Elohel

And that's your perspective on the issue. Seems as if you choose "man needs hope so he created Christ". Absolutely your choice.

That's what I'm talking about. I feel I have manifestations from the Spirit. Someone else feels I'm crazy. Christ came so man may have hope. Man has to have hope so he created Christ. I say it's white you say it's black The glass is half full The glass is half empty .... My point is that it's just perspective. One can choose to look at it and say "man makes hope" or one can choose to look at it and say "Christ came and gave us hope" Your call. The only thing you can do it try to find out for yourself, right?

I guess it just depends on your perspective. I feel like I receive direct manifestations of feeling and thought from the Holy Ghost. Someone else feels like I'm crazy and I'm just making stuff up because I want to. Only thing you can do is find out for yourself and test the waters.

I've heard of all of them, mostly on my mission. They are all rediculous. I can explain the last one, though. Decades AFTER Joseph Smith's death, some guy said he heard Joseph say that he thought the Moon was inhabited. What a joke. I heard President Regan loved catfood, seriously. Just kidding. Here's a nicely worded quote from LDS FAIR" Finally, we consider a statement attributed to Joseph Smith that may prove to be the one most frequently cited by modern critics. An article in The Young Woman's Journal 3 (1892), 263-264, indicates that Joseph Smith, as early as 1837, had declared that there six-foot people living on the moon, who dressed like Quakers and lived nearly a thousand years. Because of its absurdity, some critics have included the article in their list of Joseph Smith's "false prophecies," though it is by no means prophetic in nature and despite the fact that the article does not attribute the belief to divine revelation. (Joseph may have been joking.) The statement regarding people on the moon is both second-hand and very late, and there are no known statements from Joseph Smith himself. The source is the Oliver B. Huntington Journal, Book 14, and is from a journal entry dated 1881, nearly forty years after Joseph Smith's death! It is hardly a reliable source.

I work in the IT field. Lostsheep's best option would be to use DNS level filtering. No sticky software, only a slight modification to the settings made in the router. OpenDNS | Providing A Safer And Faster Internet It has an almost 100% catch rate with pornographic material. And it FREE, no strings, and no software needed. And, if it's any help...I attended a 12 step program for help with ceasing my pornographic viewing habits. They do help and I realized there was a deeper issue for viewing pornographic material than just physical reasons. There have been good posts and bad posts concerning how to break the habit. What worked for me? Realizing that pornography very much damaged my life. Realizing that pornography ruled my agency and thoughts, at times. And realizing that I should just take a step back and not beat myself up over any of this. This is an emotional battle, one where you will need all the loving support from anybody willing to give it. I can tell you that I love you more than you will ever know for trying to deal with this problem. I still struggle, at times, and what keeps me on the right track is remembering to never look back with disdain, but to keep moving forward with a perfect brightness of hope. Remove negative feelings, and replace them with positive ones. Pornography is horrible for the soul, but that does not make you a horrible person. Yes, this is a battle, but one, in my opinion, you shouldn't dwell on unless absolutely necessary. Fight when you have to, but rest when you can. If you constantly worry, stress, fret, or feel anxious over this than Satan is getting to you. Heavenly Father loves you, supports you, and wants you to be joyful. Keep up the good work my brother, I love your honesty. Lastly, have someone you can always confide in. My wife is so supportive of me in this. If I ever feel tempted or if I ever give in, she always comforts me and helps me to move on. I think this can be one of the best things you can do. You always have us here who are willing to help, but nothing is like having someone really there for you. The Atonement heals brother, I believe in you!

My reply was just fine, sorry you felt that way about something not even written to you. I think the only "air" of pity was felt in your statement. What I wrote came sincerely from my heart and I am very much insulted by your foul comments. Keep them to yourself next time if you don't have anything better to say. :mad::mad:

does God not mourn the loss of one of his children? Does a missionary not mourn the loss of a convert? Does Christ not mourn the loss of a sheep? Please, I will mourn with the best of them. Cheers, whatever.

No argument ever convinced anybody. Nobody ever gained a true witness from the Holy Spirit through debate and argument. You seem like a well versed scriptorian, and a true Evangelical. I think I might be a bit mentally outclassed, especially when it comes to these subjects. As a matter of fact, I don't even meet your criteria for a well read previous Protestant. What I do know, however, is that the Book of Mormon is true scripture. To entertain your idea, though, I will give my common reply to my issue of the Trinity. It is by no means a complete discourse of all my issue with the Trinity, but it seems to be my strongest. There were some discussions about what this term meant on my mission, as I served around many Catholic areas. One of the scriptures I heard the most from the Bible to support Trinitarianism was John 10:30. Some time after I returned I looked up the meaning of the greek in Strong's concordance as well as verified it's authenticity in Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus. The word was "heis". This is what Thayer's Lexicon had to say about the use of the greek word: "to be united most closely (in will, spirit)" This is what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had to say on the use of the greek word: "(b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., Jhn 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22; Rom 12:4, 5; Phl 1:27;" Anyway, just my .02. Thanks!

Lilac, no coffee? That will excite the missionaries, for sure. I've taught in basements, backyards, street corners, in front of gangs, prostitutes, and every other kind of place/person you can think of. They'll just be happy they have a roof and a place to sit. The only thing I think you should expect is to feel the Spirit. I know what they'll be teaching you is true, hope you can find out for yourself as well. Hope to see you around here some more, and, feel free to ask all the wacky questions you want!

This just makes me sad. TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, reads Paul. I have no more left to comment, you're welcome to your views, lattelady. God has a body, the Son has a body, and the Holy Ghost is a Spirit. Three seperate persons, but with the same goal and purpose. That's what we believe, obviously not what you believe, and you have been backed up to the wall of faith as you are unable to substantiate your claims. Even the OLDEST GREEK MANUSCRIPTS of the New Testament DISAGREE with your claims, yet you hold true to your precepts. I, for one, commend you for your steadfastness, but mourn nonetheless. God wishes for you to know him, not only in a spiritual sense, but in a literal sense as well. God does not have an ego problem and he does not have some odd need for us to worship him for eternity, that is not our purpose in this life, he can get along fine without all of that. He loves us, wishes for us to understand his divine nature so that we too can live up to our eternal potential just as he lived up to his. I know that God lives and loves us. I know that his Son, who does only that which his Father showed him - came to the Earth, performed the Atonement, and returned to his Father's presence. I know, without a single doubt, that God the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith and proved to the world the undeniable nature of God the Father and his Son. I earnestly invite you to honestly read the Book of Mormon and pray about it's contents, for this is the way I gained my witness of the truthfulness of this message. Nothing we say, prove, examine, tear apart or build back up will prove to you the truth of what we say. But the Lord promised that those who really want to understand, not debate, those who honestly seek the truth from God with an open heart and with a true desire to know for themselves can read the Book of Mormon and pray for a witness of its truthfulness and receive that witness through the power of the Holy Ghost.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question From this article, the author says there are two ways to endure such an experience. Either 1.) The individual is Quickened in the Spirit and allowed to see the vision temporarily by the power of God. 2.) The individual is a sanctified being and God is unable to withhold his presence from that individual. (Think brother of Jared) It seems to me, from this article, that there MIGHT be a Priesthood key to visions, but that it would be held only by God the Father and Jesus Christ themselves.

Snow, I think it's safe to say that we have been informed of the truth, therefore, we know that lattelady is unable to substantiate her claims of the trinity. But we already knew this, didn't we? Lattelady, I think that you might be the first person ever to try and prove the trinity to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints. Just kidding.

Danite, what are their last names, if you don't mind me asking? You can PM me if you would like, I'm all for privacy on the intarwebs.

I wanted to thank you personally, Hemidakota, for helping me to understand better how to see these modern revelations. I will be sure to ask God for better understanding as I read these types of discourses and lectures, even though I fear I might get mixed signals and think something is true that really isn't, which is more common than I would like^_^

lattelady, I hope you read my post. The original Greek disagrees with your position.

Yes, it does. See my earlier posts. 'Gospel Principles' cites 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' which contains the full KFD from which it directly quotes.

latte, I believe you are seeing the word "one" in just the numerical sense and in none other, which is all good and well for you, I guess. I do wish to tell you, though, that it has many other meanings within contexts. Scriptures are meant to be read by taking true principles taught by the spirit and transposed upon what is being read to infer the correct doctrines. Having a difference of opinion on what the nature of God is would cause you to see what you want to see. I could also see how this could work vise-versa for us as well. Here's an interesting tidbit for you: Just some research I did on the trinitarian view of John 10:30, John 11:52, John 17:11, 21, 22, Romans 12:4, 5. There were some discussions about what this term meant on my mission, as I served around many Catholic areas. One of the scriptures I heard the most from the Bible to support Trinitarianism was John 10:30. Some time after I returned I looked up the meaning of the greek in Strong's concordance as well as verified it's authenticity in Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus. The word was "heis". This is what Thayer's Lexicon had to say about the use of the Greek word: "to be united most closely (in will, spirit)" This is what Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words had to say on the use of the greek word: "(b) metaphorically, "union" and "concord," e.g., Jhn 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22; Rom 12:4, 5; Phl 1:27;" So not only do modern prophets speak of Godhead as separate personages, but so does the Holy Bible! Even modern scholars of completely NO LDS affiliation agree that those terms in the earliest Greek we have in the Textus Receptus mean to be united in Spirit and Unity, not in body or with the literal "digital" sense.

I'm not far off my mission myself, and a convert too. I'm glad they're keeping you busy. I hope you get it all sorted out one day, pray until you can't and then pray some more.

I'm new, and I'll probably hang out in the 'Gospel Discussion' area of the forum mostly. I'm not as well read as many of the people who post here, but I hope I can help add my .02 as well as help others feel the Spirit, which is the most important thing one can do. I look forward to getting to know you all!

Meh, it's the Spirit that converts, not facts. Why does, at times, this thread feel like it drives the Spirit away? Oh well...damage done.

The missionaries were going over points contained in the KFD? I surely hope not, that was never in Preach My Gospel! Anyway, There is a difference between salvation and exaltation. The idea that man is a 'god in embryo' is not necessary for salvation in any degree. The idea that man is a 'god in embryo' IS necessary for EXALTATION in the Celestial Kingdom. The idea that we have a divine heritage and a divine potential can be found in countless Church publications. LDS.org searches can go a long way for you here. Now why the missionaries are teaching this concept, I am not sure. Here is a good place to start: http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/materials/gospel/Start%20Here_01.pdf Unit 10, Chapter 47 covers most of this in basic detail. They also site a source that might be pertinent for your needs, 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p 345-348' ----------------------- SIDE NOTE: In researching the source, I found it at BOAP, and it seems that the King Follet Discourse was republished in the book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' I was taught that the sermon itself isn't canonized scripture, but apparently some things he said in this discourse were validated by later Prophets and Apostles. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T6.html One correction: The book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' is just a compilation of historical documents by the Church historian at the time: Joseph F. Smith. The things contained in this publication may or may not be official "doctrine". I need to do a bit more research. My current opinion is that the King Follet Discourse contains many points of truth, but also may contain some ideas that are not completely valid doctrine. I assume that certain parts are quoted because they are accepted as truth without error.

From the Religion 324-325, Doctrine and Covenants student manual for the Church's Institute program, page 131. D&C 61:5–19. How Is the Water “Cursed”? President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out how “in the beginning the Lord blessed the waters and cursed the land, but in these last days this was reversed, the land was to be blessed and the waters to be cursed. A little reflection will bear witness to the truth of this declaration. In the early millenniums of this earth’s history, men did not understand the composition of the soils, and how they needed building up when crops were taken from them. The facilities at the command of the people were primitive and limited, acreage under cultivation was limited, famines were prevalent and the luxuries which we have today were not obtainable. Someone may rise up and say that the soil in those days was just as productive as now, and this may be the case. It is not a matter of dispute, but the manner of cultivation did not lend itself to the abundant production which we are receiving today. It matters not what the causes were, in those early days of world history there could not be the production, nor the varieties of fruits coming from the earth, and the Lord can very properly speak of this as a curse, or the lack of blessing, upon the land. In those early periods we have every reason to believe that the torrents, floods, and the dangers upon the waters were not as great as they are today, and by no means as great as what the Lord has promised us. The early mariners among the ancients traversed the seas as they knew them in that day in comparative safety. . . . Today this manner of travel in such boats would be of the most dangerous and risky nature. Moreover, we have seen the dangers upon the waters increase until the hearts of men failed them and only the brave, and those who were compelled to travel the seas, ventured out upon them. In regard to the Missouri-Mississippi waters, we have seen year by year great destruction upon them, and coming from them. Millions upon millions of dollars, almost annually are lost by this great stream overflowing its banks. Many have lost their lives in these floods as they sweep over the land, and even upon this apparently tranquil or sluggish stream there can arise storms that bring destruction. Verily the word of the Lord has been, and is being, fulfilled in relation to those waters. While the Lord has spoken of the sea heaving itself beyond its bounds, and the waves roaring, yet we must include the great destruction upon the waters by means of war, and especially by submarine warfare as we have learned of it in recent years.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:224; see also Genesis 3:17–19; Ether 7:23–25; 9:16, 28; Revelation 16:1–6; Alma 45:16; D&C 59:3; 16–19.)

I am so glad I was mistaken! I never knew there were more than one account of the sermon! Wonderful, I can't wait to read it! I have only read the 'Times and Seasons' account. And to answer your question, the KFD is not taught anywhere in any chapel or meetinghouse in the world. Some of its ideas and precepts are, as they are true, but I sincerely hope nobody ever pulls out the KFD to teach from or site, as it is not official doctrine as given.

I believe this has been covered in a recent thread, but here's my .02. The KFD was the first time the doctrine of "man's divine potential" was taught publicly. A man by the name of King Follet died and his eulogy was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is what we have today as the King Follet Discourse. Although the KFD teaches many things Latter-Day Saints hold true today, Joseph Smith died shortly after giving it and was unable to correct any mistakes he might have made while giving it. Since the Prophet could not verify the details of that recorded sermon (By the way, was recorded by hand by only one man) it could never be canonized. The doctrine of 'god in embryo' so to speak was not solidified at this time. It would still be distilled from the heavens to later Prophets such as Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith - who would go on to solidify this doctrine into the integral truth we have today. Since the Prophet could not have given it the 'rubber stamp' so to speak, it could not be accepted as Church doctrine in that form. Now if Brigham Young would have said "The King Follet discourse is completely true in it's entirety" then it would be considered doctrine, but he didn't. No Prophet has ever given it the 'rubber stamp'. It's simply not doctrine because he didn't have the opportunity to make sure it was completely correct before the Lord. Modern Prophets today write their sermons before they are given and they take them before the Lord to make sure they are wholly true. For further light, as well as a good reference. I would invite you to read "Religion 345, Presidents of the Church student manual" for the LDS Church's Institute of Religion pages 88-90. I hope that answered your question!

Sounds like the idea of 'Outer Darkness' is an antithesis of the 'Celestial Kingdom' to Flake. Rings fairly true to me, although may be a little shaky on the hard evidence. Interesting thoughts. Flake has always been a favorite of mine, he did a talk on Joseph Smith's poem to William Phelps called 'Vade Mecum' that I thoroughly enjoy. Fun to think about, but not pertinent to my salvation.