TruthSeekerToo

Members
  • Posts

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TruthSeekerToo

  1. In Hebrew the name Jehovah means "I Am". He is the creator of the Earth under the direction of God the Father, Eloheim. Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament and had reached an exalted state in the pre-existence. At this time He was still a spirit like the rest of us and needed to receive a body just as we all did.

    Jesus Christ came to Earth and gained a mortal body (one that could die, which He did) and as such He was no more immortal than we are. While Eloheim is the father of our spirits (being the creator of them), Jesus Christ is our spiritual father as he is the reason we can be forgiven and spiritually born again.

    The atonement began in the garden of Gethsemane (where the Savior most likely endured the most pain) and continued through his trial, scourging and crucification.

    So it was a human sacrifice?

    Alma 34:10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

    Alma claims it was not a human sacrifice. That mean Jesus was not human. Alma claims that a human cannot spill his blood for the sins of another so does the Law of Moses. So, this being the case, Jesus was either God OR the infinite atonement was not wrought by him....OR???

    And if Jesus was God then he would have to have been an exalted being.

  2. Not sure, but I think Vahnin nailed that one. I think our sacrament is meant to be in place of the passover. And your Leviticus quote I believe is in reference to the Sabbath day and keeping it holy, which we do.

    The Levitical quote is actually speaking about a special day-the seventh month and the tenth day. We do not honor this particular day as a Sabbath. We don't afflict our souls and the priests do not make atonement for us.

    The Passover was also to be kept on a specific day (days) of a specific month. It goes on to say it is to be kept as a feast for ever.

    The sacrament is not a feast. We eat a piece of processed leavened bread. The scriptures are pretty clear that the bread should be unleavened.

    17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations dby an ordinance for ever.

    I believe it was unleavened bread that Jesus broke and ate with the twelve.

  3. I like the episode of "Joan Of Arcadia" I saw a while back (the one where a modern teenage girl talks to and sees god, in the forms of many different kinds of people, at random throughout the day:

    God appeared to her in the form of a boy her age, and she asked him to prove to her that god and miracles existed.

    He turned and pointed to a tree. Joan said,

    "That's just a tree."

    God said,

    "Let's see YOU make one."

    HAHAHA! :lol: Love it! I can make a baby. THAT is the biggest proof of miracles there is. Ahhh, to see a baby born. To me it's the regular stuff that IS the miracle.

  4. Remember, Jehovah volunteered.

    And, also remember that the Father already had a glorified, perfected body of flesh and bones and could not die. It was impossible for Him to atone for the sins of His offspring. It required a mortal sacrifice, and He did what He needed to do to bring about the possible salvation of His children... the only way it was possible.

    Jehovah...Eternal Father. See it all gets very messy in the scriptures. I could point out many scripture to support that Jehovah is God the Eternal Father.

    Jehovah had the power to lay his life down and raise it up again. That doesn't sound mortal to me. If he was mere mortal it would have been a human sacrifice. It is reported as NOT being a human sacrifice in Alma.

    If Jesus Christ was God/Jehovah before he came to earth then he was also an exalted being.

    Where did the atonement happen? In the garden or on the cross?

  5. I am wondering why the word "for ever" doesn't actually mean forever when used in the scriptures. Or does it?

    Now, the actual definition of the word "for ever" is without ever ending, eternal, always, continually, incessantly or endless.

    If I was a literalist I would be persuaded to believe that I should be keeping the feast of the Passover. Actually, I do plan on doing my own little passover feast this year, but I digress...

    Ex. 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

    • • •

    17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

    • • •

    24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.

    Why did they say "for ever" if it wasn't really intended forever? Since Moses knew all about Jesus why didn't they say "until the coming of the Son of God" or something like that?

    There are also many statutes that are given "for ever." Why do we believe that forever actually didn't mean what it said? It seems kinda tricky to put a word that is not the intended meaning.

    Lev. 16:29 ¶ And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

    30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.

    31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.

  6. Very good discussion, and very good points made.

    My reason for specifically mentioning the atonement is to put it above any other single event that happened in the scriptures.

    I'm heading toward "if the atonement was real, then what's so hard to believe about this or that?"

    Before I could do that I needed to see if there were any who believed the atonement was allegorical and didn't actually happen. I was very doubtful that any member of the Church would take that stance.

    It's hard to tell, but I think we have some? Be specific.

    Yes, there are members of the church who do not believe God required a blood atonement or blood sacrifice. I am one and I know of others in the online community.

    I think there are many layers to the meaning of Christ and Godhood and all the stories surrounding them. And they mean different things to us at different times in our lives.

    I believe God is better than us. He doesn't kill or require killing. Humans do.

    Part of the evolution of humanity took us from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to the sacrifice of Jesus which allowed us to evolve beyond blood sacrifice.

    Humans evolve. Maybe God does to. Or he is the same yesterday, today and forever which leads me to believe he never did want blood.

    I have a much easier time accepting the blood atonement of Christ with him as my Father. It makes more sense to me that way. I can relate that to how a mother goes through the valley of the shadow of death to bring us into this physical world. The symbolism is beautiful, in a way.

    I cannot believe that God the Father asked us all to condemn to death our Godly brother in order for us to live with him again. Shouldn't I want to spare my beloved brother from pain and suffering caused by me? No greater love is there than to lay down your life for a friend. Shouldn't I have that kind of love?

    Christ redeems us through life not blood. Think about it. He who bathes in Christ's blood will be left with his blood on their hands. How can blood ever make us clean?

    Christ teaches us how to conquer death. I love the symbolism of baptism where we die to sin and are spiritually born. We take up the cross and take up the name of Christ.

    Anyway, I could go on and on. The symbolism is rich and glorious and where I find meaning.

  7. I don't believe the Bible is a perfect translation, but I believe it is more accurate and literal than we sometimes think. I believe the Bible creation story just as it outlines. I also believe the Garden of Eden story just as it outlines. I believe if a story is allegorical it generally says so.

    Hi Justice. I'm just curious what you believe regarding the order of creation. Of the accounts we have as endowed LDS members there are a few conflicts in regards to the order. Which one do you believe is literal and which do you believe to be inaccurate?

  8. I believe sacred geometry can be found in temples (ancient and modern). I believe Joseph Smith and at least one other modern prophet studied it. I'll see if I can find a source for you on that. :)

    ETA: My bad. Wilford Woodruff had what he called a "Mnemonical Table." I thought it had to do with sacred geometry (which maybe it does) but it seems it is more of a Quabalah thing.

    If you are uncomfortable with sacred geometry that is okay. But it is not anything to do with witchcraft or fortune telling, etc.

    Here is the wiki on sacred geometry.

  9. Have you looked into 11:11 in relation to sacred geometry? I have become interested in sacred geometry lately. The number 11 is said to govern visionary and mystical states of mind. It's often associated with consciousness.

    I would say that the message will be unique to you, whatever it is. Although, symbols seem to be pretty universal.

    If impressions or inspiration are following the 11:11 symbol I would pay special attention to them and write them down (I keep a spiritual journal). If you feel impressed that any symbol has a certain meaning, write it down.

  10. This reminds me of a stake leadership meeting I sat in several months ago (spring?). It was put on by the regional leadership and they had a nice power point from SLC.

    I took notes, but I specifically recall the statement being made that if the bishop asked for your car that we were all under covenant to give it to him. (the example was say you have 3 cars and someone in your ward has no car. The bish has authority to ask you to give your "extra" car to that person)

    I don't have a house, so I can't really give a genuine answer. I would be one that would greatly benefit from the LoC.

  11. ah, I re-read. that is a bit more realistic. But, still, I think the "fear of the afterlife" is a cop out to mask real feelings of the here and now. Deal with the real issues of inadequacy and jealousy, and the issues of the afterlife will simply become moot.

    I agree, there are issues to be resolved in the present. I just have no idea what it must feel like to be married to someone who has been married before.

    The sealing cancellation may only provide temporary relief for the underlying issues.

  12. I know a woman who was told no sealing cancellation unless she has a prospective DH to take to the temple.

    I also will add that even if the sealing is cancelled there is no gaurantee that it won't be redone post-mortem. Actually, I'm 99% sure it will be done by proxy by someone later on.

    That is why we go back to the principle of agency.

    I am sorry your sister is struggling with this issue, though. It sounds like it is very tough for her.

  13. More possibilities:

    *All the animals went into some kind of hybernation mode during the voyage. I saw this idea on a flood site that talked about how many tens of thousands of creatures would have been on the boat.

    *The story is not meant to be understood at a literal level. The message is symbolic. This way I don't have to worry about what they ate or who had to shovel all that poop.

    Vort, I think the "seven" number is had by 3 couples and a spare. The spares were all sacrificed when they got off the boat. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

  14. I know people who believe this. They also use the story of Adam and Eve to back up the concept. Originally Adam was androgenous or a composite being. Then, Eve was seperated from Adam. The idea is that to become celestial or whole they will need to be rejoined.

    It certainly is a justified literal rendering of scripture.

    I don't believe marriage is necessary to become whole or complete (little children are whole w/o marriage). I do believe it is symbolic of what must take place on an individual/internal basis.

    I have a hard time believing that we would be resurrected only to reject one body and share another.