lattelady

Traveler, "Is it possible to believe in someone you do not really know at all?" I hope I worded that correctly; that's the question you had for me. On a human level, perhaps it'd be impossible to "believe" in, or trust someone that you don't know at all. Trust is earned and built through relationship over time. With God, there is that spiritual element that I cannot explain, but it is as real as the chair I'm sitting in right now as I type this. There is a verse from the Bible that I love that explains the truth that I'm talking about: I believe in someone that I've never laid eyes on. Not only do I believe in Him, I love Him, ADORE Him. And all I knew at the beginning of my believing was that this Someone loved me so much that He died for my sins to be washed away; and that if I believed in Him and what He'd done for me, I would live with Him forever! The REST of my life has been an amazing process of getting to know more and more and more about the amazing God that He is. 1 Peter 1:8 "Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you BELIEVE in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls." I LOVE that verse. Can I believe in someone that I don't really even know? I believed in the simplicity of what I knew of God at the time, and that was the start of an amazing relationship that is growing all the time. If I didn't answer your question, tell me, and I'll try to do better.

I understand. I wish I could find it--I've tried hard for several days. I understand why it would make the conversation moot at this point.

Traveler, respectfully, I would have to disagree. The words I saw added "that whosoever believeth in Him AND KEEPS HIS COMMANDMENTS..." change the core teaching of that verse.

I'm not sure if I can take the time to answer you--I just heard the Loch Ness Monster rummaging around in our dumpster and I may need to call animal control...

Traveler, the point of my question is: upon seeing the wording of the verse changed, I was bothered. Much the same way, I suppose, as you are bothered with the use of God's name in a way that feels flippant to you. (which is why you treat it with great care, even in the writing of it). I have yet to locate the post where I saw it worded differently, but I know I saw it. I'm sorry I can't yet produce it. I'll do my best to find it. I am bothered by scripture being changed or manipulated. John 3:16 is a verse that is particularly precious to me. To find its wording changed was actually offensive to me. The point of my question, then, was: why would someone feel it is alright to add to scripture?

Misshalfway, I guess I was misinterpreting "all men and women are literally sons and daughters of Diety" "born and Begotten of heavenly parents" to mean that men and women were literally conceived by a HF and HM in the most literal way. I also misinterpreted this in the way the Heavenly Father and Mary created Jesus. But I'm learning, now, that literally doesn't necessarily mean literally in the sense that my human mind thinks it does.

Palerider, you didn't answer any of my questions...I asked you why you're so upset when I'm simply using a quote from your church's materials and trying to understand what it means. I didn't bring anti-mormon literature here and try to slam your Church with it. I'm not defensive--I'm asking you questions that you're not answering.

Palerider, once again, the quote that I was asking about is from Gospel Principles--that is an LDS book. Am I mistaken? Is that NOT and LDS book? Why are you having such a problem with it? If I were to type in Spirit Children--LDS beliefs, and come up with that quote, why are you having such an issue with a quote from your own literatuare? So, you got anti sites when you googled. Did I use "anti" material? What is this about?

beefche, this isn't the first time that you've made assumptions that seem to POINT to accusations that I get things from anti-mormon sites and then drag them back here to have them discussed. Once again I will point out, I used a quote that was from LDS literature--hardley ANTI-LDS! The quote that I found, I didn't understand; much like things LDS people might not understand from Protestant or Evangelical faiths (like "Saved by Grace" thought). I've had people on this site outright mock the Saved by Grace belief that I hold dear, and when I ask why it's okay, I'm told that if that's how I'm taking it, that's my problem. If this forum is truly to help others understand LDS theology, then it should be willing to do that. I will point out, again, that I've never taken shots at ANYONE. But shots are taken at me, quite a bit. The quote that I brought, from LDS "Gospel Principles" (Is that a book that you use? or do you believe that it is filled with error?) gave me the impression when I read it that LITERALLY spirit children are created the way they are created here on our planet. THAT is how I equated the quote with the thought I had. I'm fairly certain that I'm not the only one who has thought that--I even think there are LDS church members who think it means that. Just because you don't think about, "Heavenly Father had sex with Heavenly Mother and here I am," could that still be the teaching or the thought in Mormon Doctrine? That was my question. Yes, your tone seemed hostile; you are making judgements that are untrue, and you STILL sound angry! Why?

I appreciated what Bytor said...I'm not LDS, but we've always tried to teach our kids (and will continue to) that adults are their elders and in a position of authority over them--and that position should be respected. But God gave ALL of us a sense of discernment to let us know when something isn't right or safe. We have given our children permission to refuse a hug from an adult that they feel isn't safe. If an adult is crossing our kids' boundaries, we don't force our kids to "be respectful and do what the adult tells you to do." Most of us know when we're being asked a question that crosses a line from, "That makes me uncomfortable because I'm guilty of sin in that area" to "That makes me uncomfortable because this person has NO business asking that sort of question." And if we don't know the difference, I think it's SO good that a person feels safe to ask another trusted friend, "Is this inappropriate?" Even men/women who are in position of authority within churches can overstep their boundaries and need to be called out. Without knowing the kinds of questions that were being asked in this specific situation, it'd be impossible to know if they were appropriate or inappropriate. But the truth is, things like that (leaders doing things they shouldn't--in ANY church or religion) can and do happen; and honesty and openness is so important. I hope it's okay that I posted.

Misshalfway, to answer your question from earlier, I feel like my question is sortof being answered. I am curious, I guess, at what seems to be irritation (not yours) at my asking the question. I must be honest and admit to all of you that I am confused at what I perceive to be irritation and even anger toward just about every question that I ask! I don't understand it. I KNOW that sex is a good thing, that it is not meant to be evil. So I guess I don't understand why some of you seem frustrated with my understanding of your doctrine about how spirit babies are created. I have no clue who John Ankerberg is, but I'm assuming he is antimormon and that all of you know who he is. Apparently there is an assumption that I am getting information from him and bringing it here. That would be a wrong assumption and a judgement on your part. If sex is a beautiful thing, and I believe in the correct context it is, then why are some of you upset when I state my understanding of Heavenly Father and Mother creating babies in that way? (If I've taken a quote from Gospel Principles out of context or understood it incorrectly, my apologies--but I truly feel as though every time I post there are many of you who assume that I have an agenda that I DON'T have. It is highly frustrating and hurtful to be misjudged). In reference to what you believe about how spirit children ARE created, would you show me some quotes from scripture so I can understand what you're saying more clearly?

**sigh... No need for curiosity, beefche. The quote I got about sexual relations, I got from googling "spirit children" and it came from "Gospel Principles", as it says in my post. No hidden agenda there. The one about rewording of John 3:16 came from someone here on LDS.net--someone who is LDS. I'm trying to get Hemidakota to guide me to where he saw it (he seems to know which one I'm talking about). I'm not misquoting someone. I saw the quote somewhere on this forum and I only wish I'd copied the post # down right when I saw it, so I could avoid this speculation you now have that I'm trying to create drama. The quote I gave from Gospel Principles seemed to indicate that spirit babies were created in the same way my husband and I created our beautiful babies. If I misinterpreted that, then I accept that. I wasn't holding to that interpretation dogmatically--I thought that's what it meant. But I'm an outsider and admit I don't have the understanding that you do.

The idea of spirit children/babies being created through a sexual relationship...that's how I understood it; and I hoped someone could either correct that assumption or verify it was correct. This quote led me further in my thought that LDS members believe spirits were created this way. "God is not only our ruler and creator; he is also our Heavenly Father. 'All men and women are...literally the sons and daughters of Diety...Man, as spirit, was begotten, and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body." Gospel Principles 1992 ed., p.11 Vort, the antecedent to "they" would be Adam and Eve. I'm trying to understand the process of their conversion from spirit children to physical beings. It's a difficult one to "get."

Do you consider intelligence to be the same as knowledge?

If this subject has been addressed somewhere else, please let me know and I'll go read up on it. I've been reading up on the subject of God creating something from nothing (that's the way I believe He made the world). If I understand it correctly, it seems that LDS doctrine teaches that the spirits of all humans were and are created in the same manner they're created here on earth (in a sexual manner) by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother who are physical beings. Here is what I'm trying to figure out. A physical HF and HM created a SPIRIT Adam and Eve, sent them to earth and Adam and Eve, as spiritual creatures, were able to produce physical children. Adam and Eve were different from the rest of spirit babies who are born into families, in that they were never "born." What is your belief on whether they are spirit or physical?

Hemidakota, I can't find it--where exactly do I go? Sorry, I'm a little slow. :) But I want to find it--I hope people don't think I've just made this up --I really did see it, but I should've written it down at the time.

I've been looking through threads and haven't found it yet, but if anyone else remembers seeing it--or if you happened to be the one who posted it--could you let me know where it is from? Thankyou!

What I meant, LITERALLY, is that I shrink my idea of God and His power down when I refuse to exercise my faith and say, "He can do that! There's nothing He cannot do!" You're right. I can't shrink Him down. And no, my salvation is not based on the ability of a donkey to talk. I choose to take God at His Word and maintain a consistent view of His Word--that it is inspired, written by regular men who were moved by the Holy Spirit of God. They wrote with their personality intact, but they were inspired by God as to the words to say. Each word, each though is divinely inspired and inerrant. (That's what I believe). And no, I have NO idea what your next question is going to be. What is your point?

Hi Pam. I grew up being taught from and using the King James Version. I still use it, but also use the New International Version and sometimes New American Standard. The original verse says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." The one I saw recently, and I'm not sure where to find it again--but I'll try, said (and this is not exact, but VERY close), "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him and keeps all His laws and commandments, should not perish but have everlasting life."

What does that mean? "we all have an eternal intelligence"? Sorry for my ignorance. Does it have to do with the preexistance?

Recently on one of the threads I saw John 3:16 quoted, and it had been changed from its original wording. The additional wording even changed the meaning of the verse. I THOUGHT, though I could be mistaken, that it had Ezra Taft Benson's name beside the quote; but I was curious if this change was perhaps from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, or if this was a change to the verse that E.T. Benson (again, I believe his was the name beside it) decided to make himself. That is a verse that I memorized at a young age, a verse that helped me understand the plan of salvation; so I recognized the change immediately and wondered why it had been made.

What I'm wondering is: are any of us in a position to get to decide, "This biblical story is 'fantastical but ESSENTIAL'", or "This story is 'fantastical but UNESSENTIAL'?" If I heard someone say that they had the discernment to be able to tell me "the story of the Red Sea parting is allegory, but the one about Jesus walking on water, that one really happened. Now, the one about the donkey speaking, that was symbolic, but the one about the five loaves and three fishes, that was literal", I'd be tempted to say, "Who made you the authority?" This is where my relationship with God differs a bit. I believe that the Bible teaches that upon faith in Christ, I was given the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit guides me as a read God's inspired Word, the Bible. The Holy Spirit enlightens me, teaches me, instructs me. As I trust God and ask for wisdom, He gives it. If there's something in His Word that I don't understand, I pray that He'll show me what it means; and I trust Him to use other parts of the Bible and His Holy Spirit together to bring clarity where I was confused. But if we start saying--One part is just a story, one part is allegory, one is realism--we'll all end up with very different versions of the "truth" according to us. If I refuse to take God literally in these miraculous things He's done throughout scripture, I shrink God down, and I'm not doing that. I know that He's that big. He's done miracles in my own life, and those miracles give me hope to wait for greater miracles. The miracles that he did in His Word give me even MORE hope. When my husband was in Uganda, one of the women in his team was part of a healing from demon possession that was just like a story in the gospels. God gave her the power to cast a demon out. Amazing. The woman who was possessed had been for years and the demon caused both of her eyes to point outward in opposite directions. When the woman in my husband's team laid her hands on her and prayed for her, the demon flung the woman on the ground and she convulsed and foamed at the mouth and then the demon left her. Immediately her eyes were straight. It was a miracle. God still does miracles today.

For MANY people, the idea that a man could hang on a cross all day, get stabbed in the side so that blood and water flowed, be confirmed dead by a soldier who didn't even feel the need to break his legs because he had already passed away, get placed in a tomb--and THEN come back to life three days later--LITERALLY--seems ludicrous. I accept the Bible as literal; my relationship with God is such, and what I learn from scripture is such that it's important for me to take God at His Word. The parts that are poetic or allegorical are just that, and sometimes it takes some guidance to know what is what. The things that are literal that bother our minds or hearts because they're confusing or seem cruel--I'm learning to take all those things in the light of the Bible as a WHOLE and in the light of what I know of God's character; when I'm still confused, I ask the Holy Spirit to teach me--"What am I supposed to learn from this?"

Rider, it's beside the point of this thread (I know), but to respond to your question about what 2 Corinthians 12:1-5 is talking about, it talks about a man being caught up into "paradise" v.4, and there he heard inexpressible things that he isn't permitted to tell. Most believe he was speaking of himself being that man, and others believe he was talking about someone else. If he were speaking about himself, it doesn't say he was there to be "taught" by Jesus, and if he had been, he certainly wasn't "expounding" on the teachings he received while there (as you mentioned in an earlier post) in his later books. The verse says that the things he heard while there he wasn't permitted to tell!

Rider, respectfully, your statement "Jesus taught Paul and Paul expanded on Christ's teachings in the Gospels" is incorrect. Jesus had been crucified and risen and ascended into glory before Saul (Paul's name before he became converted to Christianity) was converted on the road to Damascus. Jesus didn't teach Paul. Saul/Paul spent time with the disciples (Acts 9:19), and learned things from them, no doubt, but wasn't "taught by Jesus."