Mudcat

Hi All, I had a question in regards to these verses in 1 Nephi 12. Emphasis mine on v. 9&10. As I understand it, this seems to be saying that the 12 Apostles (Peter, Matthias, etc..) will judge the tribes of Israel... this would include Nephi and his brethren. However, the seed of Nephi will be judged by the 12 Disciples of the Lamb and these Disciples will first be judged by the 12 Apostles. Hopefully I have gotten that right, so far. It generates a few questions and I was wondering what your thoughts might be. 1. Does the immediate seed of Nephi fall under the judgment of the Disciples, or does their assignment as judges begin after they start they have been appointed? If that didn't make sense, I suppose another way of asking it would be. Are Nephi's seed still judged by the 12 Apostles as part of the tribes of Israel until Christ appoints the 12 Disciples of the Lamb? 2. Do the 12 Disciples have jurisdiction in judgement over modern day LDS, or did their assignment of Nephi's seed end with the extermination at the close of the Book of Mormon? Respectfully, Mudcat

Hi Anthony B, I hope you don't mind, but I had to do some font changes to your words to make it easier to respond..... but I left your text intact. Just to qualify my statements, I am an Evangelical Christian. I serve in a SBC church, but don't adhere to all SBC doctrine and consider myself simply a Christian, not a Baptist Christian. In short, I can speak for me and that's about it. Yes, I believe this to be true. I would confine this emotional expression to those relating to love, for the most part. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all perfect, so it seems that negative emotion would be contrary. I do feel there might be one exception to that, in Isaiha 53:10 it saysIsa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Don't really know what to think about that, but thought I might mention it. Sure. That's a good question. The way I see it, we have an omni-present Father. I adhere to the belief that the Father is a Spirit, I don't attach physicality to him. God is in all things... the good, the bad and the ugly. We can't run from him so the Father is everywhere.... so spatially he is everywhere. So I don't think you can be in a spatial location that the Father isn't in.Christ on the other hand has a body. I suppose you could say he can be in specific spatial locations, but he can't be anywhere the Father isn't. The Holy Ghost lives within the hearts of believers. Though he can also convict the hearts of sinners. Like Christ, I think he can be in specific locations and distinctly more than one. If he is in me and in someone else, but not in all places. Another good question and I suppose there is a bit of debate about it.But IMO, yes. That is my belief. I answered other. Relating to point A, I don't think a belief in the Trinity is essential to salvation. If that were the case, the very early Church would have damned IMO. In present days, such a restrictive view would damn 'Oneness Pentecostals' for their modalistic perspective as well as LDS with their the Godhead.... , among others who equally have a real testimony of Christ. The Savior I know, follow and love is not this sort of fellow. In regards to point B and C, I think the Trinity is a very solid attempt for man to understand the mysteries of God. I am of the opinion that at least in 325, at Nicaea, when the first creed in regards to the Trinity was laid out, that this belief was the product of what the majority of the Church in that time believed. And for that reason it bears some importance. Given the traditions of the RCC and EOC, this view seems to have held the status quo for some time now.... at least in regards to the bulk of those who take the name of Christ. I think it is healthy to understand the concept, but I think it is much more healthy to do your best to pickup your cross and follow Christ. The reason I answered other, is because I agree with Paul in many respects. It's probably better for us to preach Christ and him crucified, than over exert our attentions on things that are mysteries that we can only see dimly now. I for one am guilty of such over exertions at times. I've contemplated what I think and what other people seem to believe on this issue. The Bible would say that God winks at a good bit of ignorance, I think this is one of those things he winks at, though it is fun to discuss. Respectfully, Mudcat

I just wanted to take a quick moment to say thanks to all those who have posted. I feel as the my question in the OP has been answered and I am appreciative. As I stated earlier, I am reading the Standard Works again.... So far I am only through the intro of the BoM and 1 Nephi 10. I may start a new thread on Lehi's dream, but will most likely wait until I am done with 1 Nephi before I do so. It was good discussing this with you guys and gals. Please don't consider this a note of closure to the thread. I will continue to follow up with it, if discussion continues. Just wanted to say thanks. Respectfully, Mudcat

Hi Skalenfehl, I liked the way you put that and agree with your thoughts. Respectfully, Mudcat

Hey Ben,I reposted the quote. Emphasis mine, what you seem to be describing here is modalism and if so, I agree with you and completely disagree with the concept. However, I know in the OP I mentioned that I was a Trinitarian, so I didn't know if this was what your impression of the Trinity was. I don't want to put words in your mouth, you may not be suggesting this at all. But I wouldn't mind trying to clarify if that is the case. Respectfully, Mudcat

Not at all Ben. Emphasis mine, at present I draw the same conclusion. Humanity vs. Divinity would be a poor way of agreeing with you but what exactly went on in that garden is well beyond my understanding. On a side note, I have always found it rather poetic that the Fall and at least the begging of the Atonement both happened in a garden. Well that sounds a good bit like a modalistic viewpoint and I have had trouble with that. I think there gets to be a lot of confusion on the topic of 'oneness'. I think many make the mistake of getting so hung up in 'oneness' that the concept itself is almost assigned its own personality.... Like a fourth individual in a three person relationship. It just doesn't fit well at all. Hope I articulated that well enough. Sometimes I have a bad habit of writing things that make perfect sense to me, but not to anyone else.Respectfully, Mudcat

Hi Z, Thanks for the response. If you wouldn't mind me asking you something else, something I have always had a little personal struggle about, was when Christ prayed to let the cup pass from him in Gethsemane. Seems in a way that wills were in conflict. Do you have any thoughts on the matter, as it relates to this concept of 'Oneness'? Respectfully, Mudcat

Hi PC, Thanks for the link. It was interesting apologetics piece. I suppose I have understood it I wouldn't have placed LDS in the modalistic category at any point. Based on the article, it seems approached as though Widmer's stance is more assertive than contextual. However, it is quite possible to draw the conclusion that early LDS moved out of a Trinitarian school of thought towards the LDS Godhead. Emphasis mine on your last statement. Though I don't think it is doctrinally supported, at least as far as I know, if there are LDS henotheists there beliefs are an extrapolation. I will say, that I am probably not the best example of a die-hard Trinitarian. I have always believe the relation and affiliation between Father, Son and Holy Ghost was looser than what has been promulgated since Nicaea 325. I suppose my beliefs should be considered neither here nor there. I don't intend to use this forum as a personal soapbox for what I think and am much more interested in what LDS believe, at present. Again, thanks for the link, Respectfully, Mudcat

Hi Charley, I never was a Deep Space Nine fan, ... So the analogy was probably lost in its fullest depth, but I believe I get the general picture. I suppose, in my own present belief, the aspect of 'One God' is difficult to grasp as well. Seems an easy thing to process 3 distinct individuals, its the other part that is really challenging. Thanks for your thoughts, Mudcat

Ben, I actually found a reply that addressed it under Trinity/LDS Godhead comparison/contrast thread. Seems in the sense, 'One God' refers to oneness of purpose and power. It's a difficult concept for me to grasp, but I get the general idea. I think. Thanks, Mudcat

Hi I'm Mudcat, This is my first post on this forum and I wanted to preface it and me. I am a non-LDS Christian. I have participated on some other forums related to LDS apologetics and criticisms under the same moniker I have here. Several years back I read through the Standard Works and did not receive a testimony of them, hopefully this thread won't get derailed on that specific topic, just thought you should know. I have made a decision to read through them again and hopefully this place will be a welcome forum for answers from LDS, when I have questions. That being said, in the Testimony of the Three Witnesses at the close there is this statement. Superficially this statement could be seen as falling into perfect accordance with my current Trinitarian thought. However I realize that LDS view the Godhead in a different manner, than that. So bearing that in mind, what does it mean to be one God in the sense of the what the 3 witnesses were saying? Hopefully, I articulated that well enough, if not please let me know and I will try to clarify my thoughts. Also, I hope you folks don't mind me popping in with questions along these lines from time to time. Respectfully, Mudcat