Vort

So, Hoosier, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You believe we should go to war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked us, killing thousands or perhaps millions of them and putting our own troops in mortal peril, because you don't like how their laws or how they enforce them. In other words, you think we should impose our moral and societal system on a foreign nation that has done nothing to us except sell us oil. Did I capture your thoughts adequately?

Perhaps this is the problem. I am not looking for a mystical metaphor. I want a clear explanation. Jesus' words were crystal clear: "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." I want an equally clear explanation how this is possible and what it means, given that, in Shelly's belief system, God and Christ are "one in Person".

You cannot actually believe this, especially since you declaim the very idea of God as a sexual being. Surely you do not believe we will be having sex with God, and thus be one with him. You may have thought this quote would explain it better than you could, but the quote did a very poor job indeed of explaining it in a comprehensible manner. Comparing how we and Christ will be one as similar to how a man and wife are one through sex just is not clear -- especially since Christ specifies, "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." So again, I ask: Will you please explain in what sense we become one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father?

What do you suggest we do, Hoosier? Bomb Riyadh?

Please explain the meaning of John 17:20-21: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 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. Please explain how we are to be one "in Person" with Christ, exactly as Christ is one with God. Remember, this is not a oneness "in purpose" that we are talking about -- at least not according to your beliefs.

The Son has all the attributes of the Father. He has inherited the fullness of the Father. So all the attributes of perfection can be inferred to the Father and the Son in equal measure. Very little (read: nothing) of a personal nature has been revealed to the Church regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost, so questioning his personal attributes is useless. We know that he is a member of the Godhead, so we can assume that he has all the glory, power, and perfection necessary for that.

Very interesting take on the documentary hypothesis and its implications vis-a-vis the brass plates of Laban. But do you think this would be an appropriate discussion for a gospel doctrine class?

Yes. Yes, as far as has been revealed. In mortality, he was a literal son of God in the flesh, which I understand to be different from us. I don't know. I do not believe such specifics have been revealed to the Saints at large. Yes. Having answered your specific questions to the best of my ability, let me point out a problem. You are in the position of a child who, having more or less mastered addition of single-digit numbers, then demands a thorough explanation of integral calculus, differential equations, and number theory. Upon examination of almost any part of the above, the child responds, "I know math, and that's not how it works!" The tools you need to understand the gospel are humility, diligence in searching, and a willingness to submit yourself to God and do whatever he demands of you (even such a horrifying possibility as -- gasp! -- being baptized a Mormon). You are not required to park your brain at the curb, but by the same token you cannot get the understanding you request merely through logical argumentation and comparisons with what you already think you know. There are too many missing pieces to build a wide foundation.

If that's your impression, then fair enough. Can't fault someone for how things have been presented to them. But you wrote, "The LDS godhead come across to me more like the Roman or Greek gods, family squabbles, kids doing odd things etc". Even if we take all the things you mention at face value, I'm still not seeing how "the LDS [G]odhead" comes across as squabbling in a manner similar to Greek or Roman pantheon gods. For the record: It is not the case that the LDS Church teaches that Lucifer and Christ each presented a plan, and the rest of us picked between them. This is false doctrine. The true teaching is that the Father presented his plan for the salvation of his children, and asked (perhaps rhetorically) whom he should send to redeem mankind from the fall that must come. The First, aka the premortal Christ, stated that he would accept the role. Lucifer, "a son of the morning" (whatever that means), also spoke up, seeking to usurp the Father's honor. His offer was rejected by the Father, who selected the First as the Savior of all. Lucifer and those who hearkened to him rebelled and were forever cut off from the Father and cast out of his presence.

Interesting viewpoint. Can you give some examples (or, hey, even one) of the LDS Godhead engaging in a family squabble or doing "odd" things, a la Roman or Greek pantheon members?

I'm not an authority, but I don't see why it would not be possible. Seems the obvious thing to do, especially if the ex-spouse never remarried.

Who the devil are they?

The idea was that the young man being invited to "follow Jesus" was unclear on the concept. But now that I understand you were making a gentle attempt to explain it to me, thanks. I appreciate the effort.

At the risk of overanalyzing a fairly simplistic joke: The humor lies in the tension between the Lord's admonition to "follow" him and the pop-culture interpretation of the rather shallow idea of "following" someone on Twitter. The "LOL" reinforces the shallow interpretation, another virtual elbow to the ribs, in effect saying, "I realize you're too stupid to understand that this is a joke without me explicitly saying something, so I'm cluing you in right now that this is intended to make you laugh." In other words, basically a smiley. (If I had searched a little harder, I would have found one that didn't have the "LOL", but I was too lazy. lol.) The main problem with the humor is that the Lord does not "literally" want the guy following him; rather, he wants the guy to follow his teachings. So the joke actually fails as written. But at this point we have overanalyzed the joke, so we might as well go suck the life out of something else.

That's where I saw it, too. What's your name there? (Respond privately, if you prefer.)

If we're sharing touching YouTube vid shorts:

Baloney. Very, very few Christians ever actually go to the so-called "Holy Land". Their belief is not based on being able to walk around ancient ruins or sites mentioned. If so, no one would believe in Eden. Or heaven.

Others have already corrected you several times, Shelly. You appear not to want to hear the corrections.

What board?

Clearly, the other mods are slacking in their duties. For shame!

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is baloney. God exists independent of what any of us think of him. The realities of God are, well, real -- independent of what any of us think about them. Our conception of God and things Godly changes their nature not one iota. The things of God are outside our mortal experience. For this reason, God speaks to us in language we can understand, thus giving us some approximation of truth. But to believe that the words we have and the limited language we use is sufficient to describe either God or Godly things is tremendously naive. When God calls something or someone "eternal", that means exactly what God intends it to mean. It may OR MAY NOT mean exactly what we think it means. So how do you know what God's teachings mean? If our language is not sufficient to define his word, how can we know anything? Answer: By the Spirit. There is a reason the very first gift we are given upon entering the kingdom of God is the most important gift we will receive, one that leads us to the ultimate gift of eternal life: the Holy Ghost. Through the revelations of the Holy Ghost, and ONLY through his revelations, we can learn what God means by his words, rather than depending on our own imperfect understanding or the musings of others.

Not so. Jesus was probably not born April 6, and may well have been born around the winter solstice. What was the real date of Jesus' birth? | Deseret News

No. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things that God hath prepared for them that love him." But our lives here are patterned after eternal life, so we can get some hazy idea by looking at how life is supposed to be lived in mortality.

http://www.motivateusnot.com/resize.php?name=LzM3OC9MT0wtTm8sLUknbS1ub3QtdGFsa2luZy1hYm91dC1Ud2l0dGVyLi1JLWxpdGVyYWxseS13YW50LXlvdS10by1mb2xsb3ctbWUtNGU4OWZmMDY1NDEyZS5qcGc=&w=550&h=9999&extension=.jpg

As nursery leaders twenty years ago, my wife and I had difficulty convincing parents of incoming nursery children to LEAVE THE KIDS THERE AND GO TO CLASS. The natural parental instinct is to hover and protect. Believe me, I know; even after our experience as nursery leaders, we had to fight the same instincts in ourselves. But if you have spent time in the nursery, you have had a chance to see the nursery leaders care for the children. In our experience, it was very rare (as in, maybe it never happened) that a child would be left by the parents each week and not be playing happily by the end of the second or third time. But if the parents don't leave, the kid will never disattach. Do your child and yourself a favor: Take him to nursery and go to Priesthood. If there is a real problem with your child, I guarantee the nursery leaders will take him to you.