CrimsonKairos

I'm not sure it's an apples-and-apples comparison you're making. The fact that prophets today say or do human things is not reason enough to stone them to death. However, if a man claims that God chose him to be a prophet and if that man speaks in God's name (Thus saith the Lord) and lies or makes things up in order to deceive people, then yeah, that's a false prophet. The issue concerning humans being prophets isn't about "True vs. False" prophets; it's about "Fallible vs. Infallible" prophets.

Precisely, thank you. So let's continue with that burning at the front of our minds. :) So you think that as long as an innocent person is fine with being punished for something they didn't do, an injustice suddenly becomes a just act? I didn't ask if it was "acceptable" if the innocent person was fine with it, I asked if it was just. Remember, God is not unjust and would never commit an unjust judgment or act. What scriptures persuade you that if God was to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free, that it would not be unjust as long as the innocent person consented? So you think sinning against our sovereign, superior and governing God is more like a civil offense between members of a community than a criminal offense against the government whose jurisdiction the criminal is under? (This is purely an aside curiosity of mine, I don't think it has much to do with what the scriptures teach about atonement) See, this is why I dislike the analogy of money and debt to how the atonement works. When we sin, it's not like we're "buying something on credit we later can't pay for". Sin is breaking a commandment of God and becoming unclean. Period. The first fact that makes all of the plan of salvation necessary is this: No unclean thing can dwell with God. There is no mention of "No debtors can dwell with God" and so forth. Debt is a mortal phenomenon that various ancient and modern prophets have projected onto the process of atonement and remission of sins in order to explain that we can be forgiven due to the actions of a third party. We don't "buy" our way out of spirit prison and into heaven. Jesus doesn't "buy" us a ticket out of spirit prison and into heaven. There is only one overarching requirement that we need to meet to enter God's presence: Be 100% clean. Now, since no one other than Jesus can remain completely clean (read: innocent of sin) by their own power, we all need someone who can clean our filthy robes and present us spotless to God on the day we are assigned a kingdom of glory. The atonement is about blotting out the record that we ever sinned (so we become innocent of sin like Jesus, our sins "go away" or are "remitted") and about changing our hearts so that we become the kind of being who doesn't desire to sin any more and who never will sin anymore. How does being clean and having a divine nature have anything really to do with money and debt and credit? I am aware of Elder Packer's parable "The Mediator" and years ago on this board I already discussed how I prefer the scriptural descriptions of the atonement though the point of his parable was sound: That when we find ourselves powerless to free ourselves due to our wickedness, Jesus has the ability to remove our guilt and set us free from spirit prison. Phrases like, "Jesus paid the price for our sins," and "Christ paid the penalty of our sins" all involve that stubbornly-commercial term "paid" or "pay" which perpetuates the debt/credit analogy which to me deviates from the scriptures and introduces unnecessary concepts to the process of cleaning filthy garments and changing our hearts. When you stick to the plain, simple, literal facts of eternity as the scriptures explain them (no unclean thing can dwell with God; the result of sin is that we become unclean; the penalty for sin is eternal separation from God; et al) the process of atonement as the scriptures describe it becomes an entirely new set of concepts that to me are more accurate and thus to be preferred to less-accurate explanations. In the end it comes down to one of two things based on whether we repented and asked for changing grace or not (see Rev. 20:12-15): 1. Our sins are blotted out of the "books" that chronicle our "works", and our name is found in the Lamb's Book of Life. Or... 2. Our sins remain recorded in the "books" that chronicle our "works", and our name is blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life.

Pretty much. Not so much that he embodied goodness and submissiveness as much as he was fully good and submissive. Maybe I'm getting semantic now. And why was he like unto God? Godhood is conferred on the sanctified, righteous, obedient beings in eternity. No physical body required (refer to the Holy Ghost). So because Jesus always obeyed the Father he was the only child of God in premortality to advance to the point of perfection of attributes that the Father possesses and receive Godhood with its attendant knowledge, power and authority. You could infer that, but that's the point: that inference can be true or false but there is no other clarifying scripture which suggests one inference over another. Another reasonable inference is that Jesus is saying the Father "showed" him (via vision or whatever means of communication is available to perfect beings) what Jesus would have to do on earth to fulfill his duty as the One Anointed to be our Savior. But again, you're talking about us and as you said, Jesus is vastly different from us in terms of nature, goodness, obedience, sinlessness, et al. Just because we require experience to grow and become perfect like the Father doesn't mean Jesus was limited similarly. In fact I think we could say that what we required due to our imperfect obedience was precisely what Jesus did not require because he WAS perfectly obedient. I'm afraid you are incorrect on both counts. First, the Holy Ghost is a God yet he lacks a physical body let alone a perfect one (see D&C 130), so a spirit being can indeed be a God. Second, the scriptures are clear that Jehovah was a God; Paul identifies Jesus as Jehovah (1 Cor. 10:4) of the Old Testament (back before Christ had a physical body). The scriptures simply don't support what you said. Where in scripture do we learn that the definition of Godhood is having "your own universe?" Do the scriptures not teach that Godhood is a matter of divine attributes developed to their fullest, of ordinances undergone, and of transforming grace applied? Read 2 Nephi 9:19-21 which teaches several things: Christ was a God before his mortal birth; Christ as a God before his mortal birth "knoweth all things". You have some peculiar beliefs that I have not found in scripture. What are you basing your beliefs on exactly? What scriptures persuade you that Jesus did not fully advance in premortality, and receive a fulness of spiritual knowledge and power? The Plan of Salvation was for sinners and imperfectly obedient children who needed a shaping and growing experience to help them become like the Father and Son. Jesus did not need a Savior, Jesus did not need to learn from imperfect choices, Jesus did not need to develop his faith and obedience. We did. What scripture or teaching do you base your disagreement on? Really? The sacrifice for sin had to be sinless. Christ himself points this out in the all of the standard works , e.g. Ex. 12:5; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19; Mosiah 3:15; D&C 45:4... You sure don't offer much in the way of explaining your views other than to say, "Disagree." Doesn't exactly lend itself to mutual understanding. Care to expand on your views? The scriptures explicitly teach that Christ's unjust death was the atonement. Here are just a few: Mosiah 15:12; Hel. 14:14-18; D&C 21:9; 34:3; 38:4; 46:13; 54:1; 76:40-42, 69; 138:2, 35. I thought you disagreed that Christ had to be sinless. And the scriptures teach that Christ was slain/lifted up/crucified for the sins of the world. Is not spiritual separation from God and crucifixion a punishment made necessary by our sins? So you don't believe D&C 93:38? It says: 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. It says we became innocent again in our infant state thanks to the atonement. If we had to be made innocent again, it means we at some point in premortality disobeyed, rebelled, were guilty of sin and lost that innocence. Christ was the only one who never sinned against God in the First or Second Estate. Semantics, friend. Christ "gave up the ghost" but only after he was crucified by sinful men. He didn't nail himself to the cross, he didn't commit suicide. He allowed his body to reach the point where death would have claimed a normal mortal, and only then did he willfully separate his spirit from his body. That has little to do with how the atonement makes remission of sins possible (not remission of punishment for sin, an entirely different goal).

The scriptures agree with you 100% as do I. Consider the following verses as a whole: 1. And there was nothing save it was exceeding harshness, preaching and prophesying of wars, and contentions, and destructions, and continually reminding them of death, and the duration of eternity, and the judgments and the power of God, and all these things—stirring them up continually to keep them in the fear of the Lord. I say there was nothing short of these things, and exceedingly great plainness of speech, would keep them from going down speedily to destruction. And after this manner do I write concerning them. (Enos 1:23) Note the ideas of persistent exposure to truth and harsh reminders of death and judgment. 2. I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things [the scriptures], which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct. (Mosiah 1:5) Note the idea of persistent exposure to scriptures to prevent personal apostasy Lamanite-style. 3. Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory. (D&C 19:6-7) Notice the concept that "express" or strong and clear warnings are what best "work upon our hearts" or persuade us to repent. The Lord knows what sort of beings he is dealing with and acts accordingly. That is one reason hell is mentioned "so much" whatever that means.

I believe the atonement is infinite and eternal in that is offers mercy to ALL of God's children (infinite, covers all) ALL of the time (eternal). How it does that is a mystery. Let's be precise. The scriptures talk alot about the demands of justice, but justice isn't a conscious entity with desires. The phrase is of course symbolic. The One demanding that justice be served and the law administered is He who administers it: Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father isn't sitting by helplessly as some skyscraper-sized rolled up scroll marches in and says, "I--Justice--demand that you be cast out of heaven for your sins!" So when we clarify the phrase to be "The demands of Heavenly Father" instead of the impersonal "demands of justice" we come to an interesting point which I will explain below. I think you'd agree that if God were ever unjust He would cease to be God. Stated differently, God would never be or do anything unjust. Agreed? Would you agree that it is totally unjust to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free? I would. So how does law-abiding, law-dictating Heavenly Father supposedly punish His Only innocent child Jesus and let us guilty sinners go free and still be a Just God? To suggest that Heavenly Father punishes the innocent (Jesus) and lets the guilty go free (admit us back into His presence) is to paint a picture of a very unjust, lawless God who simply does what He feels like or whatever it takes to "get things done the way He wants." Even in human courts of law, just because you volunteer to go to jail for someone doesn't mean the court or law would ever allow that! It would be unjust to punish you for something you didn't do and let someone guilty go unpunished for something they DID do. So I think the atonement is a bit more nuanced and complex and just without our reach than the simple Protestant "penal substitution theory" suggests. Of course, this is what the scriptures teach about sin, its penalty and God's divine nature (truth and judgment are two of His attributes). Let's get specific again. What do you mean by "justice"? How would mercy "rob" justice? I'm asking for a hypothetical or illustrative example, a parallel even, not a literal gospel example. Give me an idea of what you're talking about.

Huh?

How does that work, exactly? The penalty for sin is to be cast out of God's presence eternally, for even one sin (1 Ne. 10:21, D&C 1:31). Agreed? So if Christ "paid the penalty for our sins" or in other words, if Christ took on himself the penalty for even one person's single sin, Christ would have to be cast out of God's presence forever, according to the scriptures. But the thing is, we know Christ dwells with the Father in His Kingdom and has done so from the moment of his resurrection. So Christ "paying the penalty for our sins" must mean something else other than a literal quid-pro-quo "I repent and you sit in jail for me" type of arrangement, no? What scriptures persuade you to believe as you do?

Sure, but plenty of parents let their teenage children drink alcohol and they love them too. Loving someone doesn't preclude the possibility that you will make unwise choices concerning them or cause them harm.

I think #1 is different. I think Heavenly Father chose Christ's "consciousness" to be the first joined with a spirit body because of Christ's innate goodness and submissiveness. God found Himself in the midst of glory and intelligences, and Christ's was the only one that would always choose to obey the Father in all things. This the Father must have known via His omniscience. So it doesn't matter how long Christ was with the Father before our "consciousnesses" received our spirit bodies. Christ's being the Firstborn reflects his inherent goodness and righteous desires which existed before the Father gave Christ a spirit body. This brings up an interesting issue regarding knowledge and omniscience. Christ was a God before he ever came to earth. He shared the omniscience of the Father and the Holy Ghost. Yet Jesus had never experienced crucifixion until he came to earth as a mortal. So would you say Jesus didn't know what being crucified felt like until he underwent it, or would you say that God's omniscience embraces all knowledge/feelings/experiences in a way that mortals cannot fathom? This is beside the point of the necessity of Christ dying for our sins. I ask the above because you say Christ had to have "experience" to be more "intelligent" than all of us combined. Isn't that a bit limiting? Isn't it conceivable that there are spiritual and heavenly vehicles of learning that make the speed of light seem like a slug? I guess the answer is, "Yes, it is possible, but the scriptures give no indication of anything like that." In mortal life, those with the greatest spiritual knowledge are also the most obedient. Thus, if Christ was obedient in all things from "day one" of his receiving a spirit body with new abilities and choices, then he would gain greater knowledge than anyone else by virtue of his goodness even if you or I had received our spirit bodies millions of years before Christ. If: Goodness precedes spiritual advancement and knowledge; and, If: A fulness of goodness precedes a fulness of spiritual knowledge and advancement; and, If: Jesus was the only spirit child of the Father who was fully good in every way at all times; Then: Jesus was the only spirit child of the Father to fully advance and receive all spiritual knowledge. All of us sinned in some way or other in premortality (D&C 93:38); none of us obeyed perfectly aside from Jesus. Jesus, as the only premortally and mortally sinless child of God the Father (D&C 45:4), was literally the only one who had wholly innocent blood that could be shed by wicked men for the sins of the world (D&C 21:9; 27:2) Just a personal pet peeve of mine: People often refer to children being killed as "innocent blood being shed" but in the grand scheme of things (premortal, mortal and postmortal being taken into account) even children in this world had previously sinned in some capacity premortally as spirit beings (again, D&C 93:38). So if by "innocent" we mean "innocent of sin, not guilty of disobedience" then Jesus Christ is the only child of God who deserves the title "innocent". Just a technical detail but one that has to do with the atonement. In discussing the atonement, I often hear people say, "What was so great about Christ's death? Plenty of kids have been raped, tortured, eaten, murdered, suffered far worse things than crucifixion; why isn't their death more horrible than Jesus Christ's death?" The answer according to the scriptures, of course, is that Jesus is the only child of God who never sinned, who is truly innocent in every meaning of the word, and hence, for Jesus to be executed for allegedly committing the sin of blasphemy is the ultimate miscarriage of justice, the ultimate unjust act that can possibly be committed: the only sinless person being killed for sinning! In what way?

That's okay, I save my posts in case my internet freezes before an upload is complete so I have the text (minus the quote) to repost, but I guess it's unnecessary for now. I understand the purging thing, that's cool, I just was curious what happened.

Hey, what happened to my really long post about methane vs. carbon dioxide???

A person's testimony should be founded on the voice of God conveyed to us through the Holy Ghost. If God tells you the LDS Church is the Church He endorses and guides through a living prophet and only it has valid priesthood authority and the Book of Mormon is His word...what in the world has a dusty sermon from the Journal of Discourses got to do with it? It never ceases to amaze me. I know people who say that God told them Joseph Smith was a prophet. Then they read some anti-mormon literature or actual Church history that has awkward moments or signs of human imperfection (gasp!). And then it's like, "Well maybe God didn't mean what He said, I mean, He wouldn't tell me someone was a prophet if that person did A, B, or C!" So they expect that God will only tell them someone is a prophet if that person perfectly fits their preconceptions, prejudices, biases and preferences of what a man of God would and should be. Let me put it this way: If you require secular scientific evidence that the Book of Mormon could be true before you pray to know if it's true, you're worshipping the wrong god and denying that God is a God of miracles Whose works confound the wise.

PC, here is a bit of LDS scripture concerning the nature of angels, an excerpt from which I reproduce below: 1 There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones— 2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 3 Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory. So LDS doctrine teaches that in heaven right now a being is either a spirit being without a physical body because they have not yet been resurrected, or a resurrected being whose spirit and physical bodies have been inseparably rejoined. The term "angel" is merely a title or descriptor of resurrected beings, just like "mortal" is a title or descriptor of beings with physical bodies who are subject to death. We aren't talking species, we're talking resurrected status. Hope that helps.

That is admirable that your leader sets such a strong example. More power to her. Also, someone who is 12 may very well be able to handle mature subject matter (war for example, not pornography) that an adult can't handle at 34. Everyone is different. Remember how Ammaron told Mormon at the age of 10 that Mormon was a "sober child" and "quick to observe" yet there were probably many, many Nephite adults at that same time who were not able to bear what Mormon could bear. In the end, what is not morally appropriate for an 8 year old is not morally appropriate for an 80 year old. Good standard to remind ourselves of, thanks.

Apocrypha? Just kidding. There is clarity and power in The Book of Mormon that is hard to find in some other areas of the standard works (plus you can just read straight through unlike the Old Testament and New Testament where at the start of every chapter I scan the footnotes to see if there are any JST's to make sure I get the proper meaning and context of the chapter before I read through it). Then again, besides the New Testament account of Christ giving his life for his sheep (of which I hope I am one), no other book of scripture persuades me of God's boundless love, mercy and patience more than the Old Testament does. Almost every other chapter involves some new apostasy du jour, yet God always sent prophets and always forgave those who repented. Gives me hope. The D&C is the double-fudge-doctrinal-brownie dessert. Where do you even start with all the nuggets of gold in those pages? I sure am glad we get all of the standard works and not just one or two books!

You didn't read those quotes by our modern prophets then, I guess? Will you post the reference for source material you are summarizing here? I have heard variations of this story and I'd like to know which one you are quoting. You clearly did not understand what I was saying, then. What our profits today have taught is that if any man or woman teaches anything contrary to the scriptures, we are not bound by it. Joseph Fielding Smith (10th prophet) said it very clearly: "If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4, emphasis mine). You are using examples that involve policy (who will we teach the gospel to and when, etc) not doctrine. Doctrine is a statement of eternal truth, not merely a protocol or practice. Example: Doctrine: God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D&C 130) Policy: We use bread and water for sacrament instead of bread and wine. Can there be 14 apostles instead of 12? If God wants there to be, sure. Can we only use 7-UP and pizza for sacrament? If God wants us to be so limited, sure. Can we find forgiveness in any other way than repentance and covenanting with God? No. The way we covenant may change (circumcision, ritual purification, baptism, sacrament, etc) but the covenant doesn't change (repent, have faith in God, obey the prophets, etc). There is a clear difference between doctrine and policy/practice. No prophet or inspired man or woman of God will ever contradict the eternal truths in the scriptures (nature of God, who our Savior is, need for repentance, etc). That is why they are the standard works: their doctrines are standard and will not be deviated from. That is, if you believe President Joseph Fielding Smith or other General Authorities in our day. "It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they [speak] and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, `Well, that is his own idea.' And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them `standard'—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it." ("Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator," 14). If there is ever a question in our minds, that is where the Gift of the Holy Ghost comes in along with personal revelation. God delivers truth to those who seek it.

That's assuming that our present experience occurred in reverse in another Heavenly Father's stewardship. I see no reason why our Heavenly Father's stewardship and plan for us has to be the same plan/experience He underwent. When I say I see no reason, I mean no scriptural or doctrinal reason.

If that happened, I would wake up and think, "What a weird dream."

I agree with that if by that you mean, "It doesn't matter what rating a movie has as long as it is virtuous, praiseworthy and of good report." The converse is also true: "It doesn't matter what rating a movie has if it is NOT virtuous, praiseworthy and of good report." So just because some folks in L.A. slap a PG-13 or even PG rating on a movie doesn't mean it's automatically going to edify and be good for us because "at least it isn't R-rated and that's the only letter we should avoid!"

Precisely. And as I pointed out many, many posts ago, each of us will answer that differently for ourselves. Some people--myself included--have found good and virtue in R-rated movies like "The Passion of the Christ". Hasten the day when people will take responsibility for their media choices instead of leaving it up to the arbitrarily-chosen MPAA and what they think is virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy. Where is the wisdom in letting Babylon dictate your media choices?

Carl62, was what you were referring to 25-30 years ago a matter of policy or practice, or was it doctrinal? For example, Joseph Smith instituted polygamy as approved of the Lord. Later, Wilford Woodruff ended polygamy as an action approved of the Lord. So if you were to cling to what Joseph Smith said to the exclusion of what Wilford Woodruff said, that would be an error. Policy, practice and modern counsel are areas where living prophets shine. For doctrine, the eternal truths that undergird and comprise the gospel plan of salvation with all that entails...for doctrine like that we turn to the scriptures. One exception: If the prophet/president reveals a new revelation to be added to the scriptures, it must be unanimously approved in a general meeting of Church members worldwide and may then be added to the standard works. But no prophet is ever going to reveal a new "scripture" that contradicts standard doctrine. In other words, Pres. Monson nor any of his successors as President of the Church will ever say, "You know it's the strangest thing, but an angel told me last night that we don't need to be baptized anymore!" In the end, this is what it comes down to: there are two kinds of people in the Church. 1. Pharisees in members' clothing who cannot and will not think beyond the literal words of prophets. 2. Members who study not just what the prophet said, but to whom he said it and why he said it. Note that group #2 does not disobey the prophets' counsel, they simply grasp the fulness of that counsel. When a prophet says, "Avoid R-rated movies and anything with immoral, vulgar, pornographic content," he is implying that in his experience all R-rated movies have immoral, vulgar, pornographic content, and it is that content that we are to avoid regardless of whether a movie is R or PG-13. What do you think of the member who pats themselves on the back for not watching any R-rated movies no matter what they are about, but who then sits down and watches "Dancing with the Stars" with its attendant soft-porn costumes, or who watches any number of TV shows such as CSI: Miami or others that take place near beaches and regularly show women so scantily clad that they would be right at home on the set of a porn movie? So Pharisees wait to be counseled and then will rather die than deviate from the literal prophetic counsel, but then fail to see the spirit behind the counsel and watch themselves in all things, not just what is specifically mentioned. Morality and obedience is not about a checklist of do's and don'ts, it is about gleaning principles and living them without having to be commanded. So for those who rest assured they are following the prophet's counsel by not watching R-rated movies...take a moment and review all the other media you consume whether TV, music, magazines, video games, internet, etc. Is there anything vulgar, immoral or pornographic in any of the other media you consume? Do you listen to rap music that glorifies abuse and selfish use of women for carnal satisfaction? Do you visit gossip internet sites that feature the current stars of hollywood in all their immodest glory? The list goes on, think it over. If so, you have heard what the prophet said but you were not listening and you are definitely not following his counsel.

I would not pretend to know the answer to that. When it comes to settled, established doctrine I restrict myself to what the standard works teach. As far as I know, none of the Lord's prophets in any of the scriptures taught that God told them that our Heavenly Father was once a mortal like we are. For me personally, my opinions and my beliefs are different: My opinions are based on my ability to reason and use logic and may often be wrong. My beliefs are founded in scriptural authority.

Well said, svanneck.

Hey PC, long time no dialogue. Is Jesus God? Yes. Was Jesus once a man like we are? Yes. According to Revelation 3:21 can we become as Christ became? Yes (though we may disagree what it means to sit with Christ in his throne as Christ sits with our Father in His throne). So let's reword the couplet to get some coherence going that is scriptural: As man is, Christ once was; as Christ is, man may become. Problems?

Agreed.