[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

If by access you mean prayer and revelation, sure it's always been available. Saying there was an apostasy of the New Testament church means specifically the ordinances and offices established by Christ were altered or removed without authorization by God.

Was it possible or likely for the Christian believers who lived during the age of the apostasy to gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom? If it was very difficult to near impossible, due to the supposed removal of ordinances and offices, then the effect is the same. Satan did prevail against God's church, if he systematically kept willing-but-ill-equiped believers from entering a kingdom of eternal reconciliation with the Father.

If there was no apostasy of the New Testament church, which church has been led by 12 apostles? Which church has received new scripture and continuing revelation (such as Peter's revelation about extending the gospel to the Gentiles)? I don't ask these confrontationally or as an attack; these are the specific things I mean when I talk about apostasy.

The LDS church places heavy emphasis on church offices--much more than I can find in my Bible. So, the question you have, of course has no answer--it is an "LDS question." We do not find that the 12 apostles were meant to maintain and pass on their offices to the exact number. In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians he seems to imply that there were already new apostles (more than 12--and that his own apostleship was being challenged). Furthermore, the very definition of apostle included that the person had physically seen and been with Christ, so it couldn't be passed on--though leadership could be. A discussion on church government could get quite lengthy and detailed, but the bottom line issue most Christians have with the Restored Gospel teaching is the implication that God's church was invalid for 1800 years, and the faithful are more or less distanced from their God. It sure sounds like Satan prevailing against Christ's church.

As I said elsewhere, belief in an apostasy of Christ's New Testament church doesn't reflect negatively on those who came after the fact and lived the gospel as best they knew how.

If the absence of ordinances and offices kept willing but ill-equiped believers from full reconciliation with God, the effect is the same.

BTW, I did not mean to imply that you, or any individual LDS poster was being disrespectful or antagonistic to non-LDS Christians. I am a bit surprised that many LDS do not understand why we find the Restored Gospel teaching itself to be 'hard to take.' The common understanding amongst us is that the doctrine teaches that Joseph Smith's revelations restored and provided the primary pathway to the Celestial Kingdom. Again, if that pathway was nearly blocked for 1800 years, how can it not be said that Satan prevailed against the Church?

I can relate to this issue pretty well too. One of my older brothers left the LDS church and became Eastern Orthodox because he couldn't understand how an omnipotent God could allow his apostles, prophets and church to be torn down by Satan. The apostasy was like a sunset; gradual and not all at once. The restoration was like a sunrise; gradual.

Wait. Within a generation of Christ's incarnation the offices are gone? After a 400 year wait between the last prophet and Jesus, we have a total loss within one generation? That's not very gradual.

I don't think the restoration of Christ's true church is limited only to events transpiring after Joseph Smith's First Vision. I think of Christopher Colombus; Gutenberg; Tinsdale; Martin Luther; Roger Williams; the Founding Fathers and Constitution allowing free practice of religion; and a host of others.

Likewise, if the pathway to the Celestial kingdom remained more or less blocked until Joseph Smith, the precursory lights were meaningless to those who perished without the light.

My mother wasn't raised in the LDS church, my dad was. My mother never felt like a "wannabe" for attending her Christian church until she was baptized into the LDS church. If my comments have ever made you think I look at you like a "wannabe," it wasn't my intention and I think you know I take pains in my posts to be respectful of everyone.

Let me say again, that neither you, nor any other posters have been personally confrontational, aggressive, or disrespectful. Non-LDS struggle with this doctrine. What I tried to explain to you is that even Pentecostals were criticized for claiming to have more of the Holy Ghost than other Christians. Would you not to expect exponentially more criticism for claiming to have the only true church government, leaders, and pathway to the Celestial Kingdom? It's not cause your mean. It's the message: being Christian itself is not good enough--you must join with our sect, come under our leadership and authority, etc. if you want to enter God's best kingdom.

For all the confusion and strife you claim to see in the Christian world, with its many denominations, most of us get along quite well. We might believe our understandings of God and his Word are best, but we call one another brothers. We learn from each other. And, quite frankly, on most Sunday mornings these days, it would probably be difficult to tell an Assemblies of God from Baptist from a Methodist from an Evangelical Free church, based upon the service alone. We sing many of the same songs, read the same books, listen to the same radio stations--and quite often go to the same religious confereneces (i.e. Promise Keepers). The days of denominational flagwaving are long gone.

We get blamed for saying Jesus is the only way. But, the Restored Gospel seems to say to us: Jesus + our Church, our leaders, our authority, our ordinances etc. So, it's not personal. We struggle with the message, not the messengers. B)

I just want to make sure everyone knows the corrections to the Bible came as revelations from God. I don't care one way or another whether Joseph saw sentences in his mind or chose his own words to express the revelation, as long as we agree it was an inspired translation (which I think we do). In other words, Joseph didn't just decide how best to rephrase the Bible in light of restored truths. It was a Spirit-guided, inspired process.

I'm a bit confused here. Ray, are you saying that the LDS believe the JST of the Bible is inspired of God, in the same manner the original writers were inspired? If so, why does the church authorize the KJV rather than the JST?

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

Believing there was an apostasy doesn't mean "the gates of hell prevailed" against the church. Now, if God stood idle and never restored or reversed the apostasy then yeah, I think that'd qualify as prevailing. BUT...the whole message of the LDS church is that God has acted, has shut the gates of hell, has reversed the apostasy and is triumphing over Satan. I really do tire of the accusation that believing there was an apostasy means God is somehow weak and "couldn't even preserve his own church." We might as well level that accusation against God for letting Israel wander amidst an idolatrous Egypt for 435 years without a prophet or true doctrine from Above. But that'd be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

The whole history of the scriptures is in fact a record of apostasy (loss of truths and authority) and resotrations. Especially noteworthy is the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah (finding lost scriptures, building and dedicating a temple, entering a covenant with God, regaining true worship and doctrine).

Yes, of course Israel fell into sin repeatedly. BUT, and this is big--there was always a remnent of godly people who kept the Law, and continued to serve God. The access to God was never cut off. To say that the Apostasy of roughly 100 - 1800 AD is the same, because a few people still tried and had good hearts, even though they could not fully access God, because no one worthy of the church offices existed is just wrong. It sounds like saying, well there weren't any full Christians, but there were always a few wannabes.

Frankly, I can relate to this issue pretty well. Pentecostals do believe that, for the most part, many of the experiential gifts of the Holy Spirit were lost. A few monks or devout souls experienced tongues etc. throughout church history, but it was not common to the churches from roughly 100 - 1900 AD. BUT, never did we argue that, therefore, the church was basically in limbo during that time.

You may tire of hearing that the Restored Gospel has the sound of God failing to empower his church to prevail, but to those of us on the supposedly unrestored side of the Kingdom, that is how it sounds.

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

If you could be a little more open-minded and realize that what you expect from the non-LDS here will not always come to pass. You want everyone to become Mormon and that’s not going to happen. Not everyone is built for the Mormon Church. No matter how much its right for you Ray, it’s not right for everyone. And there’s nothing on this board in its rules that say, “If you non-LDS don’t join the LDS church, you can’t come to this site.”

A lot of people find Ray's approach to dialogue troubling, and the bold-faced section tells why. On the other hand, Ray comes from an evangelical background--one that is quite conservative. So, his approach resonates with me on one score:

He believes the LDS gospel is for everyone, and is unashamed about aggressively pressing his cause. The claims of Joseph Smith, in the end, are either true or false, right or wrong, supremely blessed or wickedly deceiving. In the end there is no middle ground. Ray's approach might not be the style of those raised in the LDS Church, but I, quite frankly, find it refreshingly direct.

Maureen, of course, you're right that not every non-LDS person comes here as an almost-converted investigator, waiting to be ushered in. I've stated several times that I come to share and learn. I'm mature enough to receive Ray's invitations to study, learn, believe, just as I am mature enough to issue my own such invitations in the right context.

So, let the dialogue continue! BTW, why was it again that hell has to be eternal?

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

This handily addresses a concern noted elsewhere: Would God really allow an apostasy from truth and authority to occur from the death of the last New Testament apostle until the birth of Joseph Smith? While this issue is tangential, I want to make an observation in passing. The foundation of the belief in an apostasy is free will or free agency. Put simply, God won't save us against our will or force us to be righteous. The foundation of Christ's New Testament church was apostles and prophets according to Ephesians 2:19-20. This foundation was destroyed with the martyrdom of the New Testament apostles (see Fox's Book of Martyrs).

It is one thing to contend that individuals, and perhaps even whole congregations might give themselves over to apostasy. However, the entire Christian world? The whole church...not one that stays true? Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against his church. And the grand span of the biblical account is one of a remnant of believers prevailing until conviction and repentence comes to the House of God. No, the belief in free will (or free agency) does not extend to a belief that the whole of creation would embrace apostasy for 1700+ years.

Now if God won't force anyone to be righteous, who would He call to be the foundation of the church? Absent a foundation, even the best-built structures collapse. This is an over-simplification. See James E. Talmage's excellent (and brief) book "The Great Apostasy" for insight into this most troubling of LDS beliefs.

I would argue that Christ is the rock, the foundation, upon which his church is built. Peter's confession was that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God--and it is upon this confession--this rock--that Christ builds his church. It wasn't about Peter, or the disciples, or who would be greatest in the Kingdom--it has always been about Jesus.

[My Experience With The Bom (the Movie)]

Heh, don't judge all LDS movies or movies about LDS beliefs by that movie. My wife and I watched it, and it was kinda good, but the book is very definitely much better. And yes, we do have it in our collection, but only because it was given to us as a gift.

I do really appreciate the "Work and the Glory" movies, though. They are both movies we do and did want to buy. The first one came out sometime last year, and the second one is coming out soon. And there is also going to be a 3rd one coming out, but we really don't know exactly when.

Hey...let this post wander...what made the Work and Glory movies so much better. I haven't seen them, but will check if Netflix has them available.

I haven't seen it for the very reasons given in the Amazon.com reviews I read. Those I know who've seen it said it was awful for a story of such gravity and religious importance. I suppose I should rent it Netflix-style. If I do, I'll post my thoughts.

Being a budding cinematographer myself (who might do religious films somewhere down the road) I think viewing the movie will provide many "what NOT to do" teaching moments. Having seen some doozies myself (awful films), I realize the audience can only be expected to suspend their disbelief so far.

One question: How was the music? The fingerprint of a lame film is almost always in its score/soundtrack. How'd you guys like it?

I thought the music was acceptable. The used what seemed to be a good-sized ochestra. My sense is they were trying to create an "epic" feel--so went with big-sounding music.

BTW--I got this from Netflix, so it might be worth a try. My sense is the movie was probably a bit better than your low expectations.

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

Again, I'm confused as to why metaphysics enters into the discussion of salvation at all, when Jesus never made it a centerpiece of his teachings, and never insisted, "Accept me as Savior, have faith in my atonement, love God and your neighbors...oh, and don't even think that you're anything like me or Heavenly Father." Salvation isn't granted to metaphysicians, but to those who repent, are baptized, receive the Holy Ghost and endure to the end (to greatly simplify things).

First, in general, I'd like to thank ApostleKnight, Ray, and Maureen--and others who've been following this thread. I've averaged about 40-minutes per post, and I'm guessing the others must be spending similar amounts of time. Overall, we've been engaging in intelligent and respectful conversation here of a strong calliber. So kudos to everyone.

I'll come back to AK's overall post, but wanted to address this singular point. I do not recall mentioning salvation in this string, though I did reference "core beliefs." A while back SNOW challenged me in a similar fashion, more or less asking if there's a doctrinal test to salvation, and why so many evangelicals seem so eager to damn LDS to hell over doctrinal disagreements (my words, not theirs)?

1st. No, there's no doctrinal test for conversion. In fact, most evangelicals reject seeing water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation, for this very reason. It is not by works of righteousness (including learning teachings) that I have done, but according to His mercy He has saved me. Bottom-line: The thief on the cross surely had not learned the 16 Fundamentals of the Assemblies of God.

2nd. Upon conversion, one begins to walk with God. The Holy Spirit becomes a companion. So, if the new believer (or mature believer for that matter) were to begin moving towards heterodox teachings--false doctrines--the Holy Spirit would 'check' his/her spirit. Apprehension, a sense of God's "No" would be heard. If the believer continues in the direction of heresy, the Spirit of God would bring warnings. However, God never forces himself. Eventually the believer might give him/herself over to the false religious system, and become, what LDS refer to as apostate. Is the apostate saved?

Having said that, it is not my place to judge who is damned or not. However, it would not surprise me if Christian believers with sincere motives, might offer 'harsh' warnings to those they believe have wandered into dangerous theological pathways.

So, yes, we must endure to the end: with our actions AND our beliefs.

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

If you’re saying that once we know we were literally created as spirits by our Father in heaven

Hold the bus! Ray, you know I wasn't saying that. That's your view, not mine. What I said was that if the essence of God is in us, we are what He is.

we can then more easily differentiate and distinguish that understanding from the teachings of other people who think and believe we evolved from lower forms of life, YES, it does help us do that, doesn’t it, because we can then see that NO, we did not evolve from lower forms of life, but we were literally and actually created by our Father in heaven as His children, with a spirit exactly like His… except that we still have a long way to go before we become perfected like Him.

1. I agree that we were literally created by God.

2. I disagree that we have the essence of God in our makeup.

3. We may become like God at exaltation, but we shall never be what He is.

4. I think you know that most evangelicals disagree with Darwinian macroevolution, which says that beings evolve from lower to higher species. Microevolution, yes. Species do adapt. But, they do not completely change. Ironically, the idea of humans becoming God may indeed fit the macroevolutionary paradigm.

Yes, I suppose it would be a surprise to hear that we are literally the children of God, with a capacity to become like Him as we learn to accept His word. But I, personally, was always taught that I am a child of God, and that God is our heavenly Father, although I never totally embraced those words until I received that testimony from God... by His assurance known as Faith... by which we can be assured we can call Him our Father… while knowing He actually is.

Ray, let's use clear language here. It did not surprise you, who had been raised in the Church of Christ, to hear that LDS believe that our spirits are eternal, and that we are supposed to be in the process of becoming God? It did not cause you to stop, ponder, consider, pray, "tarry" etc. The truth of it just came to you in stride? I can understand that you came to an assurance, but you imply that the teachings were almost naturally grasped...that there was no "Wow! Really?"

You seem to want to change those words from “first” to “the most majestic” being, so perhaps knowing that our Lord is the first born of all the sons of the most majestic being we know of will help you see that a Son is as great as His Father once He becomes "one" with Him.

Actually, Maureen's post clarified that in the Colossians passage, the term "firstborn" is best understood as relating to preminence, not chronological birth order.

Enough to state that other non-LDS churches seem to be teaching a different doctrine… and have been for a VERY LONG time... after they fell into what we [LDS] call Apostasy… when even some “Jews” didn’t know these truths about their own true God.

The whole thing about "restored gospel" is the implication that the teachings are a returning to the original truths. It's a tough sell to explain how God's truths got lost, and the alleged apostasy prevailed for nearly 3000 years. Yes, God can work that way--but I recall Dr. T's question about whether God would really allow the gates of hell to prevail against his church--especially for "a VERY LONG time."

[My Experience With The Bom (the Movie)]

I haven't completed the book yet, but I did see the movie, and was reasonably impressed. See my full report at the following:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002C3P0...glance&n=404272

Feel free to leave your + or - vote. :)

Also, this might be a good place to talk about the movie, and about the use of film as a means of proclaiming the message.

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

So you just can't accept that He "created us" or took part in begetting our spirit bodies before the creation of Earth? Why is that?

Because if God truly bore us, or physically infused us with his essence, then we are what he is--unless you suggest we're a lesser hybrid, and I doubt either of us want to go there. The bottom-line struggle evangelicals have with the LDS view of God and humanity, is the line gets blurred. If God was once a finite man, then He's not eternal, as we have believed (at least not as we have defined eternal). If humanity has God's essence, then we are akin to God. Yes you say we still worship the Father, and always will. But, the line of differentiation between us and Him is greatly diminished, and even fuzzied.

Perhaps some LDS who converted from a robust practice of non-LDS Christianity can explain to you just how serious of a paradigm shift this is for us. Recall my surprise, AK, when you first explained that human spirits have no beginning? These distinctions are rather dramatic, and do effect our core metaphysical understandings.

I make a distinction between spiritual begetting and physical begetting. All of us were spiritually begotten by God. Jesus, however, was the only one physically begotten by God (and Mary). The titles of Jesus give us a clue as to this distinction. Jesus is often called the Firstborn of God as in Colossians 1:15, 18; Hebrews 11:28; 12:23.

The distinction you make allows you to say Jesus was uniquely begotten, and yet hold that we are begotten of God as well. However, whether physical or spiritual, to say we have the physical essence of God within our composition (even within our spirits), is to elevate humanity far beyond traditional Christian understanding, and to, again, greatly reduce the chasm that separate us and him, in terms of what we actually are.

Now if Jesus is the only begotten of God, spiritually and physically, it seems pretty silly to call him the firstborn, for in that context he'd be the only-born. However, if God begot or "created" our spirit bodies before the earth was created (or whenever for that matter), and if Jesus was the first "created" or begotten in a spiritual process, it is entirely fitting to call him the Firstborn. The imagery of the Passover strongly supports that the lamb of God was the firstborn, not only-born...and if not firstborn in the flesh, then firstborn some other way...spiritually.

The Hebrew understanding of firstborn is preeminent. Jacob won the rights of the firstborn, Ephraim was chosen over the older Mannessah, etc. Especially in the context of 1 Colossians 1, where Jesus is called the firstborn over all creation, the contextual meaning is majesty, not that Jesus is essentially a lesser being than God--one physically created by Him.

LDS view the word "God" as a title, not a species tag. We believe God has similar anatomy to us (arms, legs, face, hair, etc...) y'know, the whole "in the image of God" thing (which I know you interpret to mean attributes not appearance). Also, we believe God has a spirit body inseparably connected with His glorified physical body...and since LDS believe God fathered our spirit bodies...and He has a spirit body...there's no trans-species jump there...it's spirit begetting spirit (in a process I won't pretend to understand or explicate). Since God does indeed have a glorified physical body, He could father Jesus's physical body again with no species jumping or corner-cutting. Please don't ask me to explain celestial biology, heredity or cytogenetics because I barely understand mortal biology.

I guess you've confirmed the evangelical concern that ultimately the LDS God looks a lot like us, and we like Him, but since He started his spiritual evolution before we did, He gets to be God. This is strikingly different from the traditional Christian understanding that the God who has no beginning, no end, and is unchanging, created us at the creation, as humans, the highest of his earthly creation, so that he might enjoy us, and we him--and that our rebellion led to the Fall, and the ultimate need of a Redeemer, who would reconcile us to the Father, and restore our right relationship for all eternity.

At this point I think I get the teaching. I just wonder how many LDS understand just how dramatically different these teachings are from that offered in non-LDS churches.

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

PC SAYS: Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.

APOSTLE KNIGHT RESPONDS: Sorry PC, but you can't change a teaching with a parenthetical and get away with it. Notice your effortless conversion of the word "offspring" into "creation" in the above quote with a quick "i.e." in parentheses. Offspring means children, not creation. I think you'll find the majority of--if not all--scriptural quotes that say Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God are talking about Jesus's mortal birth, not pre-mortal genealogy. Stated another way, Jesus is the only Son who received his physical body in part from God (23 chromosomes from God, 23 from Mary).

Yes, I did add the clarifying term in parenthesis--not as a slight of hand--but, well, as a clarification. I'll break this down as I see it:

1. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (KJV). This also gets translated "the one and only Son of God." (NIV) Regardless, there is a uniqueness to Jesus' relationship with God--one we do not share.

2. We are sons of God. We were created by Him. Of this there is not doubt (revisit Gen. 1 & 2).

3. So, my clarification is that we, as God's offspring, are the creation of God, the sons of daughters of his creative power, not the begotten children of God--that belongs to Jesus "the only begotten Son of God."

There are simply too many other scriptures calling all of us the children of God and heirs of God and so forth. Simple logic would dictate that if God isn't the Father of our physical bodies, He must be the Father of our spirit bodies.

He's the Father of our Spirits, and yes He is the Father of our physical bodies--by creation, not biology. God is God and we are man. One species does not give birth to a different species.

The Gospel writers never intended to say, "God can only be called our Father in a figurative/metaphorical/symbolic sense."

Really? It's always been understood that way by nearly every tradition with the Christian world.

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

Are those the only conclusions or suppositions you can make from all of those scriptures? Or in other words, could you possibly make any other assumptions than the ones you already made? Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that other people learn things from the scriptures that you do not "suppose"? Or in other words, do you think it's at least possible that God could help other people to understand and interpret the scriptures in some way you can't even imagine right now, which is at variance with your beliefs?

Yes, Ray, I do. I sought God's direction as I went through the verses, and just looked at them in their context. Like me, no other Bible scholars outside of the LDS tradition (that I'm aware of) have taken those passages, and put them together to suggest that human spirits are existed eternally in premortality. Is it "at least possible" that Joseph Smith stumbled upon a hidden truth? "All things are possible." However, outside of an assurance about Joseph Smith and his revelations, the LDS interpretation does not seem plausible.

Professor Robinson (BYU) is generally quite frank about admitting than many LDS distinctives cannot be strongly supported, if only relying on biblical texts. His normal recourse, when engaging evangelicals, is to counter that we cannot prove the LDS interpretation is impossible or clearly contradictory to the Holy Bible.

So, as I suggested, if you presuppose Mormon doctrine, the passages could lend understanding to that interpretation. But, without the presupposition, they would not likely lead a nuetral reader conclude that humans have an eternal premortal existence.

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

Quite frankly, I believe that is one of the biggest problems for those who don’t but want to know God, because people who will put their trust in the Bible simply because some other people are putting their trust in the Bible don’t have or learn to put their trust in God by gaining a personal witness from Him to assure them that He inspired those people who wrote the Bible, which is the only way they and anyone else can ever learn the truth of anything.

Ray, if you've read me carefully, you understand that there definitely is an assurance that comes with salvation. BUT, that assurance is preceeded by a sense of conviction--guilt. Yeah, good old-fashioned guilt. We realize we are sinners, and we sense that God is real. We call out for mercy, relying on the shed blood of Christ Jesus, his Son. We say yes to God's offer of love, and then the ASSURANCE comes. Now that the Spirit of God resides with me, I read the Bible and know it's true. God reveals his truths to me as I read it. I discern truths unredeemed biblical scholars never will.

But, we do not have to pray for an assurance every time we approach the Bible, or learn a new truths. The "yes" and "no" of the Spirit become a natural part of my on-going conversation with God. Some things we "tarry" or wait for--most things God reveals quite readily, with requiring a Q & A session.

Or in other words, to come at this point from another angle, to take the inspiration of the Bible for granted makes just as much sense as taking the inspiration of the Book of Mormon for granted, or as taking the inspiration of the Doctrine & Covenants for granted, or as taking the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for granted, or as taking the inspiration of Joseph Smith for granted, or as taking the inspiration of Paul for granted, or as taking the inspiration of Peter for granted, or as taking the inspiration of Moses for granted, or as taking the inspiration of Abraham for granted, or of taking the inspiration of you or me or other "religious teachers" for granted, etc, etc, etc… without learning the truth from God concerning whether or not He actually inspired any of those people to speak or write what they said in any of their "talks" or writings.

Ray, maybe you're a unique individual. But, I really doubt, for example, that most believers--whether LDS or not, needed to sit down before starting each new biblical book and praying, "Now God, can I trust this one? Is Genesis yours? Okay, Lord. I'm on Exodus now--what about it?" Once you'd received salvation, and embraced the overarching truth of Christ, the rest probably came quite easily.

But not everyone who hears the Words of God knows those Words have come from God, even when they can look and see and hear those words come directly from His own lips as they did from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who was and is God Himself, much less from others He inspires to speak or write through the power of the Holy Ghost.

We have free will, or agency. BUT, the most powerful evangelistic tool available to us is the direct proclammation of the Word of God. That's why most evangelical 'witnessing' literature is packed with Bible verses.

Clearly there must be some reason why all of “Christendom” is in confusion.

We're not in confusion, Ray. We're in love with each other. We fellowship with one another. Do we have perfect unity, even over the minute details. Well, I'd say we're at least as united as are the LDS posters at this site.

Seriously, we see through the glass that is not yet clear. (1 Cor. 13). When Jesus comes, we shall see clearly, fully--and enjoy the natural unity you desire. Human organization can force compliance, but not heart unity.

Yes, but the same Spirit can also give inspiration to others to help them know the truth of ALL things. And even if the Bible was the only collection of writings that were inspired by God, as you and some other “Christians” tell others, why can’t all of “Christendom” come to agreement concerning what those persons who wrote the Bible were actually inspired to write? Or what they actually meant?

Again, clearly there must be some reason why all of “Christendom” is in confusion.

Jesus isn't back yet, okay? Even the New Testament church had disagreements. Paul and Barnabus parted ways, and there was quite a tiff over for a season. The Corinthians did not know they were suppose to expel the member who was having an illicit affair with his stepmother.

I'm sorry church can't be neat and Leave it to Beaver like, for you Ray. Read the advice section of this board. You'll find "uneven" experiences some have had with their bishops. We're not yet perfected, but we're in Christ. We're redeemed. And we're headed in the right direction, praise God!

My understanding of what Traveler meant is that those who have ears to hear will hear ALL the words of God, and the reason why some don’t, or why we don’t all agree with each other, is because those who don’t receive ALL the words of God are accepting other sources of information… otherwise everyone, or all individuals, would be “one” in knowing the truth they have learned from ALL of the words of God.

The reason you have complete doctrinal unity is because when you aren't sure you refer me and others to lds.org for an official answer, and because you've put your trust in a singular organization. And yet, do you have to wear white shirts in Sacrament meetings or not? Depends on the bishop. There is no such thing as total unity, this side of glory.

[Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?]

Ray challenged me to look for myself to the official http://www.lds.org website for answers to my questions about the premortal existence of humanity as spirits. He claimed there were numerous biblical references to our existence before the creation. So, here’s my verse by look at what the website offered.

The Scriptures

LDS HomeScriptures Study Helps Topical Guide M Man, Antemortal Existence of Prev | Next

TOPICAL GUIDE

MAN, ANTEMORTAL EXISTENCE OF

See also Council in Heaven; Foreordination; Man, a Spirit Child of Heavenly Father; Spirit Creation

Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.

Most Christians agree that we are body, soul and spirit. Some conflate soul/spirit. Our disagreement is over whether these spirits existed before the creation. The passage does not address this issue.

Job 38: 7 all the sons of God shouted for joy.

Most Christians agree that we are the sons and daughters of God. We disagree that we are essentially the same as Christ, the one and only begotten, God the Son. We are children by adoption and creation–not in our essence.

Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We believe our souls to be both finite, in that they came into existence at conception, and immortal, because we face an everlasting destiny. Those who are blessed will return to the Father, those who are damned, will go to eternal punishment.

Jer. 1: 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.

God is omniscient. He know all things, even before they are. There’s quite a theological discussion that is centuries old as to whether God’s foreknowledge means we are predestined to our everlasting fates.

Zech. 12: 1 Lord . . . formeth the spirit of man within him.

I would argue that if the Father formed our spirits, then they were created–they had a beginning.

John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

I’m not sure what the reference has to do with premortal spirits. There was a common belief that children bore the punishment for their parents’ sins–Jesus refutes this–in this case saying the man was born this way so that God might be glorified.

Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul is addressing a group of intellectuals and explaining that just as they have known that we are the offspring (i.e. creation) of God, he is now going to tell them who that God is and how they can be reconciled to Him. That we are called offspring would not be meant to contradict John 3:16, in which Jesus is called the ONLY begotten of God.

Rom. 8: 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.

This is a favorite verse of Calvinists, who believe God pre-determined our fates, because of his sovereignty. Such a view would diminish any free agency or will we might have. Regardless, this verse does not mean that the Father had intimate relationship with us before creation, but rather that He knew we were coming and what we would become.

Eph. 1: 4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.

Once again, God’s foreknowledge of our existence does not mean that we had intimate relationship with him prior to creation.

Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.

God created us with spirits–so He surely is the Father of spirits.

Jude 1: 6 angels which kept not their first estate.

I believe this refers to Satan and a third of the angels who rebelled against God, thus leaving their domain or estate. I’m not sure how this relates to the premortal existence of HUMAN spirits.

Rev. 12: 7 Michael and his angels fought against the dragon.

I’m not sure what relevence this passage has. Yes, angels did exist before human creation. That does not mean we do.

Conclusion: If we presuppose the antemortal existence of human spirits, these verses could bolster that belief. However, if without that presupposition, these verses merely point to God’s foreknowledge of human existence, and perhaps even hint at predestination (though I’m not in that particular theological camp).

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

What! I thought it was: Joseph said, "I am the ... Truth."

No, I believe he said he had rediscovered the Truth.

John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.KJV

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

Truth, What is Truth?

Jesus said, "I am the ... Truth."

[Do You Download Music In The Internet?]

Something for nothing is wrong if someone else has worked hard for it. It is stealing. That is my not so humble opinion. Ben

Ben, humility is unnecessary when you're right! This should be an easy call. Piracy is both wrong and illegal.

I do understand that it is okay to copy purchased media onto other formats for personal use (i.e. CDs - cassettes), but to give away, and certainly not to sell.

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

Tommy,

Isn't that what you believe happens when an investigator prays as to whether the Bible is true and how those scriptures should be interpreted, etc?

Quite frankly, we take the inspiration of the Bible for granted. The Word of God shall not return void.

What we encourage "investigators" to do is respond to the sense of conviction the Holy Spirit is communicating to them, and to believe in Jesus and confess their sins. From the point of conversion, belief in the truth of the Bible comes easily, because the same Spirit that brought the conviction inspired the writings.

I believe it is only the "wooing of the Holy Spirit" which can assure me (and all of us) of the truth... although some people do seem to be satisfied by the assurances of other "persons'.

Ray, what do you make of Traveler's emphasis on uniformity, conformity, and authority? He seemed to find this reliance on the sensations of assurance to be too individualistic.

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

I am glad to see that this battle is starting to end :)

Battle? What battle?

Christos, you weren't feeling the ?

Maybe we all need a group

[Dichotomy's]

I have been fasinated by dichotomy's for a long time and would like to know if it is wrong to think about them?

Faith in dichotamies is a prerequisite of salvation. Light/darkness, True/False, Yes/No, Heaven/Hell, God/Satan, Salvation/Damnation, Good/Evil.

It is only those deluded by the Cult of Tolerance who condemn dichotamies. It is they who must repent, so they may see the power of One vs. Another.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

[Let us be clear - I am talking about "Eternal Life" - See John 3:15. According to what you posted G-d cannot do this any more that make a stone he cannot lift. I think this argument has a serious flaw. If you like you can realize a woops, declair "king's X" and start this over. :)

You'll have to explain yourself. My saying that God making a mortal being with a definite starting point into one that had no beginning is an absurdity.

The verse in question: John 3:15: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. KJV

informs me that if I believe in Jesus I shall THEN have eternal life. Of course God can grant us life everlasting. The promise in John's gospel is quite different from saying that the Heavenly Father would paste onto our lives an eternal past. The issue of premortal existence is nowhere on John's radar screen. Besides, if it were, does this mean that only those who believe in Christ will GAIN a premortal eternal existence? Again, an absurdity.

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

See previous post for Traveler's insightful observations. His bottom-line: A kingdom, unlike a democracy, should be united, uniform, singularly organized, non-diverse, etc., according to The Traveler. Except they weren't and aren't. Look at the Book of Acts to see the struggles between Jewish and Gentile believers. Look at the diversity of problems seen between the church in Ephesus vs. Corinthians, or especially the seven churches of Asia Minor.

We are united in our love for King Jesus, in our reliance on his Word, our proclammation of the faith to those who are lost, and in our love for one another.

There is an excellent saying in this regard: Unity in essentials, Liberty in secondary matters, charity in all.

So what are the essentials, and who gets to say? Here's a breakdown:

1. Roman Catholicism: The Church, relying equally upon Scriptures and Tradition, has authority to make these decisions.

2. Protestantism: There are varying church governance systems, but generally a Pastor and a group of congregation leaders (deacons, elders, board members) will make local decisions, with denominational offices offering varying degrees of consulation or leadership. Regardless of the structure, all would claim to rely on the Scriptures for their decisions.

3. LDS: The Church, led by the Living Prophet and his Apostles, hold the authority, and rely on direct revelation, previous revelations given to modern prophets, and on the Standard Works.

BTW, my discussion about the wooing of the Holy Spirit was in response to Ray's queries about God revealing himself to individuals. Traveler, isn't that what you believe happens when an investigator prays as to whether the BoM is true, etc.?

[Of Harps And Heresy]

Your thinking has a serious flaw. Note where you say {Can the eternal God take a created, limited being and turn it into an eternal, unlimited one? I suppose He could create an eternal past and paste it to the created being, but we quickly degenerate into absurdities.}

If what you say is true a created being cannot have "Eternal Life".

If a being has always been, and had no start, it wasn't created. God might transform the being, but He would not be creating it.

On the other hand, if we do have beginnings, then I suppose instead of saying we are eternal, we might become eternal. Or, you could just say I will be living forever and ever.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

RAY: #1: There are several “biblical references” which refer to our premortal existence, and you can find those for yourself or with our [LDS] Topical Guide.

PC: I did my best, but this is all I found: http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=premortal

Keep in mind, that I intentionally used the term "biblical references" to refer to the Old and New Testaments. It's likely that premortal human existence as spirits is one of those LDS distinctives that is only found in the Triad.

#2: We [LDS] do not believe and never have claimed to have been created as begotten children of God in the flesh, if you’re referring to us as children of God that He created by creating our flesh and blood.

And yet, the teaching seems to be that we shall become essentially like Christ, and that there is a physical essence of the Heavenly Father that is within us. Do correct me if I've misunderstood. Also, keep in mind that I've probably conflated my conversations with you, Apostle Knight and Traveler--and perhaps am considering something one of them said.

#3: We [LDS] do claim to have been created by God as children of God as spirits… and there are also some “biblical references” which can help you to see this point.

I would encourage you to share any Old or New Testament references you have to the premortal existence of humans in any form.

#4: We [LDS] can see what you do not believe, as we [LDS] share our beliefs, but it should not be considered a “nonsense” question to question your own ideas… because by asking you those questions we’re hoping to help you receive an answer … which is not a nonsense purpose if we can help you achieve that goal.

A "nonsense question" is one that is logically impossible. I never impugne questioning itself. My point was that believing we can become as God is an absurdity within non-LDS Christian theology. In order for such a belief to work one also needs the belief in an evolving God, and in the premortal eternal existence of humans as spirits.

BTW, how is it that God can create something that has always been? Might it not be more appropriate to say that God transforms, changes, improves, etc.?

#5: Our “LDS position” doesn’t "require" that humans have an eternal premortal existence, our “LDS position” is simply our [LDS] belief that the scriptures reveal knowledge from God on this issue... through personal revelations which has been given to us which first came to some other prophets of God.

If non-LDS are correct that human existence begins at conception, then to say we can become eternal gods would require that the Heavenly Father "paste" an eternal past upon us. It would be an absurdity.

My sense is there are several distinctives like this--beliefs that only work well in tandem. Thus, the investigator is called upon to pray and receive assurance. Once Joseph Smith is determined to be a Prophet, once the BoM is determined to be true, then the other distinctives just start to fall in line. Thus, my suggestion that theologically, the LDS system of beliefs is most easily embraced as a package.

#6: We [LDS] do not believe and never have stated our Heavenly Father is an evolving God, like us… because He’s already achieved His state of perfection that is known as God by Man.

If God was once a man (or like a man), and now is more than that, then He changed--He evolved. Are you saying that He stopped growing, and that we'll catch up to Him?

#7: Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit so they could become more like God than they were… and they never could have become more like God without a knowledge of good and evil.

It was not a good thing they did, Ray. They sinned. God was disappointed, and issued punishment. He did so because of their rebellion. They tried to become like God, IMHO, because then they would not need God.

#8: When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit they actually did become more like God, so the lie that Satan told them was NOT in saying they would become more like God, but in saying they wouldn’t die… and yes there are some scriptures to show that they became more like God after eating that fruit.

Yes, they became more like God the same way crack cocaine makes you feel better. The after effects were devestating. They did not gain a more equal footing with God. Rather, they broke the beautiful, innocent, and full relationship they had. They broke trust and introduced rebellion and, yes, disobedience into the spiritual equation.

#9: We [LDS] don’t claim that we don’t need God even though we are now more like Him, and we also don't believe we will ever come to the point where we won't need Him, or love Him, any more.

If you are becoming gods and more godlike, then, if the Father is no longer changing, would you not "catch up" with Him?

#10: When Adam and Eve “rebelled” they had already received their independence from God, and there is nothing at all that is “bad” or “wrong’ with being independent persons… but with our independence it is best to follow God by choosing to become more like God, otherwise we won’t achieve our state of perfection by becoming like those who are God.

Ray, when Adam & Eve rebelled, they were seeking to become like God so they would not need Him anymore. That's independence--much akin to teenage rebellion at its worst. There's little good to say about those who would dishonor their Father so. You seem to be saying that Adam & Eve's disobedience was a good thing.

#12: We are already of the same essence as God because we are literally God’s children, and the essence of "us" is also eternal, but we will only live as God now lives by choosing to follow our Savior. #13: Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we can become co-equal partners and joint-heirs with God through Jesus Christ… not His servants, not His subjects, but joint-heirs of all He has when we have become exactly like Him.

These are LDS distinctives that can only be found in the Triad.

Or in other words, prisonchaplain, I’m simply trying to tell you that you should seek the truth from God, and I’m NOT telling you to believe anyone other than God as they tell you what they think or believe … although I do believe it might do some good for you to know what we [LDS] truly believe, and how we interpret the scriptures, so you can then commune with God about what we believe and listen to what He will tell you.

I don't claim to be an expert on LDS beliefs, but my understanding is certainly superior to what it was last October, when I first began treading this site. :)

#17: Jesus is uniquely the only one of the children of our Father who was created by our Father in the flesh, with no mortal Father like ours, but all of us who were created as male children of our Father were spiritually created as sons by our Father… and daughters are like their Mother.

This is perhaps the most serious and wide area of divide between LDS and non-LDS. Non-LDS believe Jesus to be God the Son, co-eternal and co-equal with with the Father. It is not appropriate, and indeed may be blasphemous, in our view, to describe Jesus as a created being.

Do you see the irony here? We non-LDS say, "Lower your view of humanity. We are the creation of God, not the stuff from out of God." Then we say, "Raise your view of the Christ. He is the stuff of God, and has always been so."

#18: All of us, all of Man, were and are co-eternal with God as intelligence … but we will only develop to be co-equal with God if we accept ALL intelligence through the gospel.

I stumbled upon this belief about a month ago and was truly shocked. I had not known that LDS believe that humanity is eternal. You might want to relabel your headings in Genesis 1 as "The Transformation" rather than "The Creation." Ray, I know you grew up in the CoC--how did this hit you when you first heard it? Were you surprised, or had you come to the place of believing the other revelations, so this must be true too?

#21: All offspring created by any creator are inherently or "essentially” like their creator, although not immediately after they are first created because they have not grown up yet… but all offspring can become just like their creator by fulfilling their full measure of creation... or by becoming as perfect as their creator.

This just isn't so. Children are essentially what their parents are, but not creation. Creation is what the Maker makes them to be. "Offspring" is not equal to "Creation." Offspring are the result of opposite genders of the same species coupling. Creation is something we make.

And btw, I understand how you can get “lost” by knowing a creator can create something that is NOT like the creator, but in this regard our Creator did Create us in a different sense than His other creations… and He can personally assure you of that just as He has already assured us that He did.

You are describing a God who gives birth, not one who makes. The Genesis account is one of making, not giving birth. The language of the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 does not seem to lend itself to your interpretation.

For instance, to put this in more “human” terms for you, although you as a parent can create a child as well as a work of art, like a fly on a fishing line, your most glorious creation is your offspring, regardless of any of your other creations.

No, this is wordplay. We don't create children, we give birth to them, and then train them up in the way they should go.

Tommy, if you know anything about God who can help to teach you ALL truth, you should also know that there is somebody called Satan, whose work is to deceive and lure us away from the truth by trying to spread false doctrine… and the reason any of us have a hard time knowing the truth is because of the influence of Satan who works against us, by working both directly and indirectly in all of our lives to keep us from knowing the truth.

Ray, I know what you meant. However, in the context of our conversation it wouldn't be hard for people to believe you were implying that I was influenced and influencing on behalf of Satan.

Okay now? That’s all I meant. To know the truth we must learn from God, because there are many people who have been deceived by Satan and the precepts of men he has influenced… and I’m not saying that the deceived persons are bad, or evil, but that is the reason they don’t know the truth.

Ray, if you are implying that I am deceived by Satan, I'd merely suggest to you that such observations do little to enhance interfaith dialogues. It's understood that we don't agree, that we both believe that we are right and the other views are in error, and we may have personal speculations as to why to other is wrong and won't see the truth--but to tell someone they are directed by the Enemy is probably not the most fruitful approach to sharing your faith (unless you truly believe the Holy Spirit led you to say such a thing ).

You really don't need to learn any more from me. :)

[Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?]

So now what? What's next? Where do we go from here?

We continue to share and learn. At some point in our lives you or I will get it. The constant knocking of the Holy Spirit will finally be heard. Or...one of us will harden his heart, and receive his due on that great and terrible day.

If we both keep believing the things we believe we will not both know the truth.

Then either I will be consigned to the Terrestial Kingdom, or you will have to answer for your many errors.

...if you meant we can help them to see the truth, or maybe while that works for those who are receptive, it seems to do nothing for those who are not.

I'm responsible for what I do with the message, not how others respond.

I believe God is ALWAYS prepared to give us His answer, if we will simply and sincerely seek Him... and I don't believe it is God who is delaying people or making people wait.

God works with me, allowing me to be an agent of his truth and the wooing of his Spirit. My work is to present and explain. It's the Holy Spirit's work to convict, and the respondent's place to welcome or reject or ponder.

I try, but be careful. God is not pleased with those who teach false doctrine.

That's why Christian believers need to get beyond saying, "Why get so uptight about a few disagreements on doctrine. There's no doctrine test for getting into heaven." I want to know God, his Word, and to proclaim his truths fully, passionately, and accurately.

Yes, we agree on that thought, but we do not agree on God’s word, because you seem to totally reject any of His words which are not written in the Bible... and we also have different interpretations about the words which actually were.

Which is why Profs. Robinson and Blomberg (BYU & Denver Seminary, respectively) agree that LDS and evangelicals will not be able to share communion, or teaching platforms, and that our missionaries/evangelists/members will continue to proslytize one another. Your repeated question, "What now?" was responded to by them with: let us raise the level of our dialogue, and speak to one another with respect and intelligence, and avoid the hostility and caracatures that marked so many past exchanges. I say AMEN to that.

When do you think He’ll do that, or why isn’t He doing that NOW? Or why don't we need to ALWAYS ask Him to assure us of the truth?

I suppose one of us will let the other know when we hear what HE's been shouting to us all along.

[Of Harps And Heresy]

Because G-d lacks the power? or because he is selfish? Why do you limit G-d and what he can do? And why won't you answer this simple question? Perhaps I could understand you "no" if you would say why you think G-d can't.

Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it. An absurdity. Can God transform a finite, limited, created being into a co-eternal, co-equal partner with Him? An absurdity.

God is not our Heavenly Father in the same sense that our Earthly Father is.

What scripture gave you that idea?

In Genesis humanity is created by God. Humans reproduce through 'coupling' with the opposite gender, same species. Do we really need Scripture (beyond Gen. 1-2) to explain this???

1. According to scripture - In all creation what being was man created to be most like? Hint - it is not frogs or dogs.

The question itself is strange. What in all creation were frogs or dogs most created to be like? Yes, we are created with godlike characteristics, and his image is within us. That does not mean that we are essentially God.

Matt 5:48. What does the word "Perfect" mean in scripture.

In the context of the passage, I took it to me, "Yes, I really expect you do obey all this--even to love your enemies." There is nothing in the context of Matthew 5--speaking to how Jesus wants us to behave that would suggest He suddenly stops his flow of thought and so, "Oh, by the way, I want you to become God."

3. What does it mean in the ancient world (the time when scriptures were written) for someone to take upon them the name of another?

You're obviously going somewhere with the question, but you'll have to dig up some reputable Jewish scholars that suggest it was possible for humans to become God, before I could even think about gong there with you.

4. What will man inherit of G-d - some part or all that he has?

We won't inherit his essence, if that's the question.

5. For this I want you to look back through posts and ask yourself - what upsets you about LDS. Is it our good works? or is it that you object to our "blaspheious" doctrine that we being but a man make ourselves G-d? You did not say that did you? Now look at John 10:33. How did Jesus answer this question?

Except that Jesus was and is God the Son. And, we are not. We are his created children.

Finely - in what way should we not be like G-d?

In our essence.