Vort

You are mistaken, but sometimes LDS word usage is subtle, so this is not surprising. Yes. Unequivocally, yes. I pray to the Father, and to him only. I do so in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ. N/A. Jesus is God. No. There is only one God. As I said, word usage is a subtle thing for Latter-day Saints. We don't play around with definitions, but we do use words in a way others may not. As the Bible clearly teaches, Jesus and his Father are one -- one in purpose, one in intent, one in desire, one in work. In the same sense, the Bible teaches that Jesus and his followers are one. But Jesus and his Father are not one Being, any more than Jesus and you are one Being.

Other scriptures to consider: Mormon 3:14-15 "...the voice of the Lord came unto me, saying: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay..." Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Hebrews 10:30-31 "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Isaiah 35:4 "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you."

Exactly.

Hey Jim, I think you must accidentally have missed some questions I asked you to clarify. Here's the link.

No, it was not "just a matter of how you interpreted it." The exact words were, "We could not feel joy or pain." Nothing there about "fulness of joy"; the teaching was that, premortally, we were incapable of feeling joy. Now who's stretching the plain meaning of words? This was no teaching about "the joy that we will feel in heaven after we are resurrected". The plain teachings we were told to teach brand new investigators just learning the gospel for the first time ever were that we needed to be born into mortality because we were unable to feel joy premortally. You can't hand-wave this one away.

"AD" means "Anno domini", or "the year of the Lord". It has obvious reference to the year Christ was born. But I think you're right. If you're going to take the hyperliteralistic view of Section 20, it says "one thousand eight hundred thirty years since" Christ's birth, which would necessarily correspond to Christ being born one year Before Christ.

And this is fine. Let's face it, 99.999% of what we think we "know" is actually just what we have been taught. But by the same token, we should not be afraid to critically examine our thoughts and beliefs. The thing is that the statement "Jesus was born on April 6" could have multiple meanings: Before Christ's time, early spring (around the time that now corresponds to April 6) occurred when the sun was (barely) in the constellation Aries. In fact, an astrologer would say that a person born on April 6 was "an Aries" because of this. Because of precession, by Christ's time the vernal equinox occurred when the sun was (barely) in Pisces. Over the last 2000 years, precession of the earth's axis has made it that on April 6, the sun is very far into the constellation Pisces. So if we take a sidereal (star-based) view of the year, April 6 of AD 1 would correspond to a later date in AD 2009, maybe April 26 or so. (I don't know exactly how many days difference it would be, and I don't care enough to figure it out, but it's on the order of three weeks difference. Here's a site that explains more about the movement of the vernal equinox.) So maybe "April 6 AD 1" means the date that corresponds to the sidereal position of the earth on April 6 AD 1830. (This is what I first assumed when I was taught the doctrine, at least as much as my mind at the time comprehended these issues.)In 1830, the vernal equinox took place on March 20 at about 9:30 pm in the eastern US. April 6 therefore occurred 16 days and a few hours after the vernal equinox. So maybe "April 6 AD 1" means the day 16.25 days after the vernal equinox. (This is the most reasonable meaning we could attach to this doctrine, in my opinion.)We currently use the "Gregorian calendar", which defines two millennia as consisting of exactly 730005 days. Using this system and counting backward from April 6 AD 1830, we arrive at a certain day, different from either of the two days given above. So maybe "April 6 AD 1" means the day you get when you count backward from April 6 AD 1830 using the Gregorian calendar. (This is probably the meaning most Latter-day Saints attach to the doctrine, when consciously or unconsciously.)You could do the same trick using the Hebrew calendar (or any other calendar you like), and you would get a different day for each. (From a religious point of view, this might be the most reasonable interpretation of the doctrine.)There are many other definitions for a "year", none of which is obviously superior to any other. You could use them to get yet more dates for "April 6 AD 1".The point is, if the date "April 6 AD 1" is so poorly defined that we cannot even determine a meaning for it, why on earth would God "reveal" it as his Son's "birthday"? To my mind, that seems utterly absurd. Since attributing such a "revelation" to the opening words of Section 20 seems the only way the whole "doctrine" ever got started, it seems most reasonable to me to assume that some overly zealous Saints simply got carried away by the wording of the revelation and started taking liberties with its meaning. Believe it or not, I tend to feel the same way. I am no fan of those who wish to dismiss whatever they're taught that they don't like just by saying, "Well, you know, the prophets are human and make mistakes, too." That strikes me as a form of spiritual cowardice. We don't have to believe polygamy, because hey, the prophets aren't perfect! We don't have to believe the Book of Mormon is literally true, because hey, the prophets aren't perfect! We don't have to believe that fornication is truly a damaging sin, because hey, the prophets aren't perfect! And so on. On the other hand... While I was growing up, I was taught a great number of things as "LDS doctrine". These things included: Premortally, Jesus and Satan both had "plans". We "voted" on the "plans", and Jesus "won". Satan "lost", so he and those who "voted" for his "plan" were cast out.American blacks were the "seed of Cain" that were cursed so they could not hold the Priesthood. They were cursed because, premortally, they were not as valiant as us white-skinned people. They would not be allowed to hold the Priesthood or go to the temple until every white person in the world had a chance to accept those opportunities.**Lehi and his family were the ancestors of the American Indians -- that is to say, the ONLY ancestors of the American Indians.Jesus was born on April 6. (When I was 15, I even wrote in my journal on April 6, "Merry Christmas!")**EDIT: To be fair, my parents, who were and are very much products of their generation and upbringing, nevertheless taught their children in no uncertain terms that black people were children of God, and that at some point they would receive the Priesthood and all the blessings of the temple. They did not necessarily hold to the "every white person gets a chance first" theory, probably because they had known too many rotten white people and a few very good black people. For this reason, the 1978 revelation came to us as a pleasant and exciting surprise that confirmed our faith, rather than a rude shock that challenged it.I could continue with such a list, but it would serve no purpose. Suffice it to say that when I got to be an adult and actually studied the scriptures, I found that a fair amount of the "doctrine" I had been taught was not LDS doctrine at all, but just someone's ideas or opinions that had somehow become incorporated into the teachings I received. This was about the time I went on my mission, and I became very sensitive to such non-doctrinal teachings. I guess some of that sensitivity lives on in me.

It's a discussion list. We're discussing the topic. I'm not offended. I just think it's a false idea. If you think it's true, please tell me what "April 6 AD 1" means, and by what authority you arrived at that determination.

I am sure the Church never knowingly teaches false information. Correlation has done away with a lot of the unevenness of Church manuals and such, but the CES is not perfect. On my mission, the discussions I used very clearly taught that we could not feel joy premortally. The exact wording, which I remember to this day, was "We could not feel joy or pain." Being a stickler for this sort of thing, I was quite upset about this blatantly false (and First-Presidency-approved) doctrine. I complained to my mission president (now a Seventy), and he seemed frankly a bit bewildered by my complaint. It was as if he were thinking, "Elder Vort, who cares? Why is it a big deal?" But it was obviously a big deal to me, and he gave me permission to modify the discussion so I didn't have to teach that. From that incident, I learned two important lessons: Church educational materials, even those approved by the First Presidency, might contain inaccuracies.The spiritual giants who lead God's kingdom on earth don't seem particularly fazed by such inaccuracies, brushing them off as one might brush off a pesky fly on a hot day.I am who I am, and I can't just completely change my personality to suit a whim, but I have tried to incorporate my mission president's attitudes in my own life. When I see an inaccuracy in a Church manual or teaching, I don't get all hot and bothered any more, at least not as much as I used to. But I'm certainly not naïve enough to believe that no such mistakes exist, or that just because such-and-such prophets said that such-and-such idea is true, therefore it is unassailable. As far as I can tell, the whole idea that "Jesus was born on April 6" originates in the wording of the opening to Section 20. To my eyes and ears, that opening does not in any way read as a revelatory proclamation on the birthdate of Jesus Christ, but merely a statement of the date of the Church's formal restoration. Other overly literal interpretations seem to me misguided. That some previous Church presidents obviously believed the idea to be true doesn't really bother me, nor does it sway me. Other apostles disagreed with them on that idea. For the, what, fourth time now, I ask you: What does "April 6 AD 1" mean, and by what authority do you make that determination?

So if the institute manuals contain any false information, they are useless? I disagree.

The institute manual doesn't define our doctrine. Interestingly, Elder McConkie apparently felt no compunction about disagreeing with these opinions.

Another possibility: The Census of Quirinius Since Quirinius (or Cyrenius) was appointed by Caesar, a census instituted by him may well have been understood (or even represented) as being ordered by Caesar himself. Interestingly, this suggests Jesus' year of birth to have been around AD 6, which is in line with some of what Hemi was suggesting.

A little reflection will show this to be highly unlikely. Requiring farmers and tradespeople in an agrarian society to take a week off to travel to and from another city to pay taxes, right when they should be preparing their fields for planting (or selling their skills to said farmers), would defeat the purpose of raising money. (Remember that the Jews also had to make a yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which judging by the story of Jesus at the temple was a big deal. Two such trips in a year would be completely unreasonable for such a situation, I would imagine.) The Bible makes it clear that certain Jews, called publicans, were authorized by the Romans to collect taxes from their fellow Jews, so no such annual gathering would have been needed anyway. Furthermore, Luke's account states that the reason for their journey was a decree from Augustus (Octavian, I presume?), which is very unlikely to have been an annual occurrence. The most logical reason for such a "taxing" would have been to conduct a census for tax purposes. Though Luke does mention Cyrenius, so I wonder if there was a local tax levied by him at the same time as the census was taken. The hoi polloi, being unaware of and unconcerned with Roman census methodology, would have simply understood this to be a tax they had to pay when Caesar ordered it. That would make sense, and would explain the account Luke gives.

They did not return to Bethlehem to be taxed. They returned there to be counted in a census. At least, that's my understanding. Requiring people to travel many days' journey just to collect taxes from them would be hugely inefficient and wasteful, certainly not something the Romans would have done. My understanding: The traditional explanation of Luke's account "all the world should be taxed" was that the taxes for a region were based on population as determined by census. Jews returned to the cities associated wtih their lineage to be counted, so that's why Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem. I don't think there is any evidence that Caesar actually required a census at the time, so the account in Luke may be based on a false tradition. Matthew doesn't say anything about taxes or a census, but he also puts the birthplace at Bethlehem. (Interestingly, the Book of Mormon says simply "the land of Jerusalem", which would include Bethlehem but doesn't specify it.) Maybe Mary and Joseph simply lived in Bethlehem, and somehow Luke got ahold of a tradition of census-taking for tax purposes to place them there. The Lord later was considered as being from Nazareth, so maybe that's why Luke passed on the tradition of a tax census, as a way of explaining why Jesus of Nazareth would have been born in Bethlehem. Matthew was obviously concerned about this point, too, since he quotes scripture (badly) to justify the necessity of the Lord being born at Bethlehem. Or, who knows, maybe there really was a Roman census that brought them to Bethlehem that just hasn't survived in history except through Luke's account.

Pam, you're getting confused. That's OUR tax season! :)

Very interesting, though probably overstated. I am confident that, for example, wolves are a threat in times other than early spring. I doubt that spring was the only time of the year when shepherds watched their flocks. In any case, I have no problem believing that Jesus was born in the spring. Seems more logical than winter, for example, for several reasons. I simply think that declaring April 6 to be "Jesus' birthday" is unwarranted. I don't think any knowledgeable person believes Jesus was born on December 25. By "reaffirmed", you mean "opined". The opening words of Section 20 are no such declaration. There was significance. It was the date the Church was to be organized. What is the great celestial significance of December 23? Or March 15? Or June 27? If you really want to, you can find or invent a significance for any date you care to (witness the work of John Pratt, an apparently able and intelligent man who appears to focus his efforts on astonishingly superstitious nonsense). To say, "Well, Jesus must have been born on April 6, because look, that's when the Church was reorganized!" just doesn't wash. Hemi, you still haven't answered my simple questions above. What is the unique day pointed to be the term "April 6 AD 1", and by what authority do you derive that date?

Hemi, What does "April 6 AD 1" uniquely mean? And by what authority can you make that determination?

When what? When was Jesus born? About 2000 years ago, give or take. As far as I know, the day of his birth has not been revealed. I am well aware what a few previous apostles had to say on the subject, including President Kimball, who was convinced Jesus was born on April 6. I am also well aware of what other apostles had to say on the subject, including Elder McConkie, who saw no convincing reason to believe that Jesus was born on April 6. Again, I ask you: What does "April 6 AD 1" mean in the Gregorian system? Or are we to understand it as a Julian date? Or does it mean 15 days before the Spring Equinox? Or maybe we aren't talking about solar or seasonal years at all; maybe "April 6 AD 1" really refers to a sidereal year corresponding to April 6, 1830. Is that what it means? Unless you can define what "April 6 AD 1" means, declaring it as Jesus' birthday is not meaningful, totally beside the question of whether it's a correct assertion.

I assume you're referring to the opening of Section 20. To me, that reads like a formalized opening, not in any sense a declaration of Jesus' day of birth. Consider: What would "April 6, AD 1" mean in our present Gregorian calendar? It's not even well-defined. In short, I see no compelling reason to believe that April 6 is Jesus' "birthday".

I know Will, and you're wrong. He has two eyebrows. He just shaves off the top one. See? He DOES care about his appearance!

Agreed. Personally, I rarely or never say "spiritual sin", since I think it's redundant. To some extent, I was speaking past your specific post to the larger issue. Not every word I wrote was intended to be a specific response to exactly what you wrote. Also, note that I didn't say that lust necessarily stems from pride; rather, fornication in all its varieties stems largely from pride. Not sure what you mean specifically. Sin causes spiritual damage. Some sins cause more spiritual damage than others. Sexual sin causes great spiritual damage. And again, I was not necessarily intending every word I wrote as a specific response to what you wrote. Sorry if that wasn't clear. However, I did detect a sense that you thought sex sin was not as big an issue as the LDS Church makes it out to be, so that was the feeling I got that prompted my response.

Is there such thing as a "non-spiritual sin"? All sins are spiritual sins. To say otherwise is a contradiction in terms. Acting on your carnal desires, contrary to God's commandments and your own spiritual impulses, is a "deep-rooted spiritual pride." Sins of sexual immorality dull or destroy your sensitivity to the Spirit, and thus your ability even to hear God's voice. Dangerous stuff indeed. Sure, you can find things far more damaging, such as murder and rape. But the idea that sex immorality is really no big deal is a Satanic lie, and one of the pitfalls of our present generation. Don't you think sex creates more than just children? It's called "making love" for a reason. Sure. But since plants and animals are not children of God, there are no moral ramifications for them; they simply do as they are created to do.

Jim, You must have missed my questions on the previous page. Here they are again: In what sense do you believe an innocent newborn babe to be wretched, that is, "a despicable person meriting scorn"? What do you think it means to "believe Jesus"? Consider the following situations: A teenager involved in drugs and promiscuity goes to a church meeting and gets fired up about salvation. He loudly and publicly proclaims, "Jesus, I love you! I believe you! Come into my life!" From that moment on, he considers himself "saved". He does not modify his behavior very much; he still smokes pot and sleeps around as he can.A prostitute reads a pamphlet on salvation, and says with full purpose of heart, "Jesus, save me! I accept you as my Savior!" Then she services her next john and prepares for the next night's business.A rich old man, troubled by his life of dishonesty and white-collar theft, is told about Jesus by a friend. He admits Christ as his Savior and publicly confesses his name. From that moment, his friend tells him, he is saved. The man makes no attempt to repay the money he wrongly embezzled or otherwise rectify the harmful effects of his past sins.Do all or any of these qualify as "believing Jesus"? In your opinion, are all or any of these people justified by the blood of the Lamb?

Then perhaps you do not remember the scriptures. D&C 19:10-12 "For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. Endless punishment is God’s punishment." Mosiah 2:33 "For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge." Alma 42:1 "And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery." 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 "...the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" Deuteronomy 28: 20-22, 27-28, 35 "The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish...The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart...The Lord shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head." 2 Chronicles 26:20 "And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him." Jeremiah 9:25 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised"

Jim, What do you think it means to "believe Jesus"? Consider the following situations: A teenager involved in drugs and promiscuity goes to a church meeting and gets fired up about salvation. He loudly and publicly proclaims, "Jesus, I love you! I believe you! Come into my life!" From that moment on, he considers himself "saved". He does not modify his behavior very much; he still smokes pot and sleeps around as he can.A prostitute reads a pamphlet on salvation, and says with full purpose of heart, "Jesus, save me! I accept you as my Savior!" Then she services her next john and prepares for the next night's business.A rich old man, troubled by his life of dishonesty and white-collar theft, is told about Jesus by a friend. He admits Christ as his Savior and publicly confesses his name. From that moment, his friend tells him, he is saved. The man makes no attempt to repay the money he wrongly embezzled or otherwise rectify the harmful effects of his past sins.Do all or any of these qualify as "believing Jesus"? In your opinion, are all or any of these people justified by the blood of the Lamb?