SteveVH

What does pre-mortal existence have to do with whether or not Lucifer rebelled against God? Lucifer and the angels were created by God. They did not exist prior to their creation by God. God created Lucifer who then rebelled against him and became Satan. This doesn't require that they be eternal beings in the least. If you are speaking of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels rebelling, of course I believe it. What I don't believe is that they are eternal beings (without beginning). They are spiritual beings who were created by God with free will and chose, of their own free will, to rebell against him. You have completley lost me. How does the angel's rebellion require that we be eternal beings? Both angels and man are creatures (created). Only God is uncreated. What is to prevent any being created with free will (both angels and humans) from rebelling? Why does one have to be eternal in order to rebell? Once again, how does any of this even imply that we are eternal beings? God created the angles in heaven and mankind on earth. One-third of the angels in heaven rebelled and were cast out and are now demons, serving the rebellious Lucifer, who is now Satan. This has nothing to do with whether they have always existed or whether they were created.

The distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one of relationship. But you can never separate them. Where the Son is, there are the Father and the Holy Spirit as well. Where the Father is, there are the Son and the Holy Spirit, and where ever the Holy Spirit is, there are the Father and the Son as well. Anyway, that is the Catholic perspective.

Does not Mormon theology state that God was once as we are now and progressed to godhood? This doesn't work if Jesus was first God who then became man. So yes I would agree that I have a misunderstanding if this is not true. Maybe you can fill me in. Was Jesus human before he was God or was he first God before he became human? Yes, I am aware of this belief. I'll just leave it at that. Well I must admit that now I am completely confused. Are you saying that God was not once as we are now? "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea... He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth." (Joseph Smith) "Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is." (Orson Hyde - Mormon Apostle) "He is our Father-the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through." (Brigham Young) "But if God the Father was not always God, but came to his present exalted position by degrees of progress as indicated in the teachings of the prophet, how has there been a God from all eternity? The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods, stretching back into the eternities." (B. H. Roberts - Mormon Seventy and LDS church historian) So my question remains: How is Jesus the eternal Son of the Father? How was Jesus "God" before he was "man" if God first must progress from a lesser state of humanity? You do realize that the word "eternal" means that he has always been and will always be God; without beginning or end, the Alpha and the Omega. The reason I mention this is that you say: "There never was a time that Jesus was not eternally God". Eternity is beyond time and space. In other words there could never be a "time" that one is eternal and a "time" that one was not. One is either eternal or one is not, period.

We must remember that Jesus was God before he was human, not the other way around. Jesus is his human name and he is eternally the Son of the Father. YHWH (I AM WHO AM) is the mysterious name revealed to Moses and relates to his eternal existence. This is where LDS theology departs from mainstream Christianity. We believe that Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father and with the Holy Spirit is the only eternal being from which all else came into existence. He was eternally God; he never became God, rather he had to humble himself to become man. That would be the mainstream Christian belief.

Since you have addressed this to Christians I will just point out that any pre-mortal existence is a fairly unique Mormon idea that is not held by any other Christians that I am aware of. Possibly some of the early Adventist groups, but I'm not sure. It is certainly not a concept held by mainstream Christianity. We believe that we are brought into existence by God at conception, having never existed before except in the mind of God. So whether one had a name in the pre-mortal existence is really only something that can be discussed among Mormons. So I would say that we are certainly not on the same page and we might not even be in the same book, as far as this subject is concerned. :)

You got it.

I am not in any way trying to imply that there is something wrong with eating eggs. In fact forget the eggs. I'll be happy to eat the chicken as well. The only reason that I use the analogy of the eagle's egg is to show that our society actually places more importance on an eagle's egg then it does on a human egg. I would be arrested if I destroyed the eagle's egg. It is just fine if I want to destroy a fertilized human egg or embryo. My point is that life begins at conception and sometimes an analogy from outside of ourselves hleps us see that. Just using science, if we draw a time line of a human life, from its beginning to its end, we must begin at conception. That is when the cells of the father and the mother become someone else, a separate being entirely. As much as I would like to have this conversation, I will just say again that the moderators have shut down the threads on this subject and so I don't want to continue it under the cover of another thread topic. In other words, we need to respect the decision of the moderators. I do appreciate your comments, however.

My opinion is that ever since Jesus started his Church, having a personal relationship with Christ means having a personal relationship with his Church. It has never been about just me and God, rather it is about us and God, a united body of which I am a part; the mystical Body of Christ. Obviously, we all must relate to God within our own being. I have personal conversations with God on a daily basis. He guides me through each day. But I must realize that I am a part of something much larger than myself; Christ's Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. It is through this union with God and with each other that we realize the purpose for which we were created. It will not be fully realized until we are in heaven and share in the life of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as adopted children of God. Also, thanks for your honesty and your vote of confidence. That means a lot. God bless you, Traveler.

I agree with everything you said. But the idea that a fertilized human egg is somehow not a human life is scientifically inaccurate. Imagine how upset most people would be if I climbed a tree and starting hurling eggs out of an Eagle's nest. I could respond "What's the big deal, its not an Eagle, its only a ferilized egg". Most would not see it that way. They would realize that I am in fact destroying the life of an eagle. Not so when it comes to human beings. The fact that the Supreme Court concluded that there is no human life present during the first trimester is meaningless. The court use to uphold laws in favor of slavery as well. Anyway, you make some good points. Great post. Having said that I think we have gone way off topic here. There was a thread that I started on the abortion issue which was shut downby the moderators (twice, actually). I don't think they would be real happy with me for discussing the topic again on an unrelated thread so these will be my last comments on this issue.

Great information. As I am not feeling real welcome around these parts any longer I think it is best for all that I stop participating. Good luck.

If you have something to say on the topic why don't you join us. If you just want to attack me personally then PM me rather than derailing the thread. Thanks.

You know, I suppose I could ask the question and never respond to the posts on the thread I started. One learns by asking questions. I have seen at least one post on this thread where the person has found this discussion enlightening so apparently it has done someone some good. In addition, this thread was addressed to people of all faiths, not just Mormons, so I don't think it is fair to conclude that the question has been asked and answered - end of discussion. I am aware that there are some who do not want this to be discussed at all. No one has a gun to their head. That is not entirely true but I agree for the most part. Have I asked anyone to defend a position they don't hold? Then don't. Yes, I have gathered that. I am just really blown away that some are so adverse to any debate whatsoever. I was instructed very specifically to come to the Christian Beliefs Board if there was to be any debate. So that is what I have done and then I am accused of lecturing you when in fact it is you who have just lectured me. If you don't like the debate then please do yourself a favor and don't participate. If you would like to join in you are more than welcome.

Another great point! It would be interesting to see the details of these laws and if each situation is weighed in this light.

Great observation. I have said for a long time that many of our differences have their origin in how we view the beginning of human life. Thanks for pointing this out.

As others have said, I think our fundamental ideas concerning the origin of the human being make it difficult to be on the same page. For the sake of discussion, however, let's assume the Mormon position. If one does not know when the spirit enters the "body of an embryo" why would one not err on the side of life? What if you kill what is actually a child? If a small child slips into a well, we don't assume he or she is dead and just walk away. We do everything we can to save that life without knowing if there is even a life to save. I think most agree that the child does not deserve a death sentence because there are unjust laws concerning its father. I am only pointing out how outrageous it is that anyone would kill an unborn child because it might not have an ideal life, as if any of us can predict the future. And so do I. Just so you know, I make no judgments concerning a woman in this predicament. That is God's place, not mine. No one can no the horror of being raped who has never experienced it and I would say that her culpability in making any decision is greatly mitigated by this fact. What I can judge and must judge is the moral justification that society or any group of people give to taking the life of the unborn. We can and must name evil when we see it. That does not translate into condemnation of any particular individual in their own unique circumstances. I'm sorry you feel that way. Wonderful. You have misunderstood me if you believe that is what I am doing. Do you understand that the metaphore assumes one can swim? Or are you saying that your mom can swim but would choose to drown? I think you completely missed the point. The answer is pretty simple here. God is the author of life. He gives it and he takes it away according to his perfect will. This is God's prerogative, not man's. As far as man is concerned he has given us a very clear command: "Thou shalt not kill." Yes, God has commanded that entire populations die. I don't know how this enters into God's plan, only he does. But God has never commanded anyone to kill their own child except for once, a test of faithfulness, and then He sent an angel to stop it. But if you want to start throwing around Bible verses you should consider these along with those you have listed: Exodus 23:7 - Do not kill the innocent and righteous. Proverbs 6:16,17 - God hates hands that shed innocent blood. Revelation 21:8; 22:15 - Murderers will be outside the holy city in the lake of fire. Matthew 15:19,20 - Murder is a sin that proceeds from the heart and defiles he who commits it. Romans 13:8-10 - If you love your neighbor, you will not kill. (Cf. Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; James 2:11.) Here are some others if you are interested. ( Gen. 4:8-11; Jer. 7:5-7; 22:3; Joel 3:19; Hos. 4:1,2; Lev. 24:17,21; Ex. 21:12-15; 1 John 3:15; 1 Pet. 4:15.) If God commands a mother to kill her unborn child, then she should probably do it. I can say this because God will never do such a thing and any person that claims that God has told them to do this is not hearing the voice of God. I say this with all certainty.

Yes, there is no doubt that these are different scenarios. So, because we have an unjust law concerning the rapist's rights we should give the unborn child the death sentence? Then work to change the unjust laws concerning the rapist. I still don't see how this is justification for killing the unborn child. If you could speak to the child how would that conversation go? "Listen, sweety, there is a possiblity that you might not have a good life if I bring you into the world, so I am just going to go ahead and kill you now. How does that sound?" None of us can see into the future and none of us jump off of a cliff because of the possibility that something bad may happen to us. Pick the poorest, most miserable person you can think of. If you throw them into the middle of a lake, they will still swim to shore. Why? Receiving counsel is always a wise decision but that has nothing to do with whether or not the ulitimate decision is a moral one. And I would be most sceptical of someone who told me "God said it was okay, he gave me permission" because of the intrinsically evil nature of the act of killing an innocent. I believe God would call us to make sacrifices in our own lives for the sake of our child, not condemn it to death.

Exactly!

You make a great point. How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. :) I spent my teenage years living in Holland. It was such a great place to live. The Dutch love Americans and treated us so well. They pride themselves on having a tolerant society which was great being a foreigner. They made abortion legal long before it was legal in the United States. After all, who were they to infringe on anyone's personal decision? It is now (and has been for some time) legal to basically put your child down, just like a sick pet, up to three years old if it is too much of a burden on the parents due to mental or physical incapacity. I am so disgusted with that situation that I have no words. It has tainted my fond memories of that country. It can happen here as well. The culture of death is alive and well in this country. Yes, there is no doubt that it is easy to sit back and think about these issues from a distance. I cannot judge the decision of anyone in that situation. Even as a father, how does one choose between their wife and their child? Happily, this is not a situation that arises very often and I pray for God's intercession in these decisions.

Under no circumstances should a woman be attacked. When any abortion occurs I hear the words of Jesus: "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". No, these women need love and healing. Many of them will suffer greatly from the effects of abortion, some phyically, all psychologically and spiritually to some degree. Never could I defend the decision, but to treat a young woman uncharitably is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. These women need education prior to their decision. They do not need to be beat up. I don't disagree with you. No I don't, and neither do you. My adopted sister is a product of rape. Her mother was fifteen and she was raped by her mother's "boyfriend". We adopted her when she was just two months old. My sister has had a wonderful life and grew up in a stable, loving family. She is a wife, a mother of two and has taught thousands of young people in High School, having a great influence on their lives. She is one of the happiest people I know and is eternally thankful that she was not aborted. My only comment is that when something is as intrinsically evil as the killing of the most innocent and vulnerable among us, we need to really stop and think very seriously about this. Yes, the mother has suffered greatly, beyond imagination. It is natural for people to focus on the mother and natural for us to look for any option which we might feel would alleviate some of her pain. The problem is, all to often, the unborn child is forgotten and sacrificed out of misguided charity. It is the child who receives the death sentence for the crime of its father. How is this just? Should the child have any rights as a human being; especially a defenseless, innocent human being?

This is a different question. The first question concerned the official Mormon position on abortion. I received the answer but, due to the nature of the forum, was not able to ask the reason for the position. I respect the moderator's decision. So I started a new thread here so that we could actually discuss it rather than just read an official statement. As well, I did not want to limit the question to LDS only, but every denomination and religion.

Absolutely! Well, I didn't say that they will only hear the voice they wish to hear. Yes, that idea would be false. My position is this, concerning the discernment of voices. We have more than a few voices which influence us. We have the voice of our own desires; that which we wish to believe is true. We have the voice of our peers, urging us to believe this or that. We have the voice of secular society. We have the voice of satan who constantly roams the earth seeking whom he may devour. And we have the voice of God. In the Catholic religion we have ways of discerning the voice to which we listen. Does it conflict with any objective truth? Does it conflict with any moral law? Does it conflict with the deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles? There are more, but suffice it to say that if one believes they are hearing the voice of God, one must be very careful that it is, indeed, the voice of God and that one is not being misled by any of the other voices. Remember that satan can appear as an angel of light and is a master of deception. Our own desires to believe what we wish were true are very powerful as well. To bring this into the question at hand, I know instinctively and through the word of God that killing an innocent, completely vulnerable human being, is intrinsically evil. So if I find myself in the position of making a decision concerning the killing of an unborm child that is a product of rape of incest, I must be accutely aware of my desire that the whole thing just go away. One way to make at least part of it go away is to get rid of the child. This can be a great temptation. But I do not believe that God would ever condone a death sentence for the innocent child because its mother was raped. It flies in the face of moral justice and so I would discern that the voice I am hearing is not of God, but of my own desires, possibly, or that of a society that tells us that this is a perfectly acceptable option, or the voice directly from satan.

Thank you. Hope you are doing well also. Do you consider the possibility that one, under great duress after suffering through such an ordeal, might hear the voice they wish to hear, which might not be the voice of God?

There seems to ba commonly held belief by many that abortion is morally justifiable in cases of rape or incest. My question is how does one defend this postition? Thanks

Thanks for your explanation. I should have read your post more closely. Yes, I agree with you whoeheartedly.

That's a relief!