SpiritDragon

Good to be visible

I'd be inclined to speak on symbolism in the scriptures and becoming more fluent in the language of symbols to get more out our temple experiences. Alternatively, I'd speak about Identity. Pres. Nelson has taught the importance of three core identities of Child of God, Child of the Covenant, and Disciple of Christ. I'd link this to the concept of many examples where the individuals or people as a community had mighty changes of heart leading to a state of no desire to sin, but to follow the Lord. This would be tied to how a core identity dictates behavior. I'd probably draw on a quote like Boyd K. Packer speaking about how the study of the gospel changes behavior faster than the study of behavior - perhaps sprinkle in the story of the son of the French king (Louis 14?) when asked why he wouldn't succumb to debauchery around him on offer and he stated because he was the son of the king, or perhaps just the idea that someone who identifies as a non-smoker being very unlikely to want a cigarette- the idea would be drawing together how really coming to believe within one's self these core identities would work wonders to correct to behaviors.

I'm going to jump in on the polytheism vs monotheism vs other names debate. I also have to reiterate as others have said that the doctrine of Christ's restored church and in all ages where Truth was being dispensed is that of One true and living God. Call it what you will, but monotheism is the best fit as far as I'm concerned. As for a Biblical passage to the effect, @Vort shared some great passages above establishing the One true God point. I think the challenge we have too often is not taking God at His word and instead of trusting in the Lord, we lean to our own understanding. While we can say that because there are distinct physical and spiritual personages that constitute the godhead and infinite possibilities of a lineage of gods that clearly there are more than one God. However, when Jesus prays that those that are given Him can be one with Him as He is one with the Father, I believe He is inciting a greater oneness than we fully grasp. I think some of our best ways of describing this oneness fall short because of our imperfections from the Fall. Even Zion is said to be of ONE HEART and ONE MIND, and yet we don't worry about everyone fusing together and sharing a physical heart. In looking at a team working together for a common goal, a government that is referred to as one government, a family that is unified and sticks together we get a small sense of a unified purpose that we may use to attempt to explain a oneness of purpose, but I firmly believe it still falls short of hitting the mark to better explain a multiplicity being one. So I think at the end of the day, we are best served to simply accept God at His word that there is one true and living God. As to the idea of individuals being exalted and becoming gods, I think this leads into the disservice that is done with this topic. I know anytime the doctrine according to SpiritDragon is coming out we enter shaky ground, so beyond simply accepting God's teaching on the matter, this is my best attempt to explain how I'm currently viewing this topic that is an evolving understanding for me that falls back on the bedrock of the Lord himself teaching there is One God. I have two sort of models that I view as being closer to what I think the case is. The initiates into an order model: In this model I view God as an order, like those entering into the order of the priesthood, but with a greater oneness achieved by attaining an eye single to the glory of God (always desiring to abide by eternal law with a perfect harmony of balance between conflicting forces such as justice and mercy). Here each member of the order of God (one God, one order) has become God (one with God, Joint heirs with Christ, having all that He and His Father Hath). Within said order while our Heavenly Father and Jesus will always be revered as God and given due respect and worship, in keeping with the Saviour's teachings of the greatest being the least, this glory will be humbly given back to all members of the family of God, the order of God, the One God. Pride can have no place within this unity and is one reason why Satan's idea of getting the glory for himself failed from it's inception, it lacked the necessary ingredients for true oneness by seeking position and glory rather than humility and shared glory. My second way of looking at it, is less well thought out and more a different attempt to understand many being one. If we are to look at our current human bodies, we are made up of nearly countless bacteria, many systems, organs, cells, and elements. While they can be separated out to component parts, they are each unique and play a role in the whole. This may also be referenced in a simpler sense in the scriptures speaking of the body of Christ. While we may look at the church as a whole as being part of the body of Christ, perhaps we could do better to limit this to the Church of the First Born (those given to Christ that He prays can be one with Him). Anyway, I share these models not to suggest that they are the only and right way to view things, but to share some thought processes that may help others in their journey to make sense of seemingly contrary points in that we have been taught there is One God and yet multiple individuals who are God.

So you figure that this debate was nothing more than Biden's Dukakis in the tank moment?

Thanks. It is rare of me to pop in these days.

I'm curious to see how this all plays out in the long run. Of course, my being Canadian leaves me at a disadvantage knowing what US citizens are actually going through and the reality on the ground, and of course even then it can be tricky to parse out what is bad policy, at what level of government and what is the result of external forces beyond government control. In any event, it seems to me that the way the mainstream media has run cover for Biden is almost on the level of state-sponsored propaganda in favour of Trudeau here in Canada that has propped him up for nine years too long. So with the media seemingly turning on Biden during and right after the debate in some cases calling for a replacement, it strikes me that was the play all along to push this debate early in June so there would be time before the conventions to replace Biden. I mean, it seemed like even CNN was all too eager to jump on board the Biden lost the debate as though they had scripts written in advance knowing he'd finally showcase his obvious cognitive decline that has certainly become harder for him to hide than four years ago when it was still obvious he'd be like this by now. Time will tell - was this staged to ruin Biden and usher in someone else? Was Biden supposed to win first and then be replaced to usher in someone else? Is this all just a bad miscalculation on the part of the Democrats?

@CarborendumThanks for the well thought out post. I know that some wrestle with the inspired version of John 1 as it doesn't appear to be consistent within itself by having the word be the gospel in verse 1, but then default back to the Word being made flesh in verse 14 and that it doesn't seem logical to have the gospel be made flesh (i.e. everyone knows that the Lord is the word made flesh) and yet I think your post nails this succinctly that the "good news" or "good message" isn't only a message, but embodied in the Saviour Himself. Without Him there is no good news, and thus He is in very reality the good news made flesh. As to the point that it's not a correction per se, but a commentary - the fact that in verses 14 and 16 the text returns to stating the Word is the Lord would indicate to me that you are correct or these would surely have been altered to go along with separating the Word and God to further delineation as the word being the gospel.

What are your sources on point number 3?

A truly great insight. Thanks. A great supply of messengers on the order of John the beloved and the three nephites to call upon as needed.

Thanks everyone for the great insights! Truly appreciated. @zil2 I'm honoured that you returned to comment on my question 😃.

In D&C 129 we are given three grand keys for discerning the nature of messengers whether they be resurrected holy messengers (angels), premortal spirits of just men made perfect (possibly also post-mortal spirits of just men made perfect that are still awaiting resurrection), or a devil in disguise. It seems that as the resurrection had not yet taken place and that all messengers we receive on this earth have either lived here or will live here, that all Old Testament heavenly messengers (still often called angels) should be spirits, should they not? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting something, but this is my understanding. With that being the case, here is the seeming conflict with Genesis 19 (and likely others, but that's the text that caused me to see what appears to be an incongruence to figure out): The angels that come to rescue Lot and his family, seem to be of physical form able to grab him and pull him inside the door Also in the 3rd verse, these men ate the meal Lot had prepared for them. This also seems to suggest physicality as it coincides with a proof given in the account of Jesus' resurrection that he ate broiled fish after explaining that 'a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have'. Then in verse 16 of Genesis 19, the men take lot and his family members by the hand and convey them out of the city. If these messengers were spirits as one might otherwise suppose, this should not be possible given the grand keys given in D&C 129 that the spirits would not offer a hand that could not be felt. This leaves the apparent possibilities in my mind that either these men were mortals sent to help Lot, they were somehow resurrected beings before Christ, or there is something missing from or inaccurate about D&C 129. Is there any commentary on these men visiting Lot (also introduced as angels) by any church leaders that anyone is aware of that helps explain this disconnect, or any other insights group members may have to share? Thanks, SD

Thanks so much for this, I had somehow missed it, but really appreciate it and thought it deserved more than a mere reaction click!

Thank you for your thoughts. It's a different perspective than I get from reading the same things and that is largely what I came asking for. Much appreciated.

That's an excellent insight. Certainly a very plausible reading.

@Just_A_Guy I doubt, you're at risk of being thought apostate. Me on the other hand - I'm sure many wonder, and they may be right.