Pamatridis

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Pamatridis

    D&c 76:72-75

    What do we make of D&C 76:72-75? Is God truly no respector of persons and how does this the concept that individuals who are born into Heathen nations, or without the law, and also honorable men who were blinded by the devil and his sophistry are relegated to the Terrestrial kingdom when they do accept the gospel in the Spirit. I have trouble accepting D&C 76:72-75 in light of D&C 138 received nearly 100 years later. It speaks of ordinances being completed for these same people....Terrestrial kingdom material? Does this lend authority to those who believe in advancement from kingdom to kingdom in the eternities? All comments and insights welcomed. Thanks in advance.
  2. This might be of interest: Most people think of the Holy Ghost as a separate and distinct power from that of the Father and Christ. While we know it to be true that he is a distinct personage or personality, his power is not distinct from the Father and the Sons. And it is through this power that they are one. It might correctly be said that without the authority to manifest The Spirit of God to man, the Holy Ghost would be no different than any other spirit personage. However, he has been given a specific calling, he is a gatekeeper if you will, to the sanctifying and redeeming powers of the Spirit of God. The Light of Christ (another name for the Spirit of God), as described in D&C 88, is the glory of God manifested to us through Jesus Christ. It is characterized as light which proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space. It is in all things, round about all things, it is the law by which all things are governed. It is the POWER OF GOD who sitteth upon his throne. Christ said to his Apostles concerning the Holy Ghost: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" (John 15:260 The wording here is very similar to D&C 88 regarding the Light of Christ - they proceed from the Father. The reason is: The Holy Ghost unlocks the greater power of the Light of Christ to man. There are not separate powers operating on man, but the same power in varying degrees. The Light of Christ originates with God the Father and is given to all men through Christ, he is the light of the WORLD, but to the believing comes the higher manifestations of this spirit through the Holy Ghost. Christ then says: "He [the Holy Ghost] shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you." (John 16:14). All the Holy Ghost is doing is revealing to man 'more abundantly' the Spirit of God (or light of Christ) which is emanating from the Father through Christ. As he says, the Holy Ghost would receive of what Christ had and shew it unto us. Therefore, as long as Christ was with the Apostles they were in the presence of the same Spirit or influence that the Comforter would later manifest to them. It would be a redundant witness and take away from the significance of the first person testimony of the Light of the world, Himself. Obviously the Spirit of God was operating through Christ to the Apostles directly as is witnessed by Peter's testimony. (see Matthew 16:17). Hope this is helpful.
  3. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    Justice, What do we assume would have been the impact of partaking of the fruit on Adam and Eve. It wouldn't be termed a resurrection, because they hadn't died (and Christ had not yet opened the way to this gift). It simply says, "there would have been no death" (verse 23). Does that mean that they still would have procreated, but their posterity would have lived on forever without death? Does it mean that Adam and Eve would have lived forever without posterity? That the legions of spirits designed to come through them would have been trapped in the spirit world eternally? unable to progress? or would they have come to the fallen earth through Adam and Eve and inherited the same immortality -- cast out forever without redemption?
  4. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    Justice, Fantastic insight. You nailed something that I have been trying to put my finger on for quite sometime.... Thank you.
  5. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    Oh, I do believe there were trees in the garden of Eden.
  6. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    So what more of a curse or punshiment could Satan have received in the garden than he had already received in Heaven? He was already Perdition...
  7. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    Justice I appreciate your thoughts, very interesting. Of course, this all assumes a fairly literal reading of the text. As I mentioned above, I think that the story is mostly allegorical and so many of the assumptions we have made are probably way off mark. We are trying to fit the allegory to history. It seems that some modern prophets and apostles have had a different take on Adam and Eve -- referring to the garden story as more allegorical and the real story as not having been told in scripture. Adam and Eve were sealed in the Garden and probably received a portion of the endowment (This is not spoken of in the Biblical/and other accounts). This would indicate that their understanding was greater than the story gives them credit for. If they took upon themselves these covenants then surely they had greater understanding than little children. They walked and talked with God and basked in his light. Surely their intelligence was immense as they immersed themselves in the Celestial light. They named the animals and certainly were taught the gospel of Christ from the Father himself. This would include reviewing the importance that they played in the plan of our Father. I do not believe that the veil had yet been placed over their eyes when they were brought from some other sphere to the paradisaical earth...that would come later. They came as Lords of the earth -- to exercise dominion over her and reign in paradisaical glory from the garden of Eden. They boldly stepped into mortality with full knowledge of what they were doing. This is of course my opinion, but it jives more fully with our understanding of the premortal world (again, not discussed in the Biblical and other accounts), Adam's place in the premortal council and our understanding of the purpose and reasons for the fall. "Adam fell that men might be" I might add, "He purposefully fell that men might be!" The true beauty of the Adam and Eve story is how it applies to us! For each of us must assume that we are respectively Adam and Eve. It is a teaching method, an act if you will! I might be so bold as to say it is a part of the ancient temple ceremony! (Check out the Manti and SLC temples if you doubt it!). It only has meaning when applied to our lives. Then it becomes not so much history as allegory and full of meaning. Did the serpent beguile Eve? I think that he probably did not trick out Mother Eve. I imagine she was far more advanced than that -- she came from the Celestial realms where she had been tutored by the Father and Savior. Does Lucifer beguile you and I? On a regular basis I am afraid. Would noble Mother Eve's response to the Father, after having been caught in her transgression, be to blame the serpent? And better yet, would Father Adam's response been to blame Eve? Hardly. But what about you and I? Don't we like to place blame on others for our own mistakes? We might even say that 'Old Scratch' made me do it! Adam, who walked with God and Christ and knew their love for him intimately....would he have hidden himself in the garden -- or even pretended to hide himself -- knowing as he did the omniscience of God? I don't think so. But what do we do when we sin? Do we endeavor to hide our faces and turn away from God? Yip, we do. In a metaphorical sense, the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents that which is ‘forbidden’ or sin. Adam and Eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit is our story of individual sin. The consequences are the same: spiritual death. The comparisons go on and on. I don't think the authors of the creation story are trying to tell us the history of Adam and Eve. Rather, they are using elements from Adam and Eve's experience to teach us about our own plight in the great plan. At some point, Adam and Eve, chose to transgress a law which allowed mortality to take hold on them and all creation. This was not in opposition to God's will, but according to it. Our great and noble parents stepped into mortality and brought us with them. I don't know...just my way of looking at it.
  8. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    Better said.
  9. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    All events? No I do not believe that all events in the scriptures are shared from a historical perspective. Many are metaphorical or allegorical. Do I believe that Adam and Eve were very real? Yes. Lived in the garden? Yes. Fell from their paradisaical state? Yes. Left the garden for the world we now know? Yes. Do I believe that all of the details associated with the story are meant to be taken literally? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
  10. Pamatridis

    Eating the forbidden fruit.

    Some thoughts.... Agency has at least two parts: First, the general ability “to act” is an attribute of all intelligence to a greater or lesser degree. Second, to the sons and daughters of God is given an enhancement to their agency, to them is given moral agency, the ability to choose between righteousness and wickedness. (And receive the attendant condemnation or blessing). Accountability is required to exercise moral agency but not agency in general. And for man to be accountable requires a knowledge of good and evil. Opposition is also necessary that man might exercise moral agency, or how else would he choose? This being the case, Adam and Eve were not accountable in the garden of Eden, for they had not yet been given the ability to discern good from evil. They were as children before the age of eight, innocent. (This is the sense in which ‘innocent' is applied to children, unaccountable.) Adam and Eve were gifted with agency in the general sense, but not accountability. Accountability did not come until after they transgressed the law. This being the case. How must things have looked from Adam and Eve's perspective? We don't believe that they acted in defiance of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses do) nor in a combination with Lucifer. After receiving 'instructions' from the LORD -- (We are so quick to see them as commandments, because that is our frame of reference, such a reference infers a knowledge of good and evil, breaking or keeping) -- Lucifer enters the garden and comes as a friend, a brother! He gives 'further instruction' and makes it seem obvious to Eve why partaking of the fruit is a good thing. In very fact, he teaches her that partaking of the fruit will make her more like their Father. Again, her reference is not one of good versus bad, but simple choices with simple results. (If we are to literally read the allegory, because of their lack of experience, they had NO IDEA WHAT TRULY AWAITED THEM IN MORTALITY -- they had never experienced it). After partaking, she goes to Adam and simply says, "Here Adam, partake". He suggests that this is not in keeping with the instructions they received; however, Eve quickly points out that if they are going to follow the remaining instructions, he had better eat or they wouldn't be following any of them! Again, their is no malice or choosing to DISOBEY God. How could there be? In there innocence, such would be outside their experience. Lucifer took advantage of the innocence of Adam and Eve, beguiling her, only because he thought it would serve HIS purpose. Alas, all things were done according to the foreknowledge of God. I think perspective is everything...oh, and remember that the writers of the Adam and Eve experience are writing from our perspective -- because the lessons to be learned from the story are not historical but allegorical as they apply to each one of us.
  11. Pamatridis

    3 Degrees of Glory

    Very good! Can you imagine what BRM would do with the technology we have now? Imagine, he wrote Mormon Doctrine from binders of notes he took over the years studying the standard works! Instead of looking ahead, we spend so much time looking back. Instead of listening to the living spirit, we look to men long dead. This is the true and LIVING church. Living because it is quickened by God's Holy Spirit. When we lean on commentaries, we run the risk of ignoring the true Teacher. Revelation can and should be more than Yes/No. It should open vistas of understanding. Thanks for the comment.
  12. Pamatridis

    Salvation in the BofM

    I hate to bring the forum back to the main focus. BUT. The point I was making in asking the original question is, "how do we interpret the teachings of a living church?" For example, has anyone considered what the doctrine of the church was on February 15, 1832 regarding Salvation? This concept was based on Biblical and Book of Mormon teachings. Then, do we appreciate the change that occurred on February 16, 1832? How do we interpret the older teachings in light of the new? The same could be said for each of the great doctrinal sections in the D&C which deal with the next life, judgement, resurrection, SALVATION, DAMNATION, ETC. Lastly comes D&C 138, probably of greater significance than we give it credit for. Again, what impact do such revelations have on our understanding of prior revelation, the Book of Mormon being one of them. I think this is a great discussion.
  13. Pamatridis

    3 Degrees of Glory

    I believe commentaries have a place. However; they rarely will expand on doctrine beyond something already said by someone else. We have so many commentaries in the church that one commentator rehashes another who in turn rehashes them, etc. More often than not, the commentaries are nothing more than a restating of the obvious and then they ignore the more difficult passages and ideas. What is even more frustrating is when a widely disseminated commentary completely ignores what the scripture actually says and instead interprets it in the light of 'current understanding'! One interesting example of this is D&C 107. For how many years did we try to 'organize' the church according to 'business principles' of management and structure. Now, I don't know if that was the goal; but, when President Hinckley announced that we would be returning to the structure already laid out in revelation! What an awesome day. The brother actually commissioned a committee, headed by Elder Packard, to study the efficiency of the hierarchy and his recommendation was that we do what the revelation says! Thus, the 70 have been organized in their proper place as the Lord revealed to Joseph and all the extra non-canonical callings and organizations were dropped. At any rate, as it applies to this topic, I believe that D&C 138 is key to understanding this topic -- our latest sectional addition to the D&C. Yet, it is rarely quoted or discussed in forums such as this on this topic. So what do you think?
  14. Pamatridis

    3 Degrees of Glory

    I am not sure I understand what you are saying? Very little commentary was ever given on this section. I am just reading it for what it says...it is fulfillment of the 9th article of faith. We started with the Bible, we added the Book of Mormon and then we added the sections of the D&C one at a time until 138. Each builds on the other and gives further light and knowledge.
  15. Pamatridis

    3 Degrees of Glory

    I am curious as to why some has such a difficult time considering progression between kingdoms? I remember when I first gave place for this concept in my heart...my honest first impressions was, "well, that's not fair...they don't deserve that...that can't be right." Wow! I think my response revealed as much about me as an individual as it did about my lack of understanding of gospel principles. I immediately latched on to what BRM said in deadly heresies and I fought it tooth and nail. Then, like I said, my life changed...I got married, had kids and began to discover for myself what the title "Father" really means. At that point, I took a serious step back and approached the topic from a scriptural perspective (versus a commentary perspective)....I was surprised what I found.