james12
-
Posts
722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by james12
-
-
So then – what is worship? And what “things” are okay to worship? Or should I say – what “things” can we respect (worship) in the same manner we respect (worship) G-d?
Great question. When discussing the meaning of "worship" my thoughts are tied to the following talk by Bruce R. McConkie How to Worship - Ensign Dec. 1971 - ensign. He clarified how I see worship. Maybe I'll give you a combination of my ideas in relation to his.
I believe in one way or another every person worships something. Every person seeks to give worth to something or someone. The object of our worship may be centered in ourselves, on God, or it may be on an inanimate object. However, worship that is not focused on the living God is, in the end, worship of an idol.And he [the Eternal Father] has planted in our hearts an instinctive desire to worship...
There is no salvation in worshiping a false god. It does not matter one particle how sincerely someone may believe that God is a golden calf, or that he is an immaterial, uncreated power that is in all things; the worship of such a being or concept has no saving power.... If a man worships a cow or a crocodile, he can gain any reward that cows and crocodiles happen to be passing out this season. If he worships the laws of the universe or the forces of nature, no doubt the earth will continue to spin, the sun to shine, and the rains to fall on the just and on the unjust. But if he worships the true and living God, in spirit and in truth, then God Almighty will pour out his Spirit upon him, and he will have power to raise the dead, move mountains, entertain angels, and walk in celestial streets.
Strength and power unto life and salvation comes as our worship is centered in the true God. Only the truth about who God is will lead to any measure of salvation. Until we obtain this truth it matters not if we call ourselves Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, or Mormons.
“I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.” (D&C 93:7–20.)
In other words, true and perfect worship consists in following in the steps of the Son of God; it consists in keeping the commandments and obeying the will of the Father to that degree that we advance from grace to grace until we are glorified in Christ as he is in his Father. It is far more than prayer and sermon and song. It is living and doing and obeying. It is emulating the life of the great Exemplar.
I may sing till I'm blue in the face, I may pray till my knees are sore, and I may read scriptures till my eyes go blurry but until I seek to emulate the Master I have not truly worshiped at all. Instead I have likely made a mockery of the very God to whom I am pretending to give honor.
-
I'm nor sure if the time paradox comment is directed to me, but I wasn't trying to say your position was paradoxical in itself, I was trying to point out that like a time paradox any 'correct' answer is going to depend on what hypothetical constraints (or lack there of) you put on the system. I may have phrased it poorly.
I know, and I agree. I was just joking about the nature of the thread in general.
. -
Anyone able to go back to the Greek and give an idea on if what was translated as "like figure" can reasonably be considered to be hinting at a number? That us English speakers call a number a figure doesn't necessarily mean that the word translated figure reasonably means such.
Here is information from Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Lexicon.
I don't speak Greek but from the above information I don't really see a link between the term "like figure" and the idea of a number. The term "like figure" has definitions such as: a thing formed after some pattern, a thing resembling another.
-
If God has experienced our lives as an actual event and not as just some knowledge, for what reason is there to have our lives play out all over again? Is the life God has forseen as an actual event our real life or is the one we are now experiencing our real life? To say this in greater detail, if all the events of our lives have actually transpired, then is it safe to say that these events are going on a second time? Are all the events that will transpire on January 15th 2012 already accomplished by myself but I don't know anything of it because I am behind the events that have transpired and am now at Dec 25, 2011. Is there some sort of dual existence going on? If the events of our lives have already transpired, then do we have any other choice in this delayed existence than those choices that we chose in the first existence? Are we not just playing out a prewritten script in our current existence? With such knowledge that our lives have already been lived, does this not take the meaning out of our current lives? In the second existence we are trapped in the actions, words, and thoughts of our first existence. I don't see a necessity of playing out the second round. Why are we conscience in this present existence and not conscience in the existence God has already seen played out? Are we already resurrected but don’t know it yet? Is this the way it really is?
The idea that in time all things are ever present with God suggests that nothing is ever completed. If things are ever present with God then nothing goes into the past. With such a concept, I am still being born, the earth is still being created, Jesus is still on the earth, Jesus is still in the pre-mortal existence, Adam and Eve are still in the garden, etc., etc. If these things have transpired, then they are not present but past events. However, if God is in all and through all things, then he is everywhere present. Thus all things are present with the Lord. Now if things transpire with God, then things go into the past. But can they constantly be in the present also? I don't think so. God speaks of when he did this or did that in scripture. It is a past event that transpired.
James12, can you elaborate on whether you think events have transpired already for God to know them, or whether you believe that God has a way of knowing without the event transpiring? Can you explain why you believe this and why you don’t see it as a violation of free will? I am interested in your view point.
I agree with seminarysnoozer that if God’s work is to “Bring to Pass” the immortality and eternal life of man, that this presupposes that some men’s lives have not yet passed into immortality and eternal life, and that not all has transpired already before God. If this is the case and if God needs to have something already transpire before he can know it, then this would imply that God does not know all things. I personally don’t feel that God has to have everything actually transpire before him to know the future. I think there are other means of knowing it. I just don’t understand them to a full extent.
With regard to free will, it appears to me that if one’s life is already played out, then if he is doing it a second time to be exactly as the first, then there is no choice than to choose what was chosen the first time. Thus if the future already exists in reality, we have no other choice than to make the same decision as that future that has already been played out. This comes across as a weird form of determinism to me.
Wow, risky business this thread. Now I'm caught in a time paradox and perhaps a predestination paradox! I feel like I'm reading How to Live Safely In a Science Fictional Universe again.
In short, I do not impose our unique time constraints on God. We experience time in a linear fashion. To us events are past, present and future. We have agency and God allows us the freedom to choose. Neither his foreknowledge nor his potential ability to see our experiences as present prevent us from choosing. I think I'll avoid speculating on how God's time relates to ours.
-
I think if you carefully look at what onefour1 was saying, there is a difference between recognizing events that have "transpired" versus seeing the future event that hasn't yet happened. It is difficult to talk about concepts that we don't know much about or how they could possibly work but I think what is being suggested is a qualitative difference between seeing something in the future versus knowing that something has already happened. onefour1's comments were about free will but I think it also applies to the process of "bringing to pass" anything. There seems to be a value in the fulfilling of an act beyond just knowing it will happen.
When something has actually happened, whether it is seen or not previously, there is a change in perception of that event, knowing that something has been accomplished, that it has been "brought to pass" or "transpired". If seeing into the future is synonymous with "bringing to pass" then there is no value obtained at the moment it is completed or the moment it becomes an event "transpired". In the scriptures, it seems, there is a separation of these things as God's work and glory are described as "to bring to pass ...".
I agree there is value in the process of acting or bringing something to pass in our own lives. My point is that regardless of how God sees the future (as already occurred or as a known future event) we still have free will. We still have agency because God will not act to take that from us.
-
The problem with future events already transpiring with God is that it violates the concept of free will. If every moment of our future life has already occurred, then all our future choices are already set. If all our choices all already predetermined, then do we really have free will to choose?
I believe that God does know the future, but I don't believe that it has already transpired. If it has already transpired, then I don't believe that we have free will to choose and all our thoughts, words, and actions have already been played out. If we don't have free will to choose, and our path way in life is predetermined, then we should not be judged by God according to something already set that we really had no choice in. We are not free to choose in this scenario but are only acting out a play that has already been written(finished).
Even if events future to us are present with God I don't see that this fact alone violates our free will. He may see our future but we do not. Since he does know, the key issue for me is the level of God's intervention. If he chooses not to intervene then we are still free to determine our course. This is the case because events are still future to us. What's amazing to me is that an all knowing God, who indeed sees our future and our past, believes agency is so vital that in many cases he will not interfere, even if what we choose to do causes us harm.
-
Sister_in_Faith,
Individual prayer is a private communion between you and the Lord. You as daughter and he as Father. The Lord has indicated how private a personal prayer should be when he said, "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." (Matt 6:6) Shut your door, enter your closet, and pray in secret.
As you know the Celestial room is a public location. There are individuals entering and leaving the room regularly. Since this is clearly a public location the question is why would you kneel in prayer (a very obvious action) in such a public place?
I would like to consider one of your statements and contrast it with one of the Savior's statement on prayer. You said,
The Savior said,I can't believe that there aren't others out there who have been so moved by coming into the Celestial room, and being in the temple that you were literally driven to your knees in prayer and worship.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues that they may be seen of men. (Matt 6:5)
- Posture: Your above statement (among others) imply that the Lord would be pleased if we fell down and began a very sacred personal act in a public location. Would he want this? Wouldn't this prompt others to look at us? In the above scripture note how the hypocrites were "standing" in the synagogue and on street corners. I'm not sure if the Savior intended to specifically comment on the posture but it should be considered.
- Location: In your statement you speak of being "moved by coming to the Celestial room". Yes we may feel to offer prayers in public but we keep them as private as possible. In fact, the Savior specifically commends prayer in private closets to public synagogues even though the synagogue is a special place.
- Motivation: You say, "I can't believe there aren't others who have been so moved". Are you comparing your desire to pray with that of others? Do we need to be "seen of men" in order to pray to our God?
-
I have to disagree with the above answers.
How can you get past the Temple Recommend question of "Are you honest in your dealings with others?" when you are in this country illegally - a yes answer would be a lie.
Has it happened? I'm sure it has, but should it?
If you disagree with the above answers then you are wrong. The question was: Can illegal immigrants can be baptized and married in the temple? The answer is "yes". Here is a statement from the church newsroom:
The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood.
Responsibility of Church Members: Avoiding Being Judgmental - LDS Newsroom
-
As others have said, creation from an embryo is possible, perhaps even likely. Joseph F. Smith and the First Presidency had this to say, "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man." (The Origin of Man, Improvement Era, Nov 1909)
-
Here are a couple of my thoughts for what they are worth...
As an American I do consider our nation warlike in the sense that we are in a constant state of readiness for war. We are so "prepared" that we house a pile of munitions that could destroy the world as we know it. How prepared for war does one nation need to be to feel safe? It also seems to me that politics can, in some cases, quickly lead to military engagements and then slip into war so this is not simply idle talk. Granted most American's don't see our military as hostile or overtly threatening, but the term "speak softly and carry a big stick" might apply well to the US and it's relation to a number of foreign nations. This in some sense makes me worried. There is a huge war machine ready to fight at the drop of a hat and it cannot simply be dismantled.
As a Mormon and as an American I in some sense buy into this philosophy of more weapons and a bigger military to "protect" me. Past history shows that weapons can and do protect. But where do I put God in the mix? Have I put my trust in the arm of flesh? Is He simply an observer or will he fight our battles as he says in the scriptures? Do weapons guarantee security or does God?
Perhaps the question about glorying in war can really be seen at multiple levels. There is the glory of fighting and killing which I think few American's feel. However, there is a more subtle sort that has to do with show of military power and strength. Sometimes it seems we feel that surge of adrenaline and pride when seeing rank on rank of soldiers or heavy equipment. Perhaps it's not all bad and we must use them. However, I think Eisenhower had the right of it when he said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Do we see that when we see warship?
-
Sorry for the confusion regarding the final statement. I did not intend to limit the comments to the US only. Pam please re-post your comments. Sounds like there are a few differing opinions on this issue. I'll comment fully when I have more time.
-
A recent thread has brought up a couple of thoughts that spin around in my mind from time to time about war. There are three statements that have caused me to examine my own thoughts on the subject. Let me share these three and then I'll ask a few questions.
We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)
(Spencer Kimball, Ensign; June 1976)
Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! …Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. (Isaiah 31:1,3)
Today civilized nations are sitting on a mountain of explosives, accumulated in defiance of Christ's teachings. Let the heat of hatred, suspicion, and greed become a little more intense and there will be such an international explosion as will greatly retard if not forcibly drive from the midst of mankind the hoped-for peace heralded by the heavenly hosts when the Son of Man was born. (Pathways To Happiness, David O. McKay p. 29)
Here are my questions:
Do we see ourselves as a warlike people?
Do we turn to our guns and planes instead of God?
Do we glory in war?
These questions could probably be considered on a global, national, or individual level.
-
I have considered this issue of legislating moral imperatives from time to time with no completely firm conclusions in my mind. Here is the problem as I see it...
The Lord has given us many commandments and laws, of which the ten commandments are just a few. I myself completely agree with God's commandments. However, when we sart to apply them to society as a whole and enforce laws with punishments to make sure society obeys I start to see problems. When moral laws are enforced, in keeping with God's commands, freedom is lost. That most precious gift, the freedom to act, is taken away as morality is forced on others.
One could take the view that individual liberty should be the guiding principle behind all moral laws. With this view government only intercedes when one person's conduct interferes with another's freedom. This would cover issues such as murder, stealing, rape, and to some extent property rights, among others. However, this leaves people to do many things which are against the laws of God such as sexual perversion in various forms, drug use, etc. Plus there are a number of grey areas where one persons freedom bumps up against another persons.
The founding father's may have had it right. As individuals, by themselves, follow the commandments freedom is gained. Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." (Ben Franklin, April 17, 1787) Perhaps, until then we must perform a balancing act by legislating against extreme immoral behavior.
-
What can you tell me about how LDS view the Holy Spirit:
There is precious little that has been given us from prophets and apostles in regards to this question. To my knowledge nothing has been provided which indicates his exact relationship with the Father and Son. I suspect it is because members (not to mention non-members) are not ready for this truth.What is his relationship to the Father and Son?
Speaking now of the Godhead...
We do know that God is the Father and Christ is his Son. Elder Oaks once said, "The basis of the government of God is the eternal family." (Ensign, June 1985, p. 7) Whether statements like these can be applied to the Holy Ghost I do not know.
Again nothing official has been stated by the authorities of the church. However, we have something from Joseph Smith about where he is going. He said, "The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did."[Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997)] Now, the idea that he will receive a body during the millennium is to my knowledge pure speculation. I have read no authoritative quote indicating this is so.Where did he come from?
Joseph Smith once stated the purpose of the Holy Ghost in relation to the Godhead. He said, "everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages…are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator" (TPJS, p. 190).What is his purpose?
As stated above he is a testator. Additionally, "The Holy Ghost is a sanctifier. Because no unclean thing can dwell in a divine presence, the whole system of salvation centers on the process of sanctification; people are saved to the extent that they are sanctified." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Holy Ghost)How does his existence work with the plan of progression and exaltation?
-
Nowhere in scripture does it ever mention that God gave His children permission to choose, or granted them the ability to exercise their agency, in the pre-mortal existence.
Justice,
This is interesting. You want to limit the discussion to scripture but you and seminarysnoozer will not accept any interpretation of scripture which indicates there was choice during our first estate, including some interpretation from modern day prophets and apostles.
Moreover, if there is a scripture that indicates agency you want to detach it from choice. You want to say that God's children may have had agency but that he limited the exercise of the very agency they had.
Sounds like you've boxed the word of the Lord in nicely.
-
Because all the examples and arguments and reasoning pertain to mortality. It even says it in the scripture that you keep going back to in verse 15: " 15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter."
I know you believe all scriptures about opposition and choice pertain to mortality. However, let me simply consider this same verse (15). As you have rightly pointed out after he created our first parents...it must needs be that there was an opposition. But God created all things spiritually before they were physically on the earth (Moses 3:7). Therefore, according to this very scripture, to bring about his eternal purposes this opposition needed to occur after they were created spiritually. Not just physically.
Without getting into finner details, yes, Adam and Eve knew what they were doing when they ate of the fruit. In fact Elder Holland indicates that justice requires it. He says,If you think that good and evil are always present and must needs be in ALL things, then you would have to believe that Adam and Eve in the garden already knew about good and evil before they ate the fruit. Your reasoning, otherwise, is not sound as you are implying that there can never be a period of time without opposition.
Also, from Alma 12:32, "Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption".They were willing to transgress knowingly and consciously (the only way they could "fall" into the consequences of mortality, inasmuch as Elohim certainly could not force innocent parties out of the garden and still be a just God) only because they had a full knowledge of the plan of salvation, which would provide for them a way back from their struggle with death and hell....So Adam and Eve willingly made a choice, choosing the path toward growth and godhood inherent in the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.... With the enticement of Lucifer,...they consciously chose to step out of the garden of Eden-a magnificent, terrestrial-like, paradisaical world-into a fallen, telestial one, a world filled with very unparadisiacal thistles and thorns, sorrow and sin, disease and death. (Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon, p.203-204, italics added)
Of course there was a fall, and it did not require that we be innocent for an almost endless duration beforehand. The truth instead is that we had reached an advanced level of progression in the spirit world. We needed a mortal body to continue that progression. Further, we had knowledge but we needed knowledge gained through experience in the flesh. Hear the words of Alma in speaking of Christ, "...that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities. Now the Spirit knoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh..."(Alma 7:11-12). The spirit has knowledge but we must incorporate that knowledge into, or learn according to, the flesh. Do not minimize the importance, or the challenge, of a physical body in progression.How did they remain innocent if the devil was there with them and there must be opposition in ALL things. If there was no innocence before then there was no fall of man. And if there was no fall of man then there is no need for a Savior. Your reasoning does not allow for the very purpose of this life. ... that is why I can't apply it to premortal life. That, honestly, does not make sense to me, to come here for knowledge we already had. To be tested over the same thing we had already been tested....The fall is what brought about the potential for the knowledge of good and evil. If you say it was already there, as you are trying to say it is needed in ALL things, even in the premortal life, then there was no need to fall, it was already there. That does not make sense.
-
Because he was given a chance to express his intentions after reaching spiritual adulthood. In this life we are given the chance to show our intentions, by what we do. Lucifer did not even get a chance to do anything about his intentions other than voice them (war in Heaven and only after God proposed that option), until he was cast out and given influence over this world for a short period of time. But that will be temporary.If I followed your logic I would then ask myself, "If Lucifer had no alternate choice how did he become evil?"
These questions could go on and on using your reasoning. For instance, "where did Satan get such evil intentions?" Or another question, "why was he not given a chance to express his intentions if he had them?" "Did God somehow control him until the allowed time?" "Was he not innocent?" I could also ask the reverse questions about Christ. (Please don't try to answer these questions! As I said it is the wrong path.)
Seminarysnoozer, at the end of the day you are still left with your original question which started this discussion. "Where did an evil spirit get the knowledge of good and evil without experiencing it?" This has been answered, but let me try one more time with the Book of Mormon.
Here are the facts, you accept them as obvious in mortality, why do you not except them as obvious in pre-mortality?
Fact: There is oposition in all things.
Proof:
If not so...righteousness could not be brought to pass,
neither wickedness,
neither holiness nor misery,
neither good nor bad.
Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one;
wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead,
having no life neither death,
nor corruption nor incorruption,
happiness nor misery,
neither sense nor insensibility.
Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught;
wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation.
Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
God's wisdom, power, and mercy, are not destroyed. Therefore oposition exists.
Fact: Law exists.
Proof:
If ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin.
If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness.
And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.
And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery.
And if these things are not there is no God.
And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
We exist we have not vanished away. Therefore eternal law exists.
Modern scripture plainly teaches the truth about opposition, law, obedience, and happiness. These truths are eternal. They cannot be stopped and then started again. God did not create these facts. Instead he uses them to help us progress. The real question is, are you willing to find out who we are by following the logic from its beginning to its end and then accept the conclusions?
-
Yes, but one thing we did not have was an alternate choice to God's will and plan for us... until Lucifer.
If I followed your logic I would then ask myself, "If Lucifer had no alternate choice how did he become evil?" However this is the wrong question. Which then leads to nonsensical answers. The scriptures teach, "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man: because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light" (D&C 93:30-31). Intelligence implies independence. Independence implies agency. Agency implies choice. Otherwise there is no existence. See also 2 Ne 2:11-13.
I'll try and address your other comments later.
-
My take is that man was innocent when they lived as spirits with God.
Because of the fall all men are fallen and carnal, or no longer innocent, but because of the atonement, we are innocent because we are redeemed from the fall. If we do not reach the age of accountability we are innocent. We are innocent at birth because of the atonement.
"Again" meaning that if it were only up to the fall, even infants would not be innocent and would not have a chance at redemption. But, because of the atonement, we are free from the affects of the fall at birth and again become "innocent again," or as we were before birth. When we arrive at the age of accountability and sin with knowledge of good and evil, then we bring the affects of the fall onto ourselves by our own actions and are no longer innocent.
It's the fundamental belief behind: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
So we were innocent up and until the fall and then were innocent again at mortal birth. Thus, when the scripture says, "and every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning" that term "beginning" spans from spirit birth eons and eons of time until the fall. That interpretation seems like quite a stretch to me. Perhaps we have now come full circle to a point where we must ultimately disagree.
From the time of their spirit birth, the Father's pre-existent offspring were endowed with agency and subjected to the provisions of the laws ordained for their government. They had power to obey or disobey and to progress in one field or another....The pre-existent life was thus a period - Undoubtedly an infinitely long one - of probation, progression, and schooling. Mortal progression and testing is a continuation of what began in pre-existence. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 590)
Agency, law, obedience, disobedience, progression, and schooling -this is what occurred during our near infinite amount of time as spirits. It was no small feat to pass our first estate. To assume anything less cheapens what we accomplished as spirits and does not place us in the right position with respect to our Father, Satan, and ultimately ourselves. We are truly spirit sons and daughters of God.
-
Okay, maybe I have to start a new thread, but where is the doctrine that says God is increasing his glory. I can understand the idea of eternal increase, like in a population sense, but how does increasing population change the state of His being? I have seen this on here before, but I don't understand where it has come from.
“What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I [Christ] will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 347)
-
In the example of Adam and Eve, they were innocent until they partook of the fruit. If that is twice, then fine., But, I see it as innocent before they ate the fruit.
I think we need to discuss what it means to be innocent. I think our views may be different.
Justice,
I noticed Vort's post on this same subject after I sent my last post. I agree with his comments. http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/43809-evil-spirit-2.html#post637991
To be again innocent implies that we were at some point not inoccent. Hence, we were innocent twice. I take this to mean that we were innocent as spirits (in the beginning) and in mortality (our infant state).
-
do you interpret these passages differently than i do? because to me its clear Jesus and paul promote the idea of not having families
Matthew 19:10-12
"His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Christ does not promote the idea of not having families. Far from it. He actually promotes the idea of a truly lasting marriage. A union between husband and wife so complete that they are in essence one flesh.
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19:4-6)
Now this simple and clear instructions man will corrupt. He will take it and commit adultery. He will separate, damage and destroy. Christ must then address this issue when the disciples (who seem amazed at the strict doctrine) ask,
Christ then points out the exceptions to this strict command. Note, they are not the rule they are simply the exceptions to this strict rule he has already laid out. These exceptions have to do with those who never marry or remain single for various reasons (your quote from Matt 19:12). However he then concludes this teaching reminding his listeners of the original command to be one by saying, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matt 19:12). He that is able to live this high law of marriage let him live it. Such is the importance of marriage, and by extension children within that marriage. Verse 12 is clearly the exceptions to the teaching. Do not make an exception a rule.Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matt 19:7-9)
-
You said "we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state." Then you quote a scripture that you believe points this out.
Notice what the scripture is saying. It is not saying we will be innocent again at the end of our mortal state, but "in their infant state."
When we are born into this world we are innocent (again, as when we were just spirits), up until the time we exercise our agency to choose evil. We are no longer innocent, and can never be again. Look at what happened to Adam and Eve. In the Garden they were innocent (just as us when we are born here). Once they ate the forbidden fruit, they were never innocent again (just as us).
We can become righteous, as Adam and Eve, but never again will we be innocent in that sense.
Justice,
I do admit that it is a bit of a leap to talk about the end of the mortal state when this scripture focuses on the beginning. However, I think my point about agency, consequences and innocence happening again is valid in either case. If that is the extent of our disagreement then fine.
However, you say we will never again be innocent. Do you believe we can only be innocent once? This I would disagree with. If the spirit was innocent in the beginning and we were yet again innocent at mortal birth, I come to the conclusion that we were innocent at least twice.
-
The works of our Father are one eternal round. This, I believe, is the basis for an understanding of progression from our first to our second estate.
Agency: We were given agency in our first estate and we are again given agency in our second estate. As Justice brought up, in D&C 29:36 we read "and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency" and again we read in Moses 7:32 "and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency". I don't think this can be understood by splitting agency from knowledge or knowledge from experience. To me these "splits" fall flat.
Consequences: We were once faced with eternal consequences as spirits and we are again faced with eternal consequences as mortals. In our first estate there were eternal consequences as indicated by the 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven who fell. The breadth and depth of happiness or misery found during our first estate cannot be brushed aside.
Innocence: We were innocent as a spirit, we will again be innocent at the end of our mortal state. "Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God." (D&C 93:38)
"For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal—First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work—Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed." (D&C 29:31-33)
All things are present with God
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I don't believe I said God lives without the passage of time. I would not assume that. More likely He understands the laws that govern time and works within those laws to accomplish his purposes. Because he can use the laws of time in ways we cannot comprehend I do not believe he is bound by time as we are. The way we experience time should not be projected on to how God experiences time (particularly in light of the scriptures and quotes we have). Thus, just because you or I see a paradox does not mean God experiences one. I therefore have tried to separate what we understand of time from what God may know of time. I give it as possible that he sees our time as always "present".
Scripture at best is not clear on the subject of how God experiences time. Consider these two examples in contrast to your "passage of time" comments:
the Lord showed Enoch all things, unto end of world, Moses 7:67: If he simply knows what will occur how can he show Enoch all things unto the end of the world? Is this just a hypothetical vision?
past, present, and future are continually before the Lord, D&C 130:7 Is this in thought only? The scripture specifically says "before the Lord" and would seem to contradict the idea of time passing as we know it.