Jenda

Thanks, Shantress. That helps explain how you feel (or rather understand how you feel) better. :) I wasn't trying to throw one at you, it just seemed you swung from one end to the other rather rapidly. But you cleared it up.

I guess you are talking about me, huh? B)

Shantress, you stated in one of your replies to LaurelTree "Not sure what this means, but I am against it. Now I'm not allowed to sound as if I am?" And I just wanted to ask a question. You have vascillated in your position regarding this issue. First you stated you weren't sure, but you felt that it wasn't true. Then you stated that you didn't believe it, but others could because none of us can be sure what is really true and we won't know till it is all over, then you made the statement above, that you are against it (the church). All of this has happened in just a few days time, and I was wondering which statement is true. I am curious how you can go from not being sure if it (the church, history, etc.) is true to being against it in such a short period of time.

Again, it is just how things are done that has changed. In fulfilling the law...Christ did allow a change in the circumcision requirement. Now w/ blood sacrifice, I agree it was a fulfillment. Because Jesus fulfilled the law, he allowed a change in procedure. Why can't Jesus allow a change in who blesses the sacrament? Changing and fulfilling are not the same thing. If you can demonstrate how a law was fulfilled between the time Joseph Smith received that revelation and the present, I would consider the matter, but when a direct commandment is given via revelation, I would expect that God would expect it to be fulfilled in order for Him to consider fulfilling His side of the covenant.

I will definitely take this advice into consideration. :)

So in your view, there is no salvation outside the CofC (RLDS) Church? you say that you don't have to accept the Book of Mormon, but, does one have to accept Joseph as a prophet? That is a tricky question. Tricky because the CoC has split, and I no longer feel that the priesthood authority is contained in it's fullest within the church. The true authority of the priesthood lies, IMO, with the restoration branches that split off from the CoC when they started changing and diluting the gospel. However, these men are still members of the CoC, so, I could still answer the question yes, but a very qualified yes. Does that help muddy the waters a bit? Does one have to accept Joseph as a prophet? One would have to accept the words of God that Joseph spoke, so, yes, one would need to accept Joseph as a prophet. Now back to the original question. If God does not change, why don't we still offer blood sacrifies? Why aren't we still circumsised? Why aren't...well you get the idea. God does not change. God has restored His church several times through the course of history. When Moses went up Mt. Sinai to receive the law, God gave him the Celestial law, but when he came down from the mountain and saw what the Israelites were doing, he smashed the tablets bearing the law, so had to approach the Lord again to receive the law. But because of the wickedness of the people, God gave them a different law (a lesser law). The people had showed God that they couldn't handle the Celestial law, so he gave them a law that was much less spiritual in nature. One that was full of rules because they needed to be led like children. Yet a law that could still get them where they needed to go if they were diligent. When Christ came, he fulfilled that law, and again restored the Celestial law to the earth. Because the Celestial law was restored, the requirements of the temporal law were lifted. For instance: When Moses tried to free the Israelites from Egypt, God instructed the people to rub the blood of a perfect lamb on the lintel of the door so the angel of death would pass by them. The blood of the lamb was a type and shadow of the blood that Christ would shed for our salvation, the physical rubbing of the blood of the lamb represented their faith that God would keep His word. When Christ came and shed that blood and gave His life for us, we need to profess faith in Him, which binds Him in His promises. The first were physical acts that they were commanded to do (representing the temporal law), the second represents the spiritual aspects that override (or underlie) the physical act. That is how the temporal law was fulfilled. We are not required to "act out" our faith in terms of laws anymore, but we are required to express our faith in spiritual terms. (I'm sorry, it is really hard to put down in words a spiritual interpretation for something. I hope this was understandable.)

Gee, that is something I don't want to think about. My daughter wears those bracelets, and she has about 20 on at a time. Red and black. But she is into the gothic look right now, and they sort of seemed to go with the rest of the decor. Luckily, she is adding other types of bracelets into the mix, now. Er......... ummmm............... What do red and black stand for?

That answered the first question. But what about the second...and especially the third? Sorry, those other questions just seemed to disappear, I guess. LOL IMO, being valiant in your testimony means never denying those things you know to be true, repenting, repenting, repenting, enduring to the end. Those kinds of things. :) The restored gospel, IMO, is the NT church that was restored in 1830. Priesthood with authority, an ever-present God, manifestations of the Spirit, principle of Zion (Kingdom), the principles of the gospel -- faith, repentance, baptism, laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. I want to know your take. because this seems at odd with the God is not respecter of persons that you claimed before. how do you reconcile these two views? I understand what you are saying, and I went back and re-read the scriptures to try to understand why those two groups are differentiated, and the only thing I can come up with is that the group going to the Terrestrial Glory who accepted Christ in the prisonhouse was not baptized. But the time-line doesn't make sense. If those in the Terrestrial Glory are resurrected in the resurrection of the just, they would have the opportunity to be baptized during the millenium. So, maybe there is something I can't see right now. I posted this question on another board to see what others thought about it. So if I feel the spirit in a meeting then I deny that I did...I'm destined to outer darkness? Or, is it something more? Denying the Spirit is more like an attitude rather than words. It is the deliberate putting off of that which is holy that you have received through the power of the Holy Spirit. I have a friend who was, at one time, very spiritual. It was through him that I came to know the Lord. During a retreat, he spoke to me under the influence of the Spirit, and it was such a powerful experience that my life changed 180 degrees. Over the years since then, he liberalized himself right out of, not just the church, but belief in Christ as the Son of God. He has, as of yet, however, refused to deny his testimony, but the last time we talked about the subject, he was looking for other ways to explain those experiences. I do not believe that, as of yet, he has denied the Spirit, but from his remarks, I feel he would like to. What holds him back, I don't know. But God knows. And it is only God who can make that judgment. Maybe before he has a chance to find an alternate explanation for his testimonies, he will find hope again in Christ. I do pray for him, though. So, back to the answer, IMO, it is the intentional putting off of that which is holy, which can only be realized through the witness of the Holy Spirit.

What does it mean to accept Christ? What does it mean to be valient in your testimony? What does it mean to accept the restored gospel? Believe that He is the Way, the Truth and the Light, and recognize that it is only by His death on the cross that we can receive salvation, and by His resurrection that we can hope to live again. This is an interesting take. How then, can you say that God is no respecter of persons. If a person is relegated to the terresrial kingdom just because you were not given an opportunity to hear the Gospel in this life? Take that up with Section 76. That is where I got it. What does it mean to experience a witness of the Holy Spirit? It is through the witness of the Holy Spirit that we know Jesus Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that confirms our testimonies and our knowledge of the truth. Without the Holy Spirit, we would not know of assurity that Jesus is the Christ, the means whereby we are saved. One can deny the Father and one can deny Jesus Christ, but we can't deny the Holy Spirit without it affecting our salvation because it is through the Holy Spirit that we can know Jesus and/or God.

You know what....whenever you are backed into a corner you just throw out.. 'heritic'....so just get off it...or I will ask Spencer to put you on mod status. Warning two.... I think this is getting to be a personal issue between you two, and you should both reconsider posting to each other's posts from now on.

I figured we'd have to since you base your position on writings that I do not accept as scripture. :)

(That was from "Gospel Principles") It sounds like if I did Temple Work for my non-Mormon family, they would end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom because they did not recieve the Gospel on earth. If that is true, what is the point of Temple Work? no, the point in doing Temple work is to give all people the chance to accept or reject the gospel. What I thought it was was the opportunity for all who had died previous to hearing the gospel to be baptized, etc., in case they accepted the gospel. They will hear the gospel in the prisonhouse prior to resurrection. Of course, IMO, those who accept the gospel in the prisonhouse will come forth with the resurrection of the just, prior to the millenium, and will have the chance during the millenium to be baptized, negating the need for baptism for the dead.

I don't think you understand that we are the deciding factor...not God...in who receives what and when. Do you agree there are those who just don't want anything to do with Godhood, religion, rules, etc? Do you believe that each dispensation was given what they were to have according to their pre-disposition (a disposition all to well known by the creator?) I believe that the fullness of the gospel was revealed in each dispensation of time, and that everyone had access and the agency to choose to follow it. No, I don't believe that some dispensations were given different laws and requirements. That is exactly what would make God a respecter of persons. If God requires more of you than he did of the grandmother of Luke (the disciple), and judges you with the same judgment, would it be fair? And I don't believe in the same type of pre-existent life as you, if that is what you are asking/suggesting. What happens to our physical bodies is not determined by God. It is a result of the genetic code that God set in motion when He created man. We had no choice in the type of body we inherit, we do have a choice in what we do with our life once we have our body. It has nothing to do with what we get in the hereafter, it has to do with the availability of the laws (requirements) when something is required to get into a "higher" glory.If celestial marriage is required to get into the highest level of the highest glory (which is something I don't believe in, but for the sake of discussion I will go there), then, for God to not be a respecter of persons, it has to be a revealed concept to everyone who has ever lived. If God only revealed it for a few exclusive individuals, then He is definitely respecting certain persons more than others. And God does not do that.

There is nothing in your post, per se, that would lead one to believe that you believe that God is a respecter of persons, however, I explained my beliefs in the post above to Starsky.God's salvation does not require that you believe in the Book of Mormon. It requires you to believe in God and Christ, and that Christ is the only way to God. It requires you to be valiant in your testimony, and to accept the true gospel (the restored gospel). (The BoM is an added witness of Christ, and while it will help strengthen your testimony of Christ, or even give you a testimony of Christ, it is not required that you believe in it for salvation.) If one fully accepts Christ and accepts the true gospel and is valiant in his testimony, then, according to Section 76, he will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter into the Celestial Kingdom. However, according to Section 76, if you have heard the gospel and reject it in this life, there is no hope of attaining the Celestial Kingdom. If you have not heard it in this life, you will be taught in the prisonhouse and given the opportunity there to accept it. If you do, you will be resurrected in the resurrection of the just and will enter the Terrestrial Kingdom. If you rejected the gospel in this life, and/or in the prisonhouse, you will go to Telestial Glory. If you have experienced the witness of the Holy Spirit and rejected it, you will then go to Outer Darkness.

I do not confuse them, they are intrinsically entwined. If God doesn't change, then His laws don't change. If His laws don't change, then His doctrine doesn't change. God is not a respecter of persons. However, if he added different things (laws, etc.) to what He has revealed, then what he requires of us changes. If God really did reveal those things through Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets of the LDS church, then those people who lived for thousands of years before those revelations happened would not be eligible for the benefits of those blessings. And that would make God a respecter of persons. I don't believe that that can, or does, happen. What God required of Adam and Enoch and John the Baptist and Peter is the same thing he requires of us. Not one thing more, or one thing less. When God reveals things to man, he reveals deeper insights. Not different insights or laws. He reveals ways in which man can come to understand Him better, not different requirements that place one man higher on the ladder than another simply because of the time he was born in. That is not my idea of a just God. Well you totally missed the point... I do not see God as a respector of persons in my post at all...yet that was the basis of your whole post. God will love all, and give them what HE KNOWS they need...and HE KNOWS the agenda HE has for each one of us...and He will never change. He may give us different things....as parent deal with small children differently than they do with teens and older married children....but the parents do not change...only what they are doing and how they are doing it according to the needs and situations of their children.... That is my point and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that could remotely be considered a change in God or Him being a respector of persons.... This is the part of your post that I was responding to. He changes the laws and doctrines by giving higher or lower laws according to the righteousness/wickedness of the people...that is what changes...not God. You stated that God changes the laws and the doctrines according to man's righteousness/wickedness. I will go half-agreement with you. Once, He did change the laws for a group of people because of their wickedness. When Moses went up Mt. Sinai to receive the law, and after he descended the first time, he saw the wickedness of the people and broke the tablets with the law inscribed thereon. He went back up on the Mount, and when God gave the law a second time, he gave a lesser law. A law that was full of rules, lacking in the spirit. This new law, however, still had the potential to get the people to go where they needed to go if they were extremely diligent. It had all the pieces incorporated into it. It just was extremely demanding. Fast forward to the 20th century (or 19th century, whatever the case may be). A "new" law was given through the prophet. A law that only certain people could follow. A law that was not available to everyone. A law that was exclusive. Following this law meant that you were destined for exhaltation. For the highest level of the highest glory. A blessing and a promise that had never been offered before to anyone in any dispensation of time. Given to a select people in a select time, not even available for everyone else to even know about. Therefore, only good, temple-going LDS could hope to attain this promise. These illustrations are an example between the times when laws were changed. In the first example, even though the law was changed due to wickedness, the people still had hope. In the second example, a new law was given to only a select few, and it was hoarded among themselves so others couldn't have the opportunity to avail themselves of it. This is an example of a God who would be a respecter of persons. Setting a new law for a small select group that he wouldn't offer to all. I don't buy it. If it is a true law, it is for everyone of every age. If it was a true law, it would have been revealed to Adam, and again to Enoch, and again to Moses, and again to Peter, James and John. Every dispensation would have had access to this law. And they didn't. That is what causes me to believe that it is not true.

I do not confuse them, they are intrinsically entwined.If God doesn't change, then His laws don't change. If His laws don't change, then His doctrine doesn't change. God is not a respecter of persons. However, if he added different things (laws, etc.) to what He has revealed, then what he requires of us changes. If God really did reveal those things through Joseph Smith, and subsequent prophets of the LDS church, then those people who lived for thousands of years before those revelations happened would not be eligible for the benefits of those blessings. And that would make God a respecter of persons. I don't believe that that can, or does, happen. What God required of Adam and Enoch and John the Baptist and Peter is the same thing he requires of us. Not one thing more, or one thing less. When God reveals things to man, he reveals deeper insights. Not different insights or laws. He reveals ways in which man can come to understand Him better, not different requirements that place one man higher on the ladder than another simply because of the time he was born in. That is not my idea of a just God.

Sorry, I agree with Jason. And there are a host of restoration scriptures that indicate that God does not change.Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is aunchangeable• from ball• eternity to all eternity. Mormon 9:19 And behold, I say unto you he bchangeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. D&C 20:12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.

It was the ending (the ultimate plot) that I didn't like. The Mr. Smith program taking over the world. Sheesh. I did like the references to Zion, good and evil, those who couldn't "see", an ultimate power, etc., they not only smack of Christianity, they smack of restorationism. I have always wondered if one of the writers was a member of some branch of the restoration churches.

I did see "Something's Gotta Give", and it was cute, but mostly I am a Matrix fan. Except that the last Matrix movie bombed. It did not live up to it's predecessors at all. I was most thoroughly disappointed. It had such potential.

Tao, one of my points was that I am not a member, so therefore there are things that I don't know. There might be a reason for doing it, I just don't know what it is because I am not a member. But others might know.

It is the dude from The Matrix. Keanu Reeves.

According to Section 76, if you reject the gospel here on earth (after having heard and understood it) you cannot enter into the Celestial Kingdom. That is correct. And if that is the case, I don't know what the point is. But then, I am not a good one to answer this question.

Ahem. I guess you are not a Star Wars afficionado. B)

I think that it is really midichlorions. And once we learn to listen to them, we will be able to harness the force to work to our advantage. May the force be with you! B)

Here is a good place to look. http://www.babelfish.com Portuguese is one of the major languages it highlights.