Justice

Sounds like a book series for me... ...I love it when people apply thought and reason to the scriptures. People say it is "assuming" and therefore not true. Well, I believe that if you ask the right questions in the right way you can eliminate possibilities. After having asked enough of the right questions and eliminated enough of the possibilities, you begin to get a picture of the truth.

I think you nailed it. True power is power over one's self. God demonstrates complete power over Himself.

Some were... not all. Perhaps those who were misunderstood, and they possibly did so with hard hearts, and so Christ let them. It could have been a weeding out process; it could have been one of His ways of looking for true believers... or maybe looking for those who were looking for an excuse to not believe.

This is a tough question to answer, because it will require you to embrace a new idea. The Bible was in the hands of the Catholic church for many generations. The Catholic church held this belief (of transubstantiation). The Catholic church dictated what was accepted as doctrine and what wasn't. They even dictated the interpretations of those doctines. So much so, that for a period of many generations if anyone was found with a Bible in their possession they were put to death. They wanted control of the text and all reading and interpreting. This is one of the primary reason why a restoration was needed. The precious truths that had been altered or lost needed to be revealed from heaven again. Luke 22: 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. This is the purest teaching of the purpose for the sacrament found in the Bible. Clearly, Christ was yet alive and was not advocating canibalism. The bread was to be a symbol of His flesh and they were to eat it in remembrance of Him. The Book of Mormon teaches the sacrament much more clearly than does the Bible. If you're interested in reading what it has to say, let us know and we'll provide a link or paste the text in. But, as far as your interpretation of the scriptures you posted and asked, there are other ways to interpret them.

Are you saying God set it up so His Son had to suffer an eternal torment for man to be saved? Are you also saying that God set up a system where all His children would not be saved? I believe both of these consititue proof that God is not above the law, and that these laws and conditions were established before Him. He subscribes to them and has taken ownership of them, and follows them. But, they cannot be His own devices or He willed those things to happen. It doesn't make any sense that God's work and glory would be to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, but the system He created does not allow Him to save all His children, and requires Him to sacrifice the most beloved of all His children. No, it makes much more sense that He simply has to follow those conditions.

I believe the term anti-Christ, like other terms, can be applied generally to many, but specifically to one or a few. I am one who believes there will be an "anti-Christ" in end times.

Agreed. I believe God has all power where the physical is concerned. He speaks and physical element obeys. This allows His the ability to do anything in the physical world. As many have stated, just because He can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean He should, or He would. I wanted to mention that the scriptures do not inform us how the universe was created, but how this earth was created. This tells me the focus is on man, and the worlds that man needs to be redeemed. God creates them one at a time as they are needed to redeem His children.

That's not what the scriptures say. God defines what "heaven and earth" are for us so we'll have no question. Joseph Smith taught that God started with physical element of some kind, because it cannot be created from nothing, nor can it be destroyed. Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. All you have to do now is learn what firmament is. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; All you have to do now is learn what dry land is. Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the firmament and the dry land. The scriptures never claim God created the universe from nothing, but that he started with element to create this earth: 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Here, before God spoke a single word of creation, He moved upon the face of the waters, or the face of the deep. With water already present, there are only 2 things left to "create:" firmament and dry land. This is supported in the Pearl of Great Price: Moses 1: 40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. Moses 2: 1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest. See also Abraham 3:5-7. This also sheds light on how the "Creator" is called the beginning and end. I'm not saying He's not the God of the universe, I'm saying He has only told us about the creation of THIS earth.

Remember, Nephi gave one set to the man he anointed to be king, and gave Jacob the other one. So, what was passed from Jacob to Amaleki was just the Small Plates. Jacob 1: 1 For behold, it came to pass that *fifty and five years had passed away from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem; wherefore, Nephi gave me, Jacob, a commandment concerning the small plates, upon which these things are engraven. 2 And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I considered to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi. 3 For he said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation. ... 9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings. Nephi gave the Large Plates (the ones that would eventually fill a room) to the man he anointed king and they were passed down from king to king until King Benjamin received them from his father Mosiah the 1st. Amaleki never had the Large Plates. There is no mention of this in the Book of Mormon. As far as we know, the Small Plates was the only record kept by the prophets from Nephi to Amaleki. Neither does the text suggest Amaleki had more than one record. Mormon, however, had more than 1 record... but only 1 record was HIS. Again, when King Benjamin "combined" the records he could not have been speaking of any other record than the Large Plates: WoM: 10 Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin. When Mormon said he "chose" the Small Plates, to put them with the "remainder" of his record, he could only be saying he removed a portion... otherwise there was NO gap in his record. He abridged from Lehi through 4th Nephi from the Large Plates. There was no gap until he removed a portion (from Nephi up to King Benjamin), and put the Small Plates in place of what he removed (since it covered the same time period) forcing him to add Words of Mormon as a filler between Amaleki and King Benjamin. It really is in black and white to me now. I've suspected it for quite some time, but now I know. If you have difficulty seeing this, PM me your phone number and we can discuss it. It would be much easier.

Sorry to resurrect this older thread, but I discovered more evidence while reading today. Once again, it was the same old verses in the same place I had been studying, but understood or applied in a new way. After using several verses to try to convery that he removed a portion of his abridgement and replaced it with the Small Plates (according to me), we find this verse: 10 Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin. Why is this verse significant, and how does it help my theroy that Mormon didn't simply put the SMall Plates with his entire abridgement? Well, frankly, because he did not say he did like he said King Benjamin did here: 10 Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin. King Benjamin simply took the Small Plates and put them with the other plates, or the Large Plates. If Mormon simply took the Small Plates and put them with his other plates this would have been very easy to say, just like he did here. All he had to say was I took these plates and put them with my other plates, if that's all he did. I maintain that he is describing more.

Very good comments you two. And, very good topic. PV2004, I learned that quite some time ago. The way I see it is God CAN do anything in the physical world. He speaks and elements obey Him. Yet, He is glorified and perfected, and His work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. So, everything He does, even if it doesn't seem like it to us, is for the benefit of man. What power and control He has over spiritual elements has not been revealed. What I do know is that He has all knowledge needed and required to redeem man. He will not learn anything new about how man can be saved. He is doing it the only way it can be done. Those are my thoughts. Thanks for the topic.

I have made an effort to be more clear, and only address your direct quotes. "Like unto God" can mean many things. That Jehovah was a member of the Godhead before He was chosen as the Savior is speculation. It seems more logical that both came at the same time, the call to be the Savior and in the Godhead. That would place what needed defined on "infinite and eternal." What I'm saying is that it needs to be pondered and prayed about with sincerity. If Jehovah was chosen to be the Savior in the Grand Council, that means He was not before He was chosen. Yet, it was known by the Father that He would be, so He always was? I am not trying to discount scripture, but trying to use simple logic and understanding while interpreting them. If you say something was chosen to this or that, it means (without further revelation) that it wasn't what it was chosen to be prior to that moment. We understand enough to know that without being told. Was a bishop a bishop before he was called since it was known by God's foreknowledge he would be bishop? I am coming from the perspective that the man was not bishop until he was ordained, even though it was known. Even though it was infinite and eternal knowledge that he would be bishop, he was not a bishop until he was given the keys. It is much like the discussion between agency and foreknowledge. How can we make choices if our choices are known before hand? How can Christ be the Redeemer for all things prior to the Grand Council if that's when He was chosen to be? Did we (or He) really have a choice? Speculation? Or, trying to understand the words? What about Lucifer? He wanted to be the Savior. It is said that he was intelligent. How intelligent would it be for him to want to be something if there was One who was already chosen to be, and everyone already knew that because the Chosen One was already in the Godhead? I think "endless and eternal" need to be considered more than most do. It is quite possible that mortals do not see it the same way. I believe Christ is infinite and eternal, as was His sacrifice. But, consider this scripture, where God has to explain this very thing: D&C 19: 6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. The speculation is on what endless and eternal mean through the veil, not that Jesus Christ is endless and eternal. If there will come a time when endless torment will end, is there also a time when something endless can begin? We know this to be true in this case, because those from this earth destined for "endless and eternal" punishment are not being so punished now. It will begin at some period, then end, yet, endless and eternal all the same. So, do we inform God that it can't be endless and eternal punishment because it begins and ends? It can be endless and eternal if it is of something that is endless. What is endless and etrnal? The family of man and the Priesthood. Again, without further revelation, we can deduce that Christ's sufferings were "infinite and eternal" yet they had a beginning and an end, because He is not constantly suffering the atonement, nor has He always been. In fact, it is a suffering that must be done while mortal in order to overcome death. The price has been paid, even though it was an infinite and eternal price. Maybe you're right. Maybe these questions can't be answered. My point is that we can deduce enough to rule out some things. We don't rule out that Christ is infinite, endless, or eternal because He is offspring of the Father, or because He was chosen to be the Savior. We don't rule out Christ's Atonement as infinite and eternal because those sufferings had a beginning and end. I think we focus on understanding endless, infinite, and eternal, and not say that Christ must fit our definition of these things. Christ IS those things; we need to understand those things. You may have the last word. I think if we continue further it should be in private tells.

Here they are again: Heardness of heart Deafness of ears Blindness of mind Stiffness of neck Taken from Jarom 1:3 I have enjoyed the comments so far.

This is the very reason I have been studying them. If I am to not be any of those things, I need to understand what they are and how one becomes that way. In fact, this is the very reason I read scripture at all. Sure, the knowledge and peace are certainly luring. But, my main objective is to know what they knew so I can be like them. Here is one of my favorite scriptures as of late, and am trying to put into practice: 2 Nephi 4: 15 ... For my soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart pondereth them... 16 Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard. Verse 15 truncated. That reference is easy to remember. 2 Nephi (2x2=4) chapter 4 (4x4=16) verse 16. I truly believe this is a key personality trait that made Nephi a man of great faith. I have tried to ponder more on the things of the Lord. When I read scriptures, I make a conscious effort to remember it during the day as often as possible, for as long as possible. I take/make time to be still and ponder. As I have done so I have found that I am able to love the things of the Lord more. Some of my greatest learning moments have come while pondering what I read long after putting the book down. It doesn't mean you have to sit and do nothing. But, it does mean you have to be doing something that doesn't require your full attention. I have such a job, and for periods during the day I can work while I sing hymns (outloud) or ponder about scriptures. It has made me love my job! This is related to many terms we use in the Church: Have a prayer in your heart always. Always remember Him (Christ). Fill your mind with good thought so there's no room for the bad. Now I look forward to the times during the day where I can be still enough to ponder about the things of the Lord. Oddly enough, as I come to enjoy it more, I spend more time doing it. As I have done this, I have come to understand Nephi with a lot more depth. So, I, too, would appreciate any commentary on those 4 phrases.

Well, I wasn't told that I worded it poorly, that was my conclusion after I re-read it. So, maybe there's some place between the underworld and Olympus for me? Being puppy chow and bird seed doesn't sound very appealing to me.

I am told that I have misrepresented Vanhin's views with this statement. Not only that, but I worded it poorly, almost in a condescending tone. I apologize for both. I did neither intentionally. I really thought that's what he believed. And, I do see that it is worded it to make it sound less viable. I was wrong to do that. From now on I will try to find direct quotes, or seek clarification before I assume what someone believes. I'm sorry, Vanhin. I guess I will remove myself from this conversation also, since I'm discussing against a belief that isn't really there. I do hope to understand your views one day, though.

OK. Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention. I think people who read these forums are interested in finding truth. If they make it this far into this discussion they are pretty interested. You have the responsibility to present it as you see it, with supporting scriptures and references. I am only doing the same. I don't think disagreeing is such a bad thing, and never get offended. I am open to ideas and interpretations. I will ponder and pray about this conversation, as I always do. Thanks for your time.

I guess it was Joseph Fielding Smith. The Father’s authority given to his Son. At times, the Son speaks with the authority of the Father, in the voice of the Father. During the administration of President Joseph F. Smith, the First Presidency and the Twelve explained, “The Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.” (Improvement Era, August 1916, p. 940.) Thus, the Son of God exercises his divine authority as he directs the plan of salvation. For example, in the beginning of section 29, Jesus Christ identifies himself: “Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins.” [D&C 29:1] Later, though, in the forty-second verse, he speaks in the Father’s name: “I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son.” The Lord reminds us that he and the Father are one (see D&C 20:28), so it is not surprising that he speaks at times as the Father. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “In giving revelations, our Savior speaks at times for himself; at other times for the Father and in the Father’s name, as though he were the Father.” (Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954, 1:27.) LDS.org - Ensign Article - “You Have Heard My Voiceâ€

Those words say "I am the Father and the Son." He is speaking for both Himself and His Father. Some apply to Him (Jehova) and some apply to the Father. Clearly He was not speaking about Himself when He said He never before showed Himself to man, because He (Jehova) had. That was the Father. When He said He created man, that was the Father as well. There are witness of both the Father and the Son in those words. I read some comments by Elder McConkie, Elder B. H. Roberts, and Pres. Joseph F. Smith on this very topic. I will look for those words. Jesus Christ is/was the Creator. I said that. But, did He create man? Your claim is He had a body of flesh and bone, and I guess a wife, so that He could "create" man, before He was born here. The scriptures I posted refuted that idea. I believe if you give them a close study you will see it's not "serious" speculation, but perhaps an interpretation that fits those words, as well as the scriptures you posted. Here's some light reading: LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Origin of Man Excerpt: The Origin of Man First Presidency In a general way the answer is given in the words chosen as the text of this treatise. “God created man in his own image.” It is more explicitly rendered in the Book of Mormon thus: “All men were created in the beginning after mine own image” (Ether 3:15). All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. “God created man in His own image.” This is just as true of the spirit as it is of the body, which is only the clothing of the spirit, its complement—the two together constituting the soul.

Yes, the Son can speak for the Father in the first person, because He delivers His message. Surely you don't think the Father and the Son are the same Being just because those words say so? After Joseph Smith saw them both in person? And, Jehova had shown Himself to man before, but the Father hadn't. You can't discount what we know because scripture needs interpreted. Using the first vision as doctrine, these words become different than their face value.

I really like the way you put that. There is a stark difference. I think often we feel "good enough" when we receive a little revelation throught the week, or when we occasionally feel the Spirit. This helps you see that's not good enough. The minimum is never acceptable to those who are sicerely striving to live according to the covenants they have made. And, I really like the quote you posted from Elder Maxwell. Material worthy of pondering over. ...and I assure I will. Thank you.

Hemi, I think the refusal to participate in ordinances is exactly what those scriptures you posted mean. If you decide not to participate in ordinances and covenant making with the Lord then it is your refusal to follow the Spirit, turn in the direction of divine guidance, and a lack of a desire to seek godly things. I'd like to throw out some related terms I've been pondering in the Book of Mormon, and see if anyone has any ideas on what the specific differences might be: Jarom 1: 3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land. Heardness of heart Deafness of ears Blindness of mind Stiffness of neck Anyone want to comment on what any of these mean, and what the differences between them are?

You know, to a smaller scale, I have those feelings even from day to day... that I learned something today that I could have learned yesterday had I had faith and was humble and faithful.

OK, I'll try to be brief. As far as 4, it's not that I disagree, but that I'd have to finish it with "... in this eternal round." Now, with 3, we can use a section of "Jesus the Christ" by Elder Talmage, as Vanhin posted it in another thread... "It now becomes our purpose to inquire as to the position and status of Jesus the Christ in the antemortal world, from the period of the solemn council in heaven, in which He was chosen to be the future Savior and Redeemer of mankind, to the time at which He was born in the flesh." Notice this says nothing of what Christ was before He was chosen to be the Redeemer in the Grand Council. One can speculate that He was God before, and what that might mean. I believe ALL children of God are "god" by a loose definition, because that is the "race of man." But, there was a period before Christ was chosen to be the Redeemer where He was the same as the rest of us: no physical body, no calling of Redeemer, no calling to the Godhead. I believe He was chosen simply because He was the best; the most pure, holy, and obedient son. I don't believe He existed as a conscience prior to being "born" as offspring to Heavenly Parents. I think the scriptures that refer to Him as "alpha and omega," infinite and eternal, are all true and proper. I think we need to understand what infinite and eternal are, as well as who we are as a race. We are God's children, meaning the Father. All who are ever born of a mortal mother in this eternal round are His literal offspring (spiritual)... including the great Jehova.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that Jehova led all the creation efforts (physical world) as directed by the Father, UNTIL it came time to create man on the earth. Then, the Father told Jehova to let He (the Father) and Mother create man. You might want to re-read it. :) It's early... get some orange juice first. :)