mikbone

Fair enough. This is what many believe. Dosen't matter if you call it intelligence, "consciousness", light, pre-spirit essence, etc... You believe that Jehovah was special because he was the embodiment of good and submissive. Correct? 1) Jehovah was God during the pre-existence. He was vastly different than everyone else. In Abraham 3:24 we learn that he is described as "one among them that was like unto God" 2) You say that Jehovah never experienced crucifixtion, but from John 5:19 we can infer that Jehovah had wittnessed the Father's Atonement. I don't believe that anyone else that was in our pre-existence had wittnessed the Father's Atonement. (I'm unsure about the Holy Ghost to tell you the truth though.) There is no substitute for experience. We came to Earth to learn through experience. If there was an easier way I'm sure that God would have given us that opportunity. Lucifer argued for an 'easier' salvation. I do not believe that there are shortcuts to salvation. You don't either btw. :) I've heard the arguement. It just dosen't satisfy me.

The original and best description of intelligence is: B. H. Roberts, "The Immortality of Man" Its a good read. B. H. Roberts was in the quorum of the Seventy, and was a heck of a writer. From what I gather, it seems that Brother Roberts is proposing that prior to a spirit child being born its soul originated as an intelligence. Intelligence + Personage of Spirit created by immortal parents --> Spirit Spirit + Physical body created by mortal parents --> Man I think that most LDS members that have thought about the origin of Jehovah believe that: 1) Elohim chose the most intelligent intelligence from which to make the first spirit child - and that child became Jehovah. 2) Because Jehovah was the Firstborn, he was able to spend time with Elohim, exclusive of the presence of any other spirit children. We do not know how much time passed between the creation of Jehovah and the birth of the next spiritual child. It could have been seconds, or eons. But because Jehovah was so special he must have spent a vast amount of time with Elohim, getting an education which none of the rest of us recieved or were worthy to obtain. Personally, I don't buy it. In another commentary of B. H. Roberts found in the footnotes of the King Follett Discourse (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p.353 footnote #8) he writes: It is the direct statement in the Book of Abraham [Abr 3:19] - accepted by the Church as scripture - that there are differences in the intelligences that exist, that some are more intelligent than others; and that God is "more intelligent than them all".* I believe that this means more than that God is more intelligent than any other one of the intelligences.* It means that he is more intelligent than all of the other intelligences combined. His intelligence is greater than that of the mass. I have to agree with Brother Roberts here. Jehovah was more intelligent than the rest of us combined. That kind of knowledge does not come from teaching. It can only come from experience. Adam (Michael) was amazing. I refuse to believe that Jehovah was so far ahead of everyone else just because of being a more intelligent intelligence. Or of having spent more time with God. I believe that Jehovah was much much more.

I think that the idea originates from the following document. B. H. Roberts, "The Immortality of Man"

I had similar doubts that led me to a long line of study and eventual understanding. My new perspective on Jehovah is exactly what you seem to be seeking. I believe that Jehovah was indeed hand picked to be in his position because of his merits and not his position of birth. These ideas are definitely not mainstream LDS beliefs, but in my mind they are consistent with the standard works and Latter-Day Prophets. We have always been told that Jehovah was the Firstborn in the Spirit. Most members assume that this means that when Elohim started to create spiritual offspring that Jehovah was the first creation. The best scripture that we have concerning the Firstborn status of Jehovah is: D&C 93:21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn. There are 2 ways that someone can be spiritually born: 1) Elohim (Heavenly Father and Mother) created spiritual children. 2) Mosiah 5:7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. D&C 93:22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn. So although I am a spirit child of Elohim. I have made a covenant with Christ and have been spiritually reborn as his son. I hope that I will be able to become a member of the Church of the Firstborn. So what is greater? Being a spiritual child of Elohim or being spiritually reborn as a son of Christ and becoming a member of the Chruch of the Firstborn??? I believe that Jehovah is the Firstborn because he was spiritual reborn as a son of Elohim. His relationship to Elohim is ontologically different than the relationship that we have with Elohim.

Granted. Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. 3 Ne. 12:48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect. But then again logically I can argue that it is not marriage which makes one perfect. More likely, the act of atonement and resurrection is what probably made Christ perfect.

Jehovah is special. Of this there is no doubt. He is the Firstborn in the spirit. And the Only Begotten in the Flesh. While we are struggling through this mortal life, He was able to live a sin free life and served as our Savior. He was the personage who delivered the 10 commandments to Moses. During the pre-exiestence he was described as "one like unto God" (Abraham 3:24). I think that sometimes we get confused if we try to compare our lives to his life. And his experiences.

Logically one could argue that since Jehovah was a God prior to coming to Earth as Jesus Christ, he must have been married previously.

Mormon Doctrine is a book written by Bruce R. McConkie. Amazon.com: Mormon Doctrine (9780884940623): Bruce R. McConkie: Books Not to be confused with LDS theology.

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. Here are the requirements. 1) Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father 2) Virgin Birth 3) Conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. Elohim (Father and Mother) could have produced Jesus Christ employing the normal mortal method. After Her Ovum and His Sperm united and formed the seed that was to become Jesus. The Holy Ghost could have transported the seed into the womb of the virgin. It is my belief the Virgin Mary is a surrogate mother, a precious and chosen vessel.

All 4 of the models are interesting. I think that the majority of LDS ascribe to the traditional Lorenzo Snow model but to me it lacks internal validity. The Ostlerian view denies that we can become like God. But is probably closest to what most "Christians" believe. The Two Track Model has internal validity but recognizes that there are a special subset of beings that are perfect and never suscumb to sin. These perfect beings can become like Elohim (for example Jesus Christ). But we can never become like them, nor can we create a perfect being like them. In effect they are a defferent species than we are. There is an ontological gap between them and us. The One Track Model has internal validity. It allows us to become like God is. And recognizes that God was once actually as we are now (He was a normal mortal and experienced sin and failure, etc...) Unfortunately, the only way to make this model work requires multiple mortal probations. Which makes things tricky.

LDS doctrine on both the past state of God and the future progression of Man is sufficiently vague to allow multiple interpretations. Most members probably haven't even considered the matter enough to have a theoretical position (which is fine as faith and repentance are much more important anyway). A decent effort to define some of the most popular beliefs that stem from the Prophet Joseph Smith's King Follet Discourse are presented in a table format on the web page: Talk:Lorenzo Snow couplet theology - MormonWiki.org In the table, 4 of the main proposals are elucidated. I am a proponent of the “one track” multiple mortal probation model. As this model answers a multitude of questions that I struggled with during my conversion and personal scripture study. It would be interesting to see which model each poster espouses if any.

Lorenzo Snow couplet theology - MormonWiki.org

That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven of water and of the Spirit and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory. Moses 6:59 This scripture is clearly the Lord speaking unto Adam... Moses 6:53 Moses 6:55 Point blank the Lord states that Adam was born into the world by water, blood, and spirit... My testimony is that Adam was born (water - amniotic fluid), as a mortal (blood).

TMoney, I made a few posts in this thread months ago (see #188 & #194), that apply directly to your questions. The 1st 2000 years is one of my favorite books btw...

Amazing talk. That should keep the batteries charged till next conference. Yeah, the church is true.

I find it interesting that people look at Joseph Smiths Final General Conference Talk and dissmiss it as extrapolation. Personally I agree with B.H. Roberts and recognize the King Follett Discourse as Joseph Smiths Greatest Sermon. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 355, footnote 11 "Accusations were repeatedly being made about this time that President Smith was a fallen prophet. But when the mighty doctrines that in this discourse he is setting forth are taken into account, and the spiritual power with which he is delivering them is reckoned with, no more complete refutation of his being a fallen prophet could be made. The Prophet lived his life in crescendo. From small beginnings, it rose in breadth and power as he neared its close. As a teacher he reached the climax of his career in this discourse. After it there was but one thing more he could do-seal his testimony with his blood. This he did less than three months later. Such is not the manner of life of false prophets. - Note by Elder B. H. Roberts." According to Joseph Smith in the KFD, and John 5:19, the Savior could only perform the Atonement because he had previously wittnessed Elohim perform a similar Atonement. Sermon delivered at the funeral of King Follett held at the General Conference of the Church at Nauvoo, Ill. on Sunday Afternoon April 7, 1844, Times and Seasons Minutes "I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; it is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of any thing that is not contained in the Bible, and I think there are so many wise men here, who would put me to death for treason; so I shall turn commentator to-day;" If you look at the section that I underlined above. Joseph Smith knew that many of the Saints themselves would not have the perspective to understand the higher truths that we was willing to share with us. I find it a pity that this practice continues today. We have too many 'wise men' among us. BTW, this is how Joseph Smith Ends the KFD: "I have intended my remarks to all; both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small. I have not enmity against any man. I love you all. I am your best friend, and if persons miss their mark, it is their own fault. If I reprove a man and he hates me, he is a fool, for I love all men, especially these my brethren and sisters. I rejoice in bearing the testimony of my aged friends. You never know my heart; no man knows my history; I cannot tell it. I shall never undertake it; if I had not experienced what I have, I should not have known it myself. I never did harm any man since I have been born in the world. My voice is always for peace, I cannot lie down until all my work is finished. I never think any evil, nor any thing to the harm of my fellow man.--- When I am called at the trump of the ark-angel, and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then. I add no more. God bless you all. Amen." I testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet of the Lord.

Mormon (and Moroni) are the Editors of the BOM. In multiple instances you can see them inserting their words into the main text. Words of Mormon Helaman 2:12-14 3 Nephi 5:8-26 Ether 3:17 - actually till the end of the Book of Mormon. Moroni was much more comfortable adding his own commentary while he was editing the Book of Mormon. Its another great example that the Book of Mormon is true.

You missed Sidney Rigdon. D&C 76:20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness Also Moses 7:59 And Enoch beheld the Son of Man ascend up unto the Father; and he called unto the Lord, saying: Wilt thou not come again upon the earth? Forasmuch as thou art God, and I know thee, and thou hast sworn unto me, and commanded me that I should ask in the name of thine Only Begotten; thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne, and not of myself, but through thine own grace; wherefore, I ask thee if thou wilt not come again on the earth.

“The brethren direct me to say that the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point.” -Secretary to the First Presidency in a 1952 letter; and again in 1965 “None would inherit this earth when it became celestial and translated into the presence of God but those who would be crowned as Gods — all others would have to inherit another kingdom — they would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy and advancing to a celestial kingdom but it would be a slow process [progress?].” -Brigham Young, in Wilford Woodruff Journal, 5 Aug 1855 “Once a person enters these glories there will be eternal progress in the line of each of these particular glories, but the privilege of passing from one to another (though this may be possible for especially gifted and faithful characters) is not provided for.” -Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era 14:87 [November 1910] “I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can: and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.” -J. Reuben Clark, Church News, 23 April 1960, p. 3 “It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.” -James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith [1899 edition] pp. 420-421 The question of advancement within the great divisions of glory celestial, terrestrial, and telestial; as also the question of advancement from one sphere of glory to another remains to be considered. In the revelation from which we have summarized what has been written here, in respect to the different degrees of glory, it is said that those of the terrestrial glory will be ministered unto by those of the celestial; and those of the telestial will be ministered unto by those of the terrestrial—that is, those of the higher glory minister to those of a lesser glory. I can conceive of no reason for all this administration of the higher to the lower, unless it be for the purpose of advancing our Father’s children along the lines of eternal progression. Whether or not in the great future, full of so many possibilities now hidden from us, they of the lesser glories after education and advancement within those spheres may at last emerge from them and make their way to the higher degrees of glory until at last they attain to the highest, is not revealed in the revelations of God, and any statement made on the subject must partake more or less of the nature of conjecture. But if it be granted that such a thing is possible, they who at the first entered into the celestial glory—having before them the privilege also of eternal progress—have been moving onward, so that the relative distance between them and those who have fought their way up from the lesser glories may be as great when the latter have come into the degrees of celestial glory in which the righteous at first stood, as it was at the commencement. Thus: Those whose faith and works are such only as to enable them to inherit a telestial glory, may arrive at last where those whose works in this life were such as to enable them to entrance into the celestial kingdom—they may arrive where these were, but never where they are.” B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God 1:391-392. “There is never a time,” the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “when the spirit is too old to approach God. All are within the reach of pardoning mercy, who have not committed the unpardonable sin.” 23 Boyd K. Packer, “The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 18

Its Mikbone not Milkbone. Legally it is fornication. How does God view it? I don't know. When one looks at the original polygamists of our church that then had to live under the law of the land. These issues must have come into play.

LOL, awesome situation. Legal Fornication. The sealing is still in force though... I would have to say... I have no freakin idea. Probably depends on the intent and level of intimacy. Where do they want to go from here? Was it just a booty call or are they considering hookin up permanently? My interest is aroused. We are gonna need close follow-up on this thread.

/facepalm ………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~, …………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-, ………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-, ……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\ ….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\ …..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-, …...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`, …….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..) ……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../ ……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\ ……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\ …….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~, …….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-, ……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~- …...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\ …….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\ ……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…

Wilford Woodruff Journal, September 17, 1854 "Brother Pratt Also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the Earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the Earth begat children & they were Earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were Faithful we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosofical reasoning & get Revelation from God... He said his Phylosophy injured him in a measure." I find it interesting that even Brigham Young's contemporaies began to discount his Adam God theory. Journal of Discourses 4:217, Brigham Young address, Feb 18, 1857 But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world. He is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species—of one family—and Jesus Christ is also of our species. You can see Brigham Young here referencing his Adam-God theory and then saying that it really dosent matter. It seems that he is no longer pushing the idea.

bmy in response to your multiple quotes 1,2,3 do not reference Adam 4 Completly discounded --- B.H. Roberts quoting Whitaker copy. 5,6,7 All are records of the BY April 9, 1852 discourse. Which we have previously reviewed. 8 Taken out of context. The following is the entire paragraph April 10, 1852 Willford Woodruff Journal [President Kimball] made the following remarks: Some have said that I was vary presumptuous to say that Brother Brigham was my God & Saviour. Brother Joseph was his God. The one that gave Joseph the keys of the kingdom was his God which was Peter. Jesus Christ was his God & the God & Father of Jesus Christ was Adam. 9 The same BY April 9, 1852 sermon reported a week late 10 I have the Wilford Woodruff Journals and find no Feb 19, 1854 entry... 11 & 12 Joseph L. Robinson & John Pulsipher ???

Satan is a complex character. He is a total enigma to me. I just dont understand his origin or motivaiton. I've tried to study him and every time I do I come away confused. Maybe thats a good thing. I think that Cain is a much more interesting character to study. From Moses 5, we understand that Cain was labeled "Perdition" in the pre-existence (makes ya wonder how he got thru...) Anyway Cain had a visitation by both Jehovah and Satan prior to murdering his brother Abel. Satan did share with Cain the secret combinations. And we know that Cain will rule over Satan, whatever that means.