the other will agree with them before the discussion is over or they will have failed in the discussion. If you enter into a scripture discussion with this attitude, it's a failure already. We discuss scriptures to understand each other. If agreement happens, that is icing on the cake.

Have you heard about the Young's Literal Translation of the Old Testament? I think I've linked and discussed it before. Read the introduction on the link below so you can understand what the YLT is and what it is not. I really like what it says about the creation. I'll bold what I really like: Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning of God`s preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, 3 and God saith, `Let light be;` and light is. This is strong evidence (depending only on the authenticity of their understanding of Hebrew) that God used existing matter or elements to create the Heaven and Earth. To say "the earth hath existed" is proof, if they are right, about the Hebrew meaning. The addition of "preparing" in verse 1 adds more evidence, and supports Joseph Smith's view on how it was planned before it was created. Very powerful words here. Many other faiths believe that in verse 1 He actually creates the unorganized, unfinished universe, and then goes on to describe how He finishes it. However, the pattern throughout the chapter is that God creates by speaking. The first thing He creates in Genesis chapter 1 is light, not heaven or earth, and that isn't until verse 3. He describes how He creates Heaven in verses 6 through 8, and Earth in verses 9 and 10. It is clear by the pattern in chapter 1, and as the evidence of this translation shows, that light was the first thing created, and that verse 1 is a "title" or planning about what was coming. If you're ever involved in a discussion with someone of a different faith, this is a very good tool since it was not produced by the Church. Parallel Hebrew Old Testament

Most in the world will describe love as something you feel within. To me, love is when you care so deeply for another person that you put their well-being above your own. The best example is what Jesus Christ voluntarily did for us in Gethsemane and on the cross, because He loves us. In my opinion, the second best example is very much the same: John 3: 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. To make my point, all you really need of this verse is "For God so loved the world that He gave..." When your feelings for another cause you to give up something of great value for their benefit. Again, in John 15: 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

I've been discussing scriptures and beliefs with a man at work. He comes to my desk at lunch time with his Bible and we dicuss whatever is on our minds. He stopped asking questions when he learned I am LDS. Instead of asking me, he went to his "sources" and studied what I believe. One day, after I had him really pondering over the need for water baptism with a surprising scripture (he doesn't believe water baptism is necssary) he fell back on "Yeah, but I'll never believe God was once a man." Since that time he used it often. So, one day I told him it was time we discussed it. He jokingly said that there isn't enough time in a day to talk about it. I told him we didn't need that much time. I asked him if he believed that Christ was born of a mortal mother. He responded yes. I asked him what that made Him. He said it made Him a man. To which I responded, "So, He is God, but was once a man?" I realize it's very simplistic, but it helped him understand. A few days later he started with the, "I don't believe man was alive as a spirit before he was born" ploy. He quoted the usual evidence, or lack of supporting evidence, in the Bible, and said it's "convenient" to my belief that we forget at birth. After a few of those comments over the course of several weeks, I told him I had something for him to think about. I asked him as Jesus laid in the manger if He expounded the doctrines of the kingdom to Joseph and Mary. He said no, that he had to go through a normal childhood like other men. I said, "So, that means He forgot who He was?" Anyway, I had never thought of those scriptures as direct evidence of those things before. Anyone have any other ideas or comments about these stories or others for this topic?

Yes, there are some things that the "innocent" just don't / can't understand. This is why God said that "man" had become as "us" after Adam ate the fruit. Before he ate the fruit, he didn't even realize his nakedness before God or his wife. In any case, Alma 12 and 42 are pretty awesome.

I don't see how what I said disagrees with the scripture you quoted. It certainly would have destroyed the world. God placed a guard on the tree of life, which Satan did not know He was going to do. So, Satan did not know the mind of God. So, how is what I said "not so?" I think Alma 12 and 42 make it pretty clear.

I think it's logical to assume that if Satan didn't have a plan then he wouldn't have won so many followers in the spirit world. I'd say, not only was it a plan, but it seemed to many like it would work. It had to have ALL the properties of Father's plan. Maybe they were ordered different? I consider why Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit to begin with, because the best way to destroy God's plan was to not tempt Eve at all. To not introduce opposition would have left them stagnate in the Garden of Eden. This leads me to think that Satan required Eve to eat the fruit as well in order to bring about his plan. Satan had to know God's plan, he was there when it was presented. He had to know eating the forbidden fruit, or gaining the knowledge of good and evil, was part of Father's plan. Alma 12 and 42 discuss what would have happened if Eve (Adam) had eated of the tree of life immediately after eating the forbidden fruit. It would have destroyed the agency of man. I think it begs thought. The consequences described are exactly the same as what Satan wanted. It would have redeemed man from physical death, but not spiritual death, which needed to be done prior to being saved from physical death. He had to have a way to overcome spiritual death in his plan, even if it couldn't work in reality. It looked to many like it could.

I was circumcised, my sons were not... by my wife's choice. Honestly, it really didn't matter to me. After a couple of infections, at times she wish they had been. Otherwise, we are all normal physically. However, I agree that it's not needed. It's not part of our covenant now. As far as those who have had their sons circumcised should feel guilty... Guilt should come from intent to injure. I don't think it's any mother's intent to injure their sons by having them circumcised. So, likely, there would be no guilt. I think it's more accurate to say mothers have their sons circumcised for reasons they feel will benefit them, not injure them.

Yes. We must always remember that the Church is the people. The building is a chapel where the Church meets. The people are the reason it exists. I agree with you.

I see what you're saying. I guess I have to fall back on the authority point. The teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were "distorted" but not removed. I can see where that means the true Gospel was removed, but I am open to other's interpretations. What cannot be doubted is that "an" angel was required to begin the restoration of authority, since it was lost. Therefore, an angel was required to "usher in" the restoration. I agree that this one angel mentioned did not restore all things. I think this angel mentioned restored a few of the basic and foundation truths of Christianity that were lost or distorted. The rest piggy-backed on that. It's interesting that an "angel" is simply "one who is ordained, commissioned, or sent by God to teach His Gospel." This term aptly applies to missionaries and others who have dedicated their lives to God's service.

What I'm reading into it is not so much "knowledge" but "authority." Either God, in truth and fact, givesm en authority to act in His name, or He doesn't. If He does, which is how I see it, then that authority would be required, and yes, it would exist in His Kingdom... and not outside it. If He does not, then the knowledge is enough, which would lend toward thinking the Gospel can be JUST personal.

That is much like the question I hear by many Christians... "Is it about believing in Christ or being baptized in water?" Can it be both? To answer your question: If latter-day restoration is the way Christ restored His church to the earth, prepratory for His Second Coming, then they would be one in the same. It's the same answer for those who ask any question along this regard, like about baptism. If Christ commanded men to repent and be baptized in water, then in order to "belive" Him one would have to keep His commandment. Again, one in the same.