Justice

How does this tie in with the "Son of God?" thread? Before these 2 questions were largely debated by anyone but scholars, a 14 year old farm boy "interpreted" scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in such a way that both of these most important and most difficult questions are easily and naturally answered, in such a way that even some ancient Hebrew and early Christian fathers taught. 1. Jesus Christ is literally the Son of the Father, in ways so literal it should make any reader of the Bible take notice. 2. The "universe" and the matter that makes it up has always existed. And, even though it is forever changing, it is eternal. "In the beginning" in the Bible is speaking of the beginning of the creation of this heaven and earth, not all heavens and earths (or the universe). Anyway, back to the video and the questions I asked in the original post...

We have discussed this before. People have quoted the most brilliant human minds throughout history. Honestly, a lot of it is hard to read, and takes more effort to understand than most are willing to give. So, I want to break it down to very simple terms... the terms I have narrowed down to as being the core logic behind the debate. I want to make it simple enough that anyone can understand and that all may want to participate. First, I grabbed a video from youtube that shows, simply, the underlying premise of my remarks, so you need to watch this first in order to understand the simple nature of my remarks. My friend at work, and I assume many other Trinitarians, believe the universe is as old as God says it is in the Bible. My friend at work says it is "6 days" old, admitting it could have existed as long as 6,000 years before Adam was created, if 1 of God's days is as 1,000 of our years. But, he makes it perfectly clear that it's no older than that regardless of what science finds. He thinks mixing the Bible and science in this regard is a test of faith, and anyone who claims to be Christian should side with the Bible because the sides are opposites and you cannot believe both. After watching the video, and after hearing my friend's remarks, I have but one question, that will lead to one other question when answered the only way possible. The second question required much greater effort to answer. How can we see the light from stars that are millions or billions of light years away if they were only created thousands of years ago? In my mind, in my friend's view, the only possible answer is that God wanted us to see His glory and majesty and part of the length and width of His creations so He "stretched" the light when He created them so that we can see them. OK. I buy that. In order for us to see the lights and signs in the heavens we would need to see them. Got it. So, my next question is, how then can we "witness" a supernova that had to have happened millions or billions of years ago if the universe only existed thousands of years ago? If your answer is that "God can do anything," and you respond, be prepard to defend your answer with scripture. I am well aware of that answer. In my mind that's just foolish trickery. By setting it up that way God is fooling us into thinking the universe is older than it is. If God created the universe all at once, thousands of years ago, then that's what we would see. If not, God cannot hold us accountable for using our brains and basing our opinions and theories from things we can prove. It is not "fatih" to discount what you observe and believe something you can't see. That is not faith, that is blind faith, which is different.

I deeply appreciate your honest and well-though out answer, PC. Sometimes "I don't know" is the best or only answer we have. I respect a person who is willing to say "I don't know" over one who turns the tables and begins to attack the hard-to-understand beliefs of others. If I were honest, I'd have to admit there are many of my beliefs that boil down to "I don't know." One thing I will disagree with you on, however, is that it's not harder than I can imagine, becaue I have tried for much longer than most people do. I ask myself, and others, questions that others don't even seem think of. Before I ask others I have given it my best effort. I haven't been able to reconcile some things over decades of trying. So, I imagine it's pretty hard. I'll start another thread on "creation out of nothing" that ties into this discussion.

Remember the set of ancient Jerusalem they were building in Utah for making videos of Christ's life? Well, it's finished, and the videos are starting to come in. Bible Videos - The Life of Jesus Christ - Watch Scenes from the Bible Some are very good. Some not so good. I'm hoping they get them all together and edit them into some longer movie-type films. I think the intention is for videos for use in CES and Seminary, even Sunday School.

I believe God is just and merciful at the same time. When He gives a commandment, not only does He judge you by whether you keep His commandment, but He also judges by your individual ability, or lack thereof, to do so. But, make no mistake about it, when God gives a commandment, He expects obedience (to the best of our effort).

I have read every word of every post with eager anticipation. When I saw there was now 5 pages I actually got excited. So many things to comment on. First and foremost, I'm glad, appreciative, and thanks to everyone for keeping this a civil discussion. I have learned that if you go into a discussion trying to get agreement from the other party, instead of understanding, the discussion will generally fail. Having said that... That Jesus is the literal Son of the Father sinks deep into my soul. I believe, as I have stated, that this is the primary message of the Bible, that God (the Father) sent His Son into the world to save it. I know all Christians have to believe this. I'm not questioning whether you do, just how. I know there are many ways to interpret the words, and I'm sure many ways I haven't even considered. I appreciate those of you who have helped me understand different intepretations other than mine. In keeping with the spirit of the purpose for this thread, I offer a scripture. 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. Let's throw the word begotten into the mix. How can the words begotten and son be used together in a symbolic way? Needless to say, this word is my primary evidence to back my belief that Jesus Christ was literally the Son of God. For those who believe that it is a description of their relationship, and not literal as men understand, how do you get around the word begotten? Doesn't that make it literal, at least physically in mortality? More thoughts to chew on as you ponder: Jesus' physical body had a mother. Doesn't that show God's intentions as far as following the pattern of "offspring" as we understand it? God could have simply "created" Jesus without a mother, in the same way He created Him without a physical specimin for a father. If not literal, then He could have created Him like the traditional belief about how Adam was created and still called Him His literal Son... if the "not offspring" understaning is your belief. Also, I don't want to get too wordy in one post, but a lot has been said, and I have had similar thoughts as many of the posters regarding several issues. I feel deeply like Traveler, that if Jesus Christ is not the literal Son (once we figure out how that is) then it strikes at the very heart of the Bible's primary message as delivered to the shepherds. Why not just say "Jesus Christ is God manifest the flesh?" Why even say Son at all if it is not literal? God knows how we view sons; He taught this to Adam and Eve. Why use a word we equate to something if He could just say "Jesus Christ is Me manifest in the flesh?" 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Just follow this line of teaching and doctrine in the Bible and it would be just as personal of a relationship, if not more, than saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Just say He is God Himself in the flesh. These are ideas and thoughts I have as I ponder these things, as I have a very logical and analytical mind. I am trained to think through scenarios and as many possible outcomes in any given situation. I tend to think outside the box. I know it's a lot to discuss. Maybe just pick and respond to one topic at a time? In advance, thank you very much for your input, especially PC and Maureen, I am very appreciative of your patience and understanding of my inability to understand, and trying to share with me ways you understand your beilefs.

changed, I think the word the guy you quote is trying to get at is truth. Maybe?

We are commanded to attend Church meetings. Sacrament and Priesthood meetings are required.

Judaism does not believe this Father had a son. Calling Him Father because He is the Father or Creator of all things is understandable, but does not require Him to be literal offspring. Again, valid definitions, as far as I am aware of the word. And that's what I'm looking for. You said: it would make his witness of "Father" more valid if he had a personal relationship with Him as a "Son". Agreed. You also said: Who knows a "Father" better than a "Son"? And not just any Son but His only Son. A Son unlike Father's human creation but a Son like him, divine and eternal. So, are you saying that calling Jesus the Son of God is just so that we can relate to their relationship, and come to trust Him more? Does this mean you believe there is no literal sonship, in the way man believes sons are made, by having offspring?

Yes, but one thing we did not have was an alternate choice to God's will and plan for us... until Lucifer. When we came to earth we gained 2 pieces to our progression that would forever change us. 1. Physical body 2. Knowledge of good and evil The physical body came with certain things that lead to us not being innocent. The knowledge of good and evil, or the difference between and ability to choose between good and evil, came with certain things that lead to us not being innocent. If you keep a child largely in your home, and perfectly shiled them from the things of the world, they would remain innocent much longer than a child who spends time and school and in the world in general. There are evil influences that prevent us from remaining innocent. Father perfectly sheltered us from evil. We were able to remain innocent a very long time.

OK. I can buy that, Maureen. That makes sense to me. Do you have any help to offer on how it can be a literal Father and Son relationship if they are co-eternal? If not in the spiritual sense, then how in the physical sense? The Trinity does not have a physical body, so how can this Being be the literal Father of Jesus Christ? I understand how Mary is the literal mother, but how is God the literal Father of Jesus Christ? If not literal Father, symbolic in some way? Is symbolic enough? Why call Jesus the Son of God if He is not the literal Son of God?

I was rather hoping you would reply. Maybe a bit more definition on this relationship. A son is a child or offspring. If they have existed together forever as the same essence, how can one be the son when they are the same? I know this is what the Bible teaches. I'm looking for how one being can be the son of another being if those two beings are co-eternal. They are the same. Why the trickery with calling one a son? No, in order to be one's son you have to be offspring. If that Sonship is literal. If it is figurative, then I'm OK with that as an explanation. I believe in the literal Sonship. I'm wondering how it can be literal if they have both always existed together. So, is "The Son" just His name? I'm suggesting that in order to be a Son you have to be the offspring of parents. Is this just for mortal men? If so, why confuse weak minds like mine and use a word that has a specific meaning of offspring, if, in fact, the Son is not offspring of the Father? It just muddies the water for me when I try to understand. Is it something we can't understand? If so, why explain it as "Son" and not as "God made flesh?" I can go for that, it makes more sense. Say "God was manifest in the flesh" like it does in other parts of the Bible and forget "Son of God" if Jesus Christ is not God's literal offspring, or Son.

So, maybe to obey your parents you first wait for a command, then do, but to mind your parents you can live proactively all the teachings they've given, even using common sense of your own to "mind" what you know they would say if they were there? Interesting comparison.

As you know, I have been having on-going discussions with a friend at work about various Christian beliefs. He is Trinitarian, and I proposed the following question to him, to which he did not have an answer, or his answer was "I don't know." I'm wondering if any of our Trinitarian friends here can help provide an answer. The entire premise behind the Bible is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. God speaks from the heavens and says "This is my beloved Son: hear him." (Luke 9:35). "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." (John 3:16). With my limited understanding of the Trinity I come away with 2 main points: 1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is/are spirit, and has existed always just as they are. They cannot have offspring, because if they could there would be more than One God. 2. Since God is a spirit, He does not have a physical body of flesh and bones as we do, or as the resurrected Jesus did. Assuming these 2 statements are true (my friend acknowledged they were), then, according to this belief, if God cannot have offspring, and does not have a physical body to provide genetics from, how is Jesus the Son of God? Thank you for any input.

My take is that man was innocent when they lived as spirits with God. Because of the fall all men are fallen and carnal, or no longer innocent, but because of the atonement, we are innocent because we are redeemed from the fall. If we do not reach the age of accountability we are innocent. We are innocent at birth because of the atonement. "Again" meaning that if it were only up to the fall, even infants would not be innocent and would not have a chance at redemption. But, because of the atonement, we are free from the affects of the fall at birth and again become "innocent again," or as we were before birth. When we arrive at the age of accountability and sin with knowledge of good and evil, then we bring the affects of the fall onto ourselves by our own actions and are no longer innocent. It's the fundamental belief behind: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

Very interesting. Thank you for posting.

I go with the JST.

And, Martain, I believe you are in Mark, not Matthew? Mark 10?

It could also be that in some cases where they appear to cousel individuals not to get married that they are speaking to those about to be sent on missions, and their counsel is to not get married just to leave their spouse for a long while. Since some who interpreted the texts long ago sought for celibacy and not getting married, it could also be some of that verbage crept into the text. There are a lot of possibilities.

Since we're speaking of an "edit" of the Bible, I agree that I assumed this much. I did assume needed inherent validity in any translation of the Bible if one claims to be a prophet. I also assumed that everyone who discusses an "edit" of the Bible on this forum would also assume that much. Again, my assumption is that any edits made to a Bible would need to be accurate, not just popular opinion or most obvious interpretation by one claiming to be a prophet. Joseph Smith claims, as a prophet, his "edits" are inspired of God and eternally true. I also assumed that anyone involved in this discussion would be able to see that I assumed an edit of a Bible needs to be inspired by God. Next time I'll try not to assume anything. Changing the Bible for kicks is NOT relevant, and is precisely why I assumed all involved would not need to discuss that. I did backtrack on "edit" because I was taken for a loop that "edits for kicks" (as you say) was even part of the discussion. As I said, I assumed that "edits for kicks" didn't need to be part of this discussion, so therefore I assumed they weren't. When I discovered they were, I had to agree (or turn around and concede) that a person "can edit the Bible for kicks" if they want to. It is not what I had in mind, nor was I expecting it to be part of the discussion, and is why I originally said he did not simply edit the Bible, that there was more to it. Later, I agreed that he did "edit" the Bible since anyone can technically edit the Bible "for kicks." I was trying to say it was a translation from revelation, not just an edit, which I explained in my previous post. Sigh.

Yes, this is my point. It was done by revelation. Call it what you want. To me, "edit" seems to be implying that he made the edits based on his own understanding or opinions. I am simply trying to say he did not understand how the passages were meant by the original writer just by reading the same passages in the KJV that everyone else reads. It required revelation. There are thousands of different interpretations for Bible passages. If he "edited" the passages based on his own understanding, the JST wouldn't be as good as any of the tranmslations out there now. Because, if you take away revelation, Joseph Smith had very little schooling and next to no understanding of ancient writings (and far less was available in the early to mid 1800s). The intent of the original writer was given to him via revelation, so then he was therefore able to more accuratley translate the passage into English. The KJV was available, but it was meaningless for his translation because without revelation he couldn't understand it any better than anyone else. He could have made his translation without having a copy of the KJV to edit, just as he didn't "edit" a copy of the Book of Mormon. It was the intent of the original writer translated into English, since the original writers did not speak or write English. If he did not translate it into English, it would have been in the original language of the writers, through revelation, just like the Book of Mormon.

Dravin, isn't editing the Bible, or a canon of scripture already in place, different than editing even a historical work? If you discover, in your studies, that you left a piece of history out of your non-fictional work, by all means, edit it and add it. If you discover, in your studies, that part of the Bible is missing, can you just add it? Are you saying I'm confusing you because you don't see a difference while I do?

So, these physical desires discussed by Alma will be gone for everyone because of Christ's atonement? This sounds like "all you have to do is believe to be saved." Some will have their desires to sin removed and some won't. If it was based only on Christ's atonement then why does it work for some and not for others? Yes, but overcoming physical desires that come along with our body is not done solely by Christ. We must keep His commandments and learn to be obedient, that is where we learn to overcome our physical desires. We cannot do it on our own. He helps us. But, He will not force us. If He could then men then all would be saved. We will be judged on whether we gave in to the physical temptations. We are accountable.

In the example of Adam and Eve, they were innocent until they partook of the fruit. If that is twice, then fine., But, I see it as innocent before they ate the fruit. I think we need to discuss what it means to be innocent. I think our views may be different.

It's not clear in the Bible exactly why Paul was unmarried. But, having been a leader of some kind in the Jewish community before his coversion to Christianity, it's almost certain he was married. The most logical explanation is that his wife died. In that sense, it sheds a different light on his words. He may be speaking of being re-married. He says "unmarried and widows." to think "unmarried" means men whose wives passed away when used next to widows makes sense. As far as Christ's remarks, I'm not certain what a eunich was at Christ's time. Find that, and I bet you have your answer.