mikbone

You talking about the spiritual creation as recorded in Abraham 4:3, Or the physical creation as recorded in Moses 2:3? Because I think that Elohim is the guy doing the talking in Abraham, whereas Jehovah was the guy in Moses.

lol, good questions. I don't know. I suspect that God is God because he choses to be God. He still has the ability to sin or err but he does not because he has been previously conditioned against so doing and he knows better. I think that God is not messy because he has learned ultimate control of his surroundings. I anticipate that when we recieve our resurrected celestialized bodies that there will be quite the break-in learning process.

I've only had the telescope for a few months and Jupiter is just now becoming visible in the early morning. Ive only seen Jupiter on a couple occasions on the horizon before sun-up and it is pretty impressive. You can make out colors and easily identify 4 moons. Saturn on the other hand is in prime night time viewing location. And its so cool. When I first saw it, it looked like my 8 year old had drawn it onto the eyepiece. You can also see the moons around Saturn. Titan is particularly easy. The orion nebula is crazy! You can see the andromedia galaxy with the naked eye.

You might be suprised as to how affordable telescopes have become. Orion SkyQuest XT8 Classic Dobsonian Telescope | Orion Telescopes This is the one I would like to have... Obsession Telescopes / Telescopes / 15" UC (Ultra Compact)

I think that 'rest' is entirely overated.

I percieve that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (1 Nephi 11:11, D&C 130:22). He is much greater than an unproven intelligence. I agree that the Holy Ghost will have the opportunity to serve in the office of messiah if he so desires. Sermon delivered at Nauvoo temple grounds on Sunday August 27, 1843 Franklin D. Richards "Scriptural Items" Holy Ghost in Probationary State Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has. Joseph Smith, June 16 1844, as recorded in the George Laub Journal But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body. as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies for the Saviour Says the work that my father did do i also & those are the works he took himself a body & then laid down his life that he might take it up again. But who is to say that only one plan of salvation can exist at a time. I believe that an infinite number of plan of salvations are concurrently evolving. I recently purchased an 8 inch newtonian reflector telescope. Boy howdy! There is alot of stuff goin on out there.

Nope, hang with me here... Im saying that Jehovah's spirit was not sired by Elohim. I believe that many LDS have significantly misunderstood the scriptures dealing with the Firstborn status of Jehovah. Also, that as a group we have greatly underestimated the difference between the status of Jehovah from ourselves. 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 spiritual sired by Elohim or being spiritually reborn as a son of Elohim and becoming a member of the Chruch of the Firstborn??? I believe that Jehovah is the Firstborn because he was spiritually reborn as a son of Elohim. Jehovah's relationship to Elohim is ontologically different than the relationship that we have with Elohim. Jehovah's spirit VASTLY predates our spirits.

I don't know. And I don't think that an answer can be found in the limited doctrine that we currently have. But I have made a guess as to why it may be important. It's based upon what I think is a neat analogy. If Jehovah is a carpenter, then Elohim is an architect. An architect creates spiritually A carpenter creates physically The spiritual design is very organized and highly accurate. On the other hand working with physical matter is messy. It seems that physical matter adds a function of chaos or randomness into the equation. Overcoming this chaos and randomness is refining and makes greatness.

If we take the stance that Elohim provided Jehovah with an example of how to Atone, then: 1) Elohim was himself previously a Savior. 2) Most likely Elohim's experience was very similar to Jehovah's experience. 3) There are likely a large number of Souls that can trace their salvation directly to the atonement provided by Elohim for their salvation. 4) Jehovah during this time was at least organized as a spirit 5) You and me were not yet organized as a Spirit Child of Elohim. Most likely we were in the state that has been previously defined as an 'Intelligence'

Who is 'Father Adam'? I believe that this one misunderstanding causes much of the discord concerning the AGT

Why not? I believe that it is highly likely that Jehovah was 'around' during the mortal ministry of Elohim.

I'm motivated to follow God because I honor him. I love my wife and my kids. I don't fear God.

Check Out B. H. Roberts, "The Immortality of Man", the following is an except of that document that was printed in the Improvement Era 1907 THE MANUAL THEORY RE-STATED. Let us first re-state more explicitly, and, if possible, more clearly, the Manual Theory; and then see, not if what has been revealed favors such a conception of things as are set forth in the Manual; but if what has been revealed does not absolutely demand such conclusions; for I hold that, in the main, it is not a matter of choice between two theories, both of which have more or less of reason or scripture to support them, but if credence is to be given at all to what is revealed upon the subject, the Manual Theory of the eternity of the intelligent entity in man must be accepted as true. Now to the restatement of that theory. 1.--There is in that complex thing we call man an intelligent entity, uncreated, self existent, indestructible. He--for that entity is a person, because, as we shall see, he is possessed of powers that go with personality only, hence that entity is "he," not "it,"--he is eternal as God is; co-existent, in fact, with God; of the same kind of substance or essence with deity, though confessedly inferior in degree of intelligence and power to God. One must needs think that the name of this eternal entity--what God calls him--conveys to the mind some idea of his nature. He is called an "intelligence;" and this I believe is descriptive of him. That is, intelligence is the entity's chief characteristic. If this be a true deduction, then the entity must be self-conscious. He must have the power to distinguish himself from other things--the "me" from the "not me." He must have power of deliberation, by which he sets over one thing against another; with power also to form a judgment that this or that is a better thing or state than this or that. Also there goes with this idea of intelligence a power of choosing one thing instead of another, one state rather than another. These powers are inseparably connected with any idea that may be formed of an intelligence. One cannot conceive of intelligence existing without these qualities any more than he can conceive of an object existing in space without dimensions. The phrase, "the light of truth" is given in one of the revelations as the equivalent for an "intelligence" here discussed; by which it is meant to be understood, as I think, that intelligent entities perceive the truth, are conscious of the truth, they know that which is, hence "the light of truth," "intelligence." Let it be observed that I say nothing as to the mode of the existence of these intelligences, beyond the fact of their eternity. But of their form, or the manner of their subsistence nothing, so far as I know, has been revealed, and hence we are without means of knowing anything about the modes of their existence beyond the fact of it, and the essential qualities they possess, which already have been pointed out. 2.--These intelligences in the many kingdoms of God, and before the "beginning" of that earth-order of things, with which we are now connected, were begotten spirits. That is to say, a spirit body was provided for them, of which God is the Father; for he is called in the scriptures "the father of the spirits of men," hence our "Father in heaven." I use the term "begotten" above instead of "created," advisedly; and because I believe we are warranted in believing that the "begetting" of spirit-bodies for "intelligences" is an act of generation rather than of creation. The distinction is well stated by one of the early Christian fathers, Athanasius, as follows: "Let it be repeated that a created thing is external to the nature of the being who creates; but a generation (a begetting, as a father begets a son,) is the proper offspring of the nature." That is to say, through generation the father imparts of his own nature to his offspring; so that intelligences when begotten spirits have added to their own native, underived, inherent qualities somewhat of the father's nature also, and are veritably sons of God. More has been revealed upon this spirit-state of existence than upon the one that precedes it. We know for instance that the form of the spirit in outline, at least, is like the form of the human body of flesh and bone, which subsequently the spirit inhabits in the earth life, that he meets in the assemblies of spirits; that he exercises agency, that he is obedient to law, or rebels against it, as he chooses; that he is righteous or unrighteous as he wills; that he is capable of receiving or imparting intelligence. In a word, he is capable of participating in a very wide range of activities. And so far as the Savior was concerned, even in spirit-life he was capable of exercising creative powers, "for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things are created by him and for him." 3.--Spirits are begotten men through generation, and the spirit-body inhabits one of flesh and bone, which the spirit moulds and fashions after its own likeness, which shines out of, and expresses itself through, the earth-body. The spirit in this earth-life united to himself certain elements of this world-matter which he makes peculiarly his own. These elements are as eternal as the substance of his spirit-body, or the intelligent entity inhabiting it. No one of these was ever created in the sense of being brought forth of nothing, they always existed; they are eternal things brought into the relationship in which we see them--relationship essential to their highest good. The union of spirit and element we are told, is in some way essential to "a fulness of joy; and when separated, man cannot have a fulness of joy." 4.--The spirit and body of man are separated by death, but only for a time; the revelations of God assure us that there shall be a resurrection as universal as death has been; and that man after the resurrection, and through it, becomes inseparably connected with his body--he becomes a "soul;" for "the spirit and the body is the soul of man; and the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul." What such a redeemed soul may become, by accepting the truth and living it, with God and good men as friends and guides, and also an eternity in which to work out the problems of existence, opens a field for thought that is very inviting, but foreign to our immediate purpose.

D&C 132:7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

There is one scripture that I know of that provides definitive commentary: Revelations 12:11 and they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Alma 43 & 44 can be read allegorically to give insight to the war in heaven: Moroni = Michael the Archangel Zerahemnah = Lucifer Alma 43:45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church. I also think a good Haka displays a war of testimony.

Where can I get me one of the books of moremoney???

Yeah... 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. April 7, 1844 - "King Follett Discourse", Joseph Smith Jr. as recorded in Times and Seasons Minutes Just between you and me, I think we are pretty close to the bottom rung of the ladder. And I think that the ladder is a tall one...

Don't get me wrong. I love the work of the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to be in his presence. I have a second edition Mormon Doctrine that I have read and marked up many times over. The cover is taped and falling apart. I read the Messiah series as well. And his final testimony... amazing. The man was a giant. Perhaps I had unfair expectations for his son.

Did animals in Eden have the capacity to converse in the language of men, as some ancient traditions suggest? I don't know what kind of statement JFM is trying to make with this question? Is he asking a rethorical question in order to make us wonder at the absurdity of animals speaking? I actually agree with some writers like Josephus, Cleon Skousen - The First 2000 years p. 41-42, that it is entirely possible that the animals including the serpent spoke with Adam and Eve. Take for example: Revelations 4:6-8, D&C 77:3-4

I occasionally will go on a light AM jog, with my headphones playing classical music. It gives me time alone to ponder and enjoy the beauty of the Earth. Then again, I also take Orthopaedic Trauma Call on some Sundays so...

Jesus Christ's Celestial perfected body obviously has or at least had the markings of the crucifixion (3 Ne 11: 14) We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I had the trump of a arch angel, I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever; what did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon; ) Jesus said, as the Father hat power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? why what the Father did, that answer is obvious; in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again.---- If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible; the scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it. Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. April 7, 1844 - "The King Follett Discourse", Joseph Smith Jr. as recorded in the Times and Seasons Minutes The argument here made by the Prophet is very much strengthened by the following passage: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (St. John 5:19) - Note by Elder B. H. Roberts, Teachings p.346

I only took a single class of his and only read a single book that he wrote. I never spent time in his office or with him outside of class. But my impression is my impression, and I stand by it. And I did bother to read the original post. I believe that the tree of knowledge of good and evil as well as the tree of life exist. I disagree with him. I don't demand that you disagree with him. If you like his work then enjoy. I did not write that he said there is nothing literal to the story. I clearly wrote that he stated the entire story was allegorical. I guess I can give him the benefit of being in an awkward position of teaching a class on LDS theology wherein grades have to be given out. And for this reason he may have not felt it proper to teach with the spirit or bear testimony... It is possible that many people in my class did feel the spirit or did feel that he bore testimony. I just didn't. I have no intention of slandering him as a person either. And I don't want to get into a sparing match with you. But after a cursory search I found this: Joseph Fielding McConkie and the Lens of Literalism at Mormon Matters

I remember JFM clearly stating in class that the whole Garden of Eden scene was allegorical. I asked in disbelief then why would God need to place Cheribum with a Flaming Sword to guard the symbolic Tree of Life. I remember the class murmuring assent with my question. Remember this is a class full of returned missionaries not a bunch of people in early morning seminary. He shook his head and stated that we didnt understand, yet he gave no interpretation as to what the symbolism of the Garden represented. As I recall, I walked out of the class. I wish I would have been able to take a class with Truman Madsen instead... Is Alma 42 totally allegorical too? Moses 3:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. I agree. This scripture is undeniable. Adam had a mother and father.

Ricky Bobby: Dear Lord baby Jesus, lyin' there in your ghost manger, just lookin' at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin' 'bout shapes and colors. I would like to thank you for bringin' me and my mama together, and also that my kids no longer sound like retarded gang-bangers.

I took a class from Joseph Fielding McConkie while I was at BYU in 1993. I was quite a devoted fan of his father's work at that time and was so excited to get into his class. Boy was I disappointed... I graduated with a degree in Nutrition / Pre-med from BYU and of all the classes that I took, I believe that I felt the spirit least in his class. The day he started teaching on the Garden of Eden and stated that the entire story was Allegorical myself and over half the class totally disagreed with him and he was obviously irritated. I have had personal revelation about the Garden of Eden and from my perspective it is NOT allegorical. There are portions of the story that are obviously symbolic. E.g. I don't think that God molded a figure out of dirt and then breathed life into him making Adam... But I think that Adam and Eve lived in the Garden and were reared by God. The Fall is just as real as the Atonement.