Jenda

I'm confused, Peace. Resurrect himself? Before he was born? Don't you have to die before you can be resurrected?

This is hard for me to understand. I completely respect your views, but where did the Y chromosome DNA come from? Just like the three Nephites were changed in the twinkling of an eye into translated beings, God can change the nature of anything he wants. God changed the nature of the egg from unfertilized to fertilized. Part of the miracle is that it was changed from unfertilized to fertilized male. It would not have been such a great miracle if it had been changed from unfertilized to fertilized female. (I read that scientists have been able to force fertilization from two eggs, the result would, of course, have to be female.) I believe, but am not sure, that the LDS view is that God actually had some kind of sex with Mary to create Jesus. (Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't want to continue to carry around that impression if it is false.) I don't believe that that happened, I believe that it just took the touch of the Holy Spirit to effect that change.

Okay, stop right there. Now I'm interested! Please share this advanced knowledge! I'm not familiar with your church's doctrines on the "Godhead." You believe that God the father was NOT the father of Jesus' body? Was Joseph the physical father? Did Mary already have a complete embryo in her womb that was activated by the Holy Spirit? I guess I shouldn't second guess you here, but you have me intrigued. I believe in a modal Godhead as opposed to a trinitarian Godhead. I believe that there is one God that has three modes of expression (three purposes), the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Mosiah 8:28-31 RLDS (15:1-4 LDS) 28 And now Abinadi said unto them, I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people; 29 And because he dwelleth in flesh, he shall be called the Son of God: 30 And having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son; the Father because he was conceived by the power of God: and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son: 31 And they are one God, yea, the very eternal Father of heaven and of earth; This scripture very closely describes how I believe about the Godhead. I believe that Jesus' literal body is no different than yours and mine. The difference lies in how it came to be. It came to be via spiritual means rather than human means. I believe that God (the Father) spiritually touched the unfertilized egg in Mary's womb by means of the Holy Spirit, and it became a fertilized egg. A pure home for his divine spirit to rest. He is pure because he was conceived without sin. He is divine because God's spirit rests within him. Without either of these qualities, he could not have shouldered our sins. Both were extremely necessary. And if he was not 100% human, he could not have died for our sins because he could neither comprehend them nor suffer for them. So, IMO, being pure, being divine and being 100% human could have been the only way for his purpose to be accomplished.

I do believe that Jesus was talking about telling no man that Jesus did it for him. I mean, once someone sees a once-lame person walking and jumping about, they will know that a miracle occurred. It is kind of impossible to keep something like that a secret. Or was the blind man who was given his sight supposed to pretend to be blind for the rest of his life? Think about the ramifications of what you say before using it as an argument on a public board. You can call it whatever you want, all you want, but that does not change the nature of what it was.

He didn't even have power over death except as His divinity allowed. If we are not divine in the sense Jesus was till after the resurrection of the dead, then they (His children (if he had any)) wouldn't have any power over death, either.

Jason, just because someone speaks of an experience, it in no way means that they are bragging. I, also, heard God speak to me. But I don't brag about it. Why? Because I didn't listen to it when it happened. And what He said would happen, happened. It could have in no way come from my pathetic little brain. So, I don't brag about it, in fact, I rarely mention it except for when I am feeling horribly guilty about the situation, which I still do 15 years later. So, just because you might brag about your experience, don't assume that everyone else does the same.

Well, we have gotten to the meat of your post. Guess what? The same argument works in reverse! Because we are coming from such differing places, your arguments will have no effect on those of us who faithfully hold to the belief that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God. So, tell me again why you are here?

I don't think that Jesus' children would be divine, if he had any. He was 100% human in that respect. The divinity came because he was conceived without sin and the spirit of God resided in him. If he fathered children, IMO, they would be no different than you and I.Of course, I am a couple of steps ahead of everyone else here. B)

There are basically two different ways to look at the Godhead (and millions in between them. ) There is the Trinity, and there is Modalism. Trinity states (in not so many words) that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all separate personages with a common purpose. Three beings united in one purpose. (Tri-unity=Trinity) Modalism is the belief that the Godhead is all one God with different modes of expression for different purposes. God=God the Father + God the Son + God the Holy Ghost. They are one God with different expressions. Christianity has traditionally accepted the Trinity model, the gnostics leaned more toward modalism. I personally believe closer to the modalistic belief. But it must be remembered that these models are "best expressions". No one model can fully describe the Godhead without discrepancies occuring.

Amen! LT, good post.

Your post is interesting, Holdyourfire. I am not LDS, but I am RLDS, and there are people who leave our church who claim similar things. Except their testimonies are much stronger, meaning they have experienced extremely intense spiritual manifestations of the spirit. One woman left and wrote a book, an exposee of our church. In it, she claimed that she had been part of a very charismatic group which spoke in tongues, experienced many physical healings, spoke under the influence of the Spirit, among other things. Then she claimed that she became friends with some people who opened her eyes to the truth and she stated that she had come to understand that she had been in spiritual bondage all that time. My question is (I guess I have two questions). One, when you are experiencing manifestations of the Spirit such as what I wrote of, how can you consider yourself in spiritual bondage???? Two, when you are experiencing what the scriptures call gifts of the spirit, how can that be wrong? And even if you decide that you have found a better truth out there, how can people producing good fruit be wrong? Luke 9:49-50 (IV) 49 And John spake and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid not any; for he who is not against us is for us. Are you one to go against what Jesus said just because of your personal feelings? You better rethink that position because you are putting yourself in a position of judgment, and by whatsoever judgment you render, the same will be meted back to you.

I didn't say that I agreed with his interpretation that the child was Christ, as I stated earlier, IMO, and in the other writings that I have read, the child represents the Kingdom of God (Zion). I believe that the church came from God, Christ is the bridegroom, the church is the bride.

Funny, I recall you saying that the woman was Mary and that John was prophesying about Jesus' birth. That doesn't sound anything like what you have written here.I do believe that I had the closer interpretation, the woman being the church which flees into the wilderness to be kept during a time of trouble. The only place we don't agree on is what the time of trouble is. But, you can think you agreed with him, it's OK.

What do you think of the 'calling' Jonah had and the fact he wasn't able to let it go? I have had 'Jonah' type callings from the Lord on occassions, and I was not allowed to let them go either. Jonah made a choice. He chose to run away from his calling until he realized that to fulfill it would be a better option for him. But he had that choice. He could stay in the belly of the whale, or do what God asked.I do agree that sometimes it doesn't seem like we have a choice, but when we have that perception, often the choice boils down to doing what God asks or something entirely unpleasant. But, it is still a choice.

The board was purged a couple of months ago, and everything except a few threads was deleted. So, if you are thinking back past that time, sorry, gotta start all over.

I'm sorry, your post makes absolutely no sense.Jesus was dead by the time that John was on Patmos Island, so how could John have prophesied about Jesus? Or is it your assumption that John was speaking historically? If that is true, then why call the book "Revelations"? A few areas where the Catholics have really twisted the words of Christ and created their own gospel separate from the one He set forth: Transubstantiation, Baptism of Infants, Original Sin, want me to go on? I got loads of them. Have you really never heard the church referred to as the Bride of Christ? The church is the woman, the Bride of Christ. Really, you should not participate in discussions where you have no idea what is being discussed. All you are doing is reading what you want to see and hear into the scriptures to get to the beliefs you want to hold. I don't know what you are waiting on me for, you are the one who is not supporting your view. Produce the scriptures that you feel refute my view (for which I provided scriptures for.)

Hmm, do you also believe that Satan is fulfilling a calling that he got from God? To be honest, Ray, I was just extrapolating on an idea. I have found that helps me examine an idea more fully and come to a decision based on thoughtful studying, etc., and not just base my belief on "because someone else told me that is the way it is". A question I have for the LDS here is, do you not see a calling as something you can choose to do or not? Because that is what a few of you have implied, that when you have a calling you are bound to it. I see a calling as something that you should want to do because you want to please the Lord (a choice), but if it becomes a hardship, it ceases to be a calling, and you have the choice (again) to let it go.

They seem to be missing all of it since what they teach and practice bears no resemblence to the church that Christ organized and the teachings he taught. Their priesthood is not the same. Their ordinances are not the same. None of it is the same. Why do you think it is?Let me make a suggestion, since you seem to have no idea what everyone is talking about, why don't you go and take a couple of courses in early church history and interpretation of prophecy, and then come back, because everyone else understands the basics, but you insist that everyone (but you) is wrong. So, I suggest educating yourself a little before sticking your foot in your mouth too many times.

The whole point is he had a choice, the Lord just knew which choice was the most likely to happen. The Lord knows us better than ourselves. I do understand the meaning of the word calling. I also know that had Judas not betrayed Christ, someone else would have set in motion an event or series of events that would have led to his crucifixion. Just as there are those who are foreordained to be prophets, they still must be worthy to be called to that position. Just like the birthright of Reuben, he lost it because he committed a grievous sin. So if a man was foreordained to be a member of the 12, yet he must first be converted, and the young man(or men) foreordained to touch him, bring him the Gospel and he rejects it...and continues to follow an unrighteous path and never accepts the Gospel, nor becomes a member of the 12. There are "alternatives" to that foreordination that the Lord has lined up in the even that A doesn't work out. In which B would become expedient. Judas had a choice, there is no excuse for him, nor do I thank him for anything. He denied the Christ, as was worse he died in his sins. That is like saying that I must rejoice Satan. Which I will never do. There must be opposition in all things, but we have a choice. Look at Enoch, they were eventually so righteous they were translated. That's right. Judas had a choice, and the Lord knew what was most likely to happen in that situation had Judas been placed there. He was chosen for that reason. It is a calling. A work that God needed performed placed upon the person who was most likely to perform it. You can use the defense that if he didn't do it someone else would with just about everything that happens in history. Joseph Smith. If he hadn't done it, someone else would have. Your calling at church. If you aren't performing it, someone else would be. The fact that it (the betrayal) is looked on as a negative act doesn't negate the fact that it is (or could be) a calling.

Even if Spencer was gone, the other moderators were here doing their jobs. Maybe that is why we got on so well together. :)

John might not have died How you figure? Look in III Nephi for the answer to that question.

Jenda, How did you arrive at the 570 AD date for the General Apostacy and how do you reconcile this with the LDS teaching that the apostacy began with the death of the Apostle John around 100 AD? Otherwise, your math is quite interesting. (I am RLDS, for those of you that are new here.) We believe the apostasy occured when God removed his authority from the church, which coincided with all the truth of the gospel being lost. While it is impossible, IMO, for man to put a date on that, when you look at the volume of evidence that has been amassed by many theological historians, the 25 years, or so, preceeding 600 AD seem to point to the greatest period of time where the church experienced its greatest decline in morality, etc., and is given as the most likely date of the apostasy. Which does co-incide with the 1260 years in the wilderness leading to Christ's church restored. So, what the heck, I believe it.

Mary fled into the wilderness for 1260 years?John prophesied about something that had already happened? Why don't you come up with a more realistic defense, because these have me ROFL.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "calling". In it's simplest sense, it is the work that God gives to us to perform. And I don't understand how you can make the judgment that Judas wasn't fulfilling a "calling". Are you privy to the nudgings and promptings that he experienced in his life?

Well, the act that Judas performed was a betrayal, but was that his calling is my question. I think that when Jesus made the statement he did in the scripture he quoted, he was not condemning Judas, he was asking if he had to use a symbol of love to betray him. Could he not have used another signal? That is my take on that scripture. This is very interesting. Jenda raises another question: If Judas was performing his calling as a betrayer of Christ, then was Lucifer fulfilling his calling being cast out of heaven and becoming our temptation on earth? Now you are seeing the light. In order to understand it better, see the plan of salvation in II Nephi 2. In order for us to live with God as he intended us to, we had to fall from an innocent state. Knowing good and evil, and choosing the good. It was only through this process that Christ would come to redeem us and we could approach the throne of the Heavenly Father to live with Him eternally. This was necessary because God did not want us as puppets, He wanted us to be there because we wanted to be there. So, in that sense, maybe, yes, Satan was fulfilling a call, too. But he did it knowingly, he had evil in his heart right from the beginning.