Pianoman216

We are not put through tests and experiences so God can know where we belong in the eternities, since he already does. We are here to prove to ourselves what we deserve. Imagine if God said, in the pre-existence, "Well, I already know that you will not follow my laws and that you'll be disobedient so I'm going to send you to the telestial kingdom for eternity" while saying to others, "Yeah, you're good. I already know you'll be righteous so you can come live with me in the Celestial kingdom!" Those sent to the telestial kingdom would, needless to say, be very offending thinking, "If only I would have had a chance, then I could do better". Well, now is our chance. God already knows where we are going, but, to be just, he must allow us to act things out ourselves. Not every world God has created was intended to maintain human life, but this does not mean that these worlds "failed". Take, for example, the other planets in our solar system. Are these works of God that have failed? Of course not, they were never intended to hold life. Perhaps this is the process by which God creates. Maybe He created these lifeless worlds with the intention of transporting them to a new system in the future on which life will spring forth, but, again, this does not mean that these worlds were accidents and improperly created. As far as Adam and Eve living on another world before Earth: this is a completely false notion. Adam was Michael, the archangel, in the pre-existence and helped to create the Earth. He did not have a body at this time, nor had he lived on a world previously. Upon the creation of the Earth he was placed upon it, not upon some other world and later moved to the Earth. It is important to remember that, while the leaders of the church are great men and have remarkable amounts of the spirit with them, they are still fallible, even the apostles and prophet. It was not God's fault that the people before the flood became so wicked. Even on that note, what defines "failed"? There were countless followers of God before the people of the world began to fall to sin that were very righteous and will sit upon glorious thrones in the eternities. So, if the world had ended there, how could one claim it as failed? did it not fulfill the purposes of God? That is, to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man? And if the definition of failure is that of a world being broken down and its parts used in the creation of other worlds then nearly every single one of Gods creations fails (excluding, of course, us and this Earth once it is perfected). This is a means by which God works. The stars, though possessing incredible longevity of life will eventually burn out or explode, their elements being used in further creation. This is not failure, this is simply the way by which God creates.

We always think of time as linear, as one dimensional. An endless line going both directions, toward the past and toward the future. Perhaps eternity is not all time combined, but an absence of time entirely. It is easy for me to imagine God residing in this spectrum, were he is not governed by time as it does not exist. God is NOT learning, nor did he experiment on various things to figure out creation. We learn by our mistakes because we are fallible and have the ability to make those mistakes in the first place; God, on the other hand, is perfect and does not mistakes, which means he has no mistakes to learn from. From the moment he became a God he has understood all things and has had a perfect knowledge. His learning took place before this exaltation, not during or after. The only way in which he continues to progress and grow is through us, his posterity, as we learn, grow, are granted limited amounts of glory and finally exalted and given eternities of our own and endless glory.

I think there is a pretty big difference between trials in general and the "trial of our faith". That we will not receive a witness until after the trial of our faith does not necessarily mean we will have a great trial that, if passed faithfully, we will be rewarded for. It simply means that our faith must first be in place before a witness will come. It also does not mean that this can only happen once in our lives. I believe the same is true for any spiritual decision/change and even many temporal things as well if we turn to God. We will not receive our answer until we take a few steps first; until we prove to God (or to ourselves rather, since God already knows) that we are willing to act upon the answers we receive. I believe that THAT is the trial of our faith, to stay true and faithful no matter what. Its as the Savior said in John 7:17, "If any man will do His [Gods] will, he shall know of the doctrine." Just because we haven't yet received an answer as to why we need to follow a certain principle is no reason to not live it. In fact, faithfully following the commandments of God is the only way to receive a further witness of their truth. It should be an ongoing pattern in our lives: we do Gods will, thereby showing our faith, and we receive a witness after that "trial of faith". This, in turn, helps to increase our faith and the process repeats.

How do we know that many of the ancient traditions and ceremonies of the world did not actually branch off of the original ceremonies of an ancient endowment? Perhaps the same symbols we use in the temple were given to Adam. Could it be that at some point someone took these things and began their own, similar, apostate endowment? Maybe all, or most of the rites, rituals and ceremonies that presently exist in the world, directly or indirectly, spawned from this original endowment given to Adam.

I seriously cant even get myself to read the quotes you've posted. It all just a load of crap. Anything anti-Mormon is exactly the same as the rest. They tell several truths, put them completely in the wrong context, stretch the truth and then throw a few blatant lies in there where nobody will notice. They all have only one agenda and it has nothing to do with actually helping people or making a difference (maybe on an individual basis, but not as a whole). Its sole purpose is to destroy the true church of God. If you ask me, all of the above points sound an awful lot like how Satan works... I don't know of any other church or organization that supports the sanctity and respect of women more than the LDS church.

No, I don't have any evidence of it. Thats why I said its an idea, or something that is possible. I never said it was absolutely true, just that it could be. This is exactly the point I'm getting at. Though German is not the original language of the bible and therefore cannot absolutely prove anything specific, it does in fact prove the concept of mistranslation. All I'm saying is that we cant just take everything we read in the bible at face value because a lot of the meanings have been changed, whether maliciously or incidentally. Only in conjunction with modern day revelation and access to the Holy Ghost can the Bible be accurately interpreted.

I already said that He was an exalted being and that He was the God of the Old Testament. Though He was mortal, you are correct in that He was more than the natural man. As Alma said, an infinite atonement needed to be made and a normal, mortal man could not have survived an infinite amount of pain. By definition, to be immortal one cannot die. It is not possible for God to ever die so He is immortal. Jesus Christ could die, and therefore was not immortal, but at the same time, being a literal son of God in the flesh He had the ability to suffer infinitely before He finally died. Once He was resurrected and the atonement was complete He became immortal as He could no longer die ever again.

Its also important to note that the bible is fallible and certain things could have either been changed or lost in translation. Are we expected to observe the passover in the eternities after this life? There are around 10 words in English for every word in Hebrew so choices had to be made when translating. The word "forever" may have been translated from something else that meant something a little different.

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.

That is SOOOO true! We hardly ever have qualms about what mortal scientists with a very limited knowledge tell us concerning astronomy, history and physical laws, but when God, with His infinite and perfect knowledge causes a small creature to speak we say, "What!? A talking donkey? Thats impossible!" Why does it have to be so impossible? This is God we're talking about. We just need to think for one second about how incredible our physical bodies are. Think of the complexity it takes to get everything to work as well as it does. Just look at your hands and think of the power and knowledge it would take to create YOU. Look at the stars and imagine the power it would take to organize all things that are. Look at the Earth, the universe and your body and tell then tell me that the same God that created all these things could not make a donkey talk.

But if Jesus Christ suffered an infinite atonement (and we know he did) then how could it stop with a few specific sins? He has already paid the dept for all of us as required by justice (which is an infinite and eternal law that even God cannot go against) so He can now say to God, "No, they repented and were faithful, I paid the price for the mistakes they made". (see the scripture below, D&C 19:16) In Doctrine and Covenants 19:16-18 Jesus Christ says, "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for ALL, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit-and would that I might not drink the bitter cup and shrink-nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men." We ALL commit sin at some point in our lives and justice MUST be fulfilled as a consequence. Those who do not repent, accept Jesus Christ and strive continually to improve must suffer for their own sins after this life and only then will be worthy to enter the Telestial Kingdom. Those who repent and accept Jesus as their savior will inherit the Terrestrial Kingdom and those who repent, accept Jesus Christ and make and keep sacred covenants (baptism, temple and temple marriage) will receive a place in the Celestial Kingdom. To anyone who believes that Jesus Christ's atonement was fictional and merely a story: If Jesus Christ did not actually suffer for our sins then why does He claim such in the above passage of scripture? The quoted verses are not words of a prophet or any other man, they are the words of Jesus Christ HIMSELF spoken directly to His servant Joseph Smith. Saying that Jesus Christ's suffering is strictly allegorical and is just a story for us to learn from is to deny the greatest miracle that has ever occurred. It is to deny the Plan of Salvation which God created. This plan stated that man should fall, experience mortality and that a Savior would be provided for us so that we would able to return to live with God. If a savior were not needed there must have been no fall; if there was no fall Adam and Eve would have remained in the garden of Eden and none of us would be here today. The atonement of Christ is in no way fictional and I cannot remain still while members of the true church of God go about believing such things.

I am under the impression that this discussion is more concerning the miraculous stories in the scriptures than the Levitical laws. Even so, we live in a different time then when the Bible was written and we need different laws and covenants to guide us. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law of Moses (that of sacrifice and justice) and replaced it with the higher law (of selflessness and mercy). There have been a few posts referring specifically to certain Levitical laws (such as the one above). These laws were in fact VERY literal in old testament times when the law of Moses was still in effect. If one were to steal something (i.e. their hand causing them to sin), by law they were literally required to cut off their hands. So, though its not applicable in todays time and society it was absolutely intended to be literal. And concerning the talking donkey: why couldn't it happen? Its one thing to say that you don't believe it did in fact happen, but to say it simply cannot happen (which is the impression I got from your post) is something else entirely. See my previous post for my detailed opinion on the subject.

In the pre-existence Jehovah volunteered himself to be the savior of the world according the Plan of Salvation which God created. The role as the Savior must have specifically included the sacrifice that was to be made as God already knew exactly what was going to happen. As far as God needing blood to forgive us. You could say He personally has the ability forgive all of us and He does because He loves us. However, dwelling in His presence for eternity (part of Eternal Life and salvation) requires us to be clean and free of sin. God cannot just declare someone clean because that would betray the law of complete free agency. God is merciful, but He absolutely cannot go against the laws of justice or else he would cease to be God. God must always be just, but through Christs LITERAL atonement and payment for our sins He can offer mercy to us. This price MUST be paid. A real and literal sacrifice HAD to be made or there would be no possible chance of our salvation. See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p. 122-126. Theres to much there to quote here, but he makes some excellent points on the matter and, as a prophet of God, his words carry quite a bit weight. There are also countless other talks and articles from various general authorities on the matter, probably more than any other subject. I definitely agree with this. I think many sections of scripture may be allegorical, but whether it is or isn't there is almost ALWAYS symbolism involved. Jesus's parables were used specifically because they were applicable to the people at the time and could very well be real events, but were not told to teach what a certain person literally did, but rather about a deeper, more spiritual concept that would only be received by those in tune with the spirit enough to understand. In his book, Jesus the Christ, James E. Talmage says, "There is plainly shown an element of mercy in the parabolic mode of instruction adopted by our Lord under the conditions prevailing at the time. Had He always taught in explicit declaration, such as required no interpretation, many among His hearers would have come under condemnation, inasmuch as they were to weak in faith and unprepared in heart to break the bonds of traditionalism and the prejudice engendered by sin, so as to accept and obey the saving word. Their inability to comprehend the requirements of the gospel would in righteous measure give mercy some claim upon them, while had they rejected the truth with full understanding, stern justice would surely demand their condemnation." Perhaps the allegories and symbolism contained throughout the rest of the scriptures are similar in effect. I think we can all agree that, whether the stories are factual and literal or strictly symbolic, the meanings remain entirely unchanged. So, though it causes great (and definitely not bad) discussion, it really doesn't matter either way, being literal or allegorical. Saying otherwise would be like saying the meaning of Christs parables would be different if the stories in question were factual as apposed to fictional. However, we must never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of believing something must be allegorical because it just cant be possible according to the limited science we think we know and understand...THAT is denying the power of God and is very different than just thinking its a story for our learning. Though we may speculate as to whether God did or didn't actually do some miracle we should NEVER question whether or not He COULD actually do it. Just because something cannot be explained by our temporal "laws" (that mortal men have theorized and named) does not mean that its impossible according the vastly superior laws God understands.

I personally feel that we might as well just believe everything to be literal. If something is allegorical and we take it literally, no harm done. But, if something is literal and we take it allegorically then, as Ozzy said, we've basically denied the power of God and taken vast amounts of significance away from His miracles and wondrous works. So what if we happen to be right that a certain passage of scripture is figurative? We dont get a prize for being right. We might as well just go with the benefit of the doubt.

No, thats a very common misconception. 33rd degree masons can only be of full Scottish (or is it Irish? Or maybe something else?) descent. I dont even think there are any that live in America, especially at that time.

Haha, yeah, I got this exact same thing in an email about 3 years ago. It funny how certain things just keep circling the internet.

Concerning Masonry and its relation to secret combinations: Joseph Smith was a 3rd degree Mason (the lowest degree needed to attend Masonic meetings I believe) having been granted the title "at sight" (having not had to study and progress through ranks 1 and 2) by the Masonic regional leader (I cant remember the correct term for them). He saw the workings of Masonry first hand and had a good knowledge what they stand for. Joseph later said the following on the matter, "There are similarities of the priesthood and Masonry. Masonry was taken from the priesthood, but has become degenerated." (Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer, p. 85) He also said, "Freemasonry, as at present, [is] the apostate endowments, as sectarian religion [is] the apostate religion." (Johnson, My Life's Review, p. 96) So, according to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Freemasonry, at some point, actually stemmed from the temple endowment. It is compared to the split of sectarian religions from the true religion. It does not mean that either are bad or evil, or could, in any way be referred to as secret combinations. I think one of the biggest things needed for something to qualify as a secret combination is the intentions being wicked and the secret kept to prevent punishment and justice. We do not enter into a secret combination any time we keep a secret. We do however, in a way, enter into a secret combination anytime we keep a secret for the purpose of hiding our own sinful actions.

God knows everything, from the beginning to the end, so I have no doubt that he absolutely knew that Satan would rebel, but did not interfere with his free agency as He would never do to any of His children. As far as Satan knowing he would be cast out, I think he realized it at a certain point when it was too late, but I doubt he did what he did having had a full knowledge of the resulting consequences before hand.

We know that Jesus Christ had reached an exalted degree of glory in the pre-existence so its entirely possible that Satan could have been at a similar level. The book of Moses and the original Hebrew version of Genesis both speak of the "Gods" (plural) counseling together and creating the Earth. This suggests that, though God the Father was the greatest in glory there were others among His children (possibly quite numerous, but thats debatable) that had attained enough glory as spirits to be considered Gods as well. Maybe, to some degree we were all considered Gods because of our divine royalty as children of God the Father. As far as the question of if we all had a chance to present a plan to God, I think any one of us could have, but none of us did, and at that it doesn't really even matter. The Plan of Salvation is Gods plan and Satan created his own plan thinking it would be superior to Gods. Any other plan offered would never have been accepted just as Satan's wasn't as they all would still be inferior to Gods plan. To say otherwise is to deny the perfection of God :)

Anything written by the prophet and apostles through divine revelation is considered latter day scripture. Conference talks, ensign articles and Preach my Gospel are all forms of modern scripture.

The primary principle and commandment of fasting is the fast itself, no matter when its done. But the Lord, through His prophets and apostles has set aside a certain Sunday for us to fast. I think thats close enough to a commandment thats its best just to observe it. Fasting is, however, a very personal matter. I taught a man on my mission that was diabetic so he cannot go without food for long enough to observe fast Sunday. He was torn apart about this because he wanted to fast so much. We told him that if the desire was there the Lord would understand his unique situation. I think your question has to be largely between you, yourself and God. My advice would be that if you are trying to move your fast Sunday to a different day out of convenience, dont do it (as convenience would take away from the sacrifice, which is the point of it all anyway). If you are moving it out of need, however, I think the Lord will understand.

I wasnt trying to say it should not be discussed (if I were I would basically be passing judgment on everyone that has posted in this thread...which would be rather ironic). I see no problem with speculation, I was just trying to emphasize the fact that we need to be very careful in actually believing one side or the other to prominently because of the chance we have to be wrong...might as well not risk it :) As far as the comment that the love in question is the act of "lifting others", I dont see any way we could do that with Satan either. I, as well, dont see any reason he would do that to us, so, in that sense, I dont believe Satan can love. I do think he at one point could and slowly descended to the point where he is now as we ALL (Satan included) have always had our free agency, even before this world. He was not created evil, but chose to go against the will of God. At this point, he still has his free agency so, theoretically, I believe he has the capacity and the ability to love, but chooses not to. His reasons for choosing hate over love could be very numerous. Perhaps he is bitter that he didnt win in the pre-existence. Maybe he realizes his committing of the unpardonable sin (denying God with a perfect knowledge of Him) has destroyed all chance at redemption and thereby he has no reason to love.

Exactly. Does God not still love Satan? Is He capable of hate towards Him? I dont think so. Are we not all trying to become more like God? The terms of love can be very different in different situations. I think the love we should have towards Satan is no different that the love God has towards Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Cain. Not loving the sin, but loving the sinner, unconditionally.

I was reading through Helaman 5 today and came to the part where angels appear to a the witnesses of Nephi and Lehis miraculous escape from prison and minister to them (Hel. 5:46-49). In verse 49 it says, "And there were about three hundred souls who saw and heard these things; and they were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt". The phrase "marvel not" really stuck out to me and I have been pondering its meaning for most of the day. We know that the word "marvel" means to be astonished and full of wonder. The word "doubt" means to be uncertain and hesitant. So, it could also be more simply put, "Dont be astonished, but be certain". When I think of being certain, and not astonished I think of the apostles and other great leaders of the church. I think of being calm and passive, but strong, steadfast and full of faith. So, if we are to take something from this example it is that we should not be surprised when spiritual experiences arise. Dont be astonished when asked about the church by a friend or neighbor. Instead, be doubtless, be steadfast and be full of faith (and what is faith without action?). Dont sit there and do nothing but marvel at your blessings, get out there and use those blessings you have to further the kingdom of God on the Earth! :) I would love to hear any other interpretations of this passage of scripture. This is just what I noticed and got out of it, so I'm sure there are more perspectives to be had. Please read the passage before commenting if you are not familiar with the story...you know what? Just read all of Helaman chapter 5, its a great chapter! :)

Those are some very interesting observations. I think that one would have to be pretty mentally unstable to commit crimes and wicked deeds while conscious of others not in league with them knowing. Satan almost always works in secrecy. He knows that he has more influence on the children of men if he can convince them that he doesn't exist. If Satan doesn't exist then why should anyone believe that God exists? And if God doesn't exist then whats the point of being chaste, moral and virtuous? And if we disregard these things of God, Satan has won. ANY and EVERY intentional act of wickedness is, in a way, part of a secret combination. The same secret combination that was organized by the Adversary before this world.