CrimsonKairos

Mauren: I don't see what the point of your post is (though you did some great BoM research to find those verses :)). LDS don't believe there is only one literal being who is a God. There are three Gods in the Godhead. Joseph Smith, who translated the BoM of course, knew there were more than one God because he saw both the Father and the Son in a vision, as separate glorified individuals. The intent of those verses is contextual, they are each speaking to a different audience/person (in context) and they serve to teach different things. It's simple. There is only one God we pray to, and that is our Heavenly Father (or God the Father). God the Father and God the Son and God the Testator are one God[head]. I assure you Joseph Smith knew that, as per his First Vision. Luke: So you're not an Adam/God theorist, eh? Hmmm, sounded like you were in your earlier post. Whatever. I just have to say that you're confusing the issue. The question isn't, "Do we sustain the scriptures or do we sustain the prophet?" That's a ridiculous simplification and is misleading. The question is, "When there is a teaching that contradicts core doctrines in the scriptures, which do we believe?" There is nothing in the endowment ceremony that contradicts the scriptures. The endowment ceremony having more knowledge than the scriptures isn't the same thing as contradicting knowledge found in the scriptures. Of course the prophet may reveal things that change Church policies, etc..., et al, and so on, yaddah yaddah yaddah. Everyone knows that. But no prophet will ever teach something that contradicts the Lord's words about certain unchanging doctrines. What doctrines are unchanging you may ask? God is the Father of our spirits; Jesus is our Savior from death and hell; we wil be resurrected by Christ's power; etc... I'm sure we could list more. The point is these are truths which will never change in the future. We are never going to "find out" that God really isn't the Father of our spirits, but maybe our Uncle instead...nor will a prophet reveal that Jesus isn't our Savior or that we don't need him to be saved. So when a prophet's comments (Brigham's odd Adam/God sermons) are the exact opposite of unchanging doctrines in the standard works (see my thread on why the Adam/God theory is false), we are to stick to the standard works for correct doctrine. Doesn't matter who says otherwise or what they teach...it's false if it contradicts the standard works. Don't make it a bigger issue than it is. It's not about rejecting the living prophet or rejecting the scriptures...it's not an either/or question...we accept both. But if there's ever a disparity in their teachings regarding core doctrines such as who our Father in Heaven really is...then we do reject the false teaching and cling to the standard works.

In the book of Moses (PoGP) God shows Moses numberless worlds that He had created. There are certainly other worlds with God's children living on them. Jesus Christ atoned for all of them and for the countless worlds which will no doubt roll into existence in the future as part of God's plan for His unborn spirit children. See D&C 88 (specifically vv. 51-61) for an interesting little parable about this topic.

Seems every three months or so this topic crops up again even though it's been beaten to death, past the river Styx and through the floor of Hades to the nether regions that have no name. *sigh* PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED CANONICAL, OFFICIAL LDS SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT THE ADAM/GOD THEORY IS FALSE. First: D&C 78:15 identifies Jesus as the Holy One. Verse 16 says the Holy One appointed Michael to be our prince, and that Michael has the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One. So if Adam were Heavenly Father, we'd have: (1) Jesus appointing his Father to be our prince; (2) the Father being directed by His Son. Ridiculous. Second: Adam--who is Michael--is called an arch-angel. If Adam were Heavenly Father, it'd be pretty stupid to call the supreme God an angel, be it an arch or any other type of angel. Third: Adam--who is Michael--is called a prince. Where did Jesus ever call the Father a "prince?" It'd be pretty stupid to call the supreme God a prince. Fourth: D&C 107 explains how the Lord comforted Adam before his death by saying, "I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever." (D&C 107:55). Again, where else in all scripture did Jesus ever comfort Heavenly Father, or "set" Him anywhere or exercise authority over Him? Nowhere. Fifth: Before Christ's Second Coming, all priesthood keys will be returned to Adam in Adam-Ondi-Ahman; Adam will then give all keys to Jesus there. It'd be ridiculous for God the Father to defer to His Son, or for the Son to let the Father defer to him. Sixth: The scriptures and prophets teach us that God the Father is perfect. Yet this perfect Father disobeyed a commandment and ate forbidden fruit, forfeiting His perfection and immortality? This perfect Father--after becoming a fallen mortal--died and had his spirit torn from his body, awaiting his resurrection? This perfect Father couldn't be resurrected until His son Jesus was? Remember, Jesus was the first to be resurrected (Acts 26:23). This perfect Father had not power to reunite his spirit and body without the aid of his Son Jesus? Um, yeah...bologna. All these facts together lead me to conclude that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young didn't believe that Adam, who is Michael, who is an arch-angel, who is a prince, who sinned and died, is the Heavenly Father we pray to. I have no problem with statements like, "Adam was the Father of Jesus," and "Adam is the Father of us all," etc... I read those differently than perhaps others do, and care not if the "f" in "Father" is capitalized or not. One capital letter doesn't make Adam the God we pray to. Adam is our common father, the father of us all--speaking in terms of heredity and DNA and mortality--but Adam is not the Father I pray to. Ultimately, we are nowhere taught to pray to Adam, or that we have to believe Adam is the God we pray to, to be saved in heaven. If prophets had taught that, well then, that'd be different. Show me one prophet who ever taught us to pray, "Our Dear Father in Heaven Adam, we thank Thee..." Show me one prophet who ever prayed that--in any record--and I'll consider the issue again. Barring that, everything else is symbolism, inuendo, metaphor or figurative speech.

Ah Luke, Luke, Luke...the naivete of the young (or unlearned). Joseph Smith was not correct in every single word that came out of his mouth. Neither was Brigham Young. In fact Brigham was wrong about many things. It's pretty infantile to say, "Well if they were wrong about x then they were wrong about y and z too and since they weren't wrong about y and z they must have been right about x!" Pretty circular. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually believed that Adam was our Heavenly Father, the literal Father of our Spirits and the personal father of Jesus Christ...and they wanted it accepted as official doctrine, they would have submitted it to the Church membership as a proposed addition to the Book of Commandments (aka D&C). The fact that they did not, and that desperate Adam/God theorists have to resort to extra-canonical sources speaks volumes about the theory...which is wrong, by the way. As for the promise that the President of the Church will never lead the Church astray...that's talking about revelations that actually affect what the Church is to believe and do. If a prophet writes a letter saying, "I believe 100% that Adam is our Heavenly Father," he's allowed to do that without making it official doctrine of the Lord's Church. Prophets are allowed to have opinions and speculate and interpret scripture just like the rest of us. Now note that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young never approached the Church about accepting the supposed Adam/God theory as doctrine. Even if they taught it publicly, it is not doctrine nor binding on Church members to believe it unless they say, "God revealed to me that Adam is the Father we worship and pray to, and I testify of that in the name of Jesus Christ and further submit that such revelation be added to the D&C as official LDS canonized scripture." But not one prophet ever said that. What they do is couch their theory in wording such as, "Now it's reasonable to assume..." and "Show me how it could be otherwise..." and "Prove me wrong," etc... A prophet revealing a divine truth from God doesn't use such language. It's clear that Brigham Young was theorizing in public and private about Adam's relationship to God, and was using arguments that were to him and others apparently, reasonable and logical. But he never said it's God's truth. All you Adam/God theorists have to swallow that. Sorry. No dice.

I appreciate your attempt to explain the Trinity to me further, PC. I just can't get past the fact that even in your example, there are three ones. I don't see what the point is of saying there are three persons if there is in reality only one being. Don't worry, I'm confident I'll never understand it (especially having been taught the LDS doctrine on the Godhead first).

<Oink, oink!> Hide your doctrinal pearls, gentlemen. Just a common swine here, nothing to worry about. <Oink, oink!> This swine does, however, base doctrinal beliefs on official LDS scriptures. Sue me. B)

My parents said, "This is our home and while you're in it we'd appreciate it if you respected our standards." This applied whenever we had girlfriends over (though not to stay the night, yikes!). Good luck to your bro and sis...here's hoping your mom acquires the resolve to wear her standards proudly and loudly.

Official LDS doctrine is that there are three separate Gods in the Godhead (though they're not equal in dominion or authority). We believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Testator. God the Father presides over the others. No matter how hard I try I can't wrap my head around the Trinity concept. It's just full of self-contradictions. One God but three persons of one essence shared by the three that are really one...makes my head hurt.

Of course we'll know who He is; He raised us as spirit beings before our mortal sojourn. This adamant belief in a few scattered and unofficial statements of past prophets astounds me. Michael/Adam is not our Heavenly Father, the Being we pray to, and who fathered Jesus Christ through the virigin Mary. The canon of LDS scripture proves this (as this thread has shown). To ask someone to set aside the official LDS scriptures in favor of someone's record of what past prophets supposedly said is absurd. p.s. Elohim is already the plural form of "god" in Hebrew. What's with the "Eloheim?"

And that's what it boils down to. The scriptural condemnations of multiple gods is almost always a "ye shall not serve other gods" injunction. In essence, God is saying, "I am the only God ye are to worship, I am the only source of salvation from death and hell." Believing in a God/god is not the same as worshipping them. Sure LDS believe the Godhead is composed of three Gods. But we only pray to God the Father. We don't pray to Jesus or the Holy Ghost. We worship God the Father in the name of Christ Jesus. If Trinitarians aren't polytheists because they only worship one God, then LDS aren't polytheists either. It comes down to how you're defining polytheism. Is it just believing in the existence of more than one God? If so, LDS are polytheists as are Trinitarians. Is it believing in and praying to/worshipping more than one God? If so, neither LDS nor Trinitarians are polytheists. What's confusing about that?

CC, I'd suggest reading the Book of Mormon. The answers to most if not all of your questions are contained in it. www.scriptures.lds.org has all of the official scriptures of the LDS Church online.

I think it is key to separate "worship" from "prayer." We worship God the Father in the name of the Son. We also pray to God the Father in the name of the Son. We worship Jesus by serving him and those around us, and keeping his commandments. However, we do not pray to Jesus. Thus, we worship both the Father and the Son (the Son passes all worship up to the Father anyway), but we only pray to God our Father. Anyone who believes in the Trinity is polytheistic. Period. The scriptures bear this out. Either there are three or there is one God. Can't have it both ways. The question is do we pray to all three members of the Godhead. The answer is no.

I gained a new understanding of hometeaching when I was an Elder's Quorum President. We simply didn't have enough worthy brethren to visit all the families on the records. Well, not without giving each companionship 12 or more families/individuals each! What it came down to was me sitting down with the Relief Society President and evaluating all the members on the records. We had to decide who needed hometeaching "the most," as bad as that sounds. Then, we made sure the neediest were covered and if we had the ability to visit more then that was great. I'm sure we didn't judge everything perfectly, but in many cases it is a matter of "who needs this most right now?"

Cool stuff, Blessed. :) I'd love to hear how the visit goes. Hopefully the Elders will be polite and listen as well as talk.

I've never played Everquest, though I've heard of it. Anyone else tried it?

May the force be with you.

Alright Void, added you to my friends on Xbox Live. My schedule is weird, but hopefully we can meet up sometime and toast some frigid beasties in Lost Planet. B)

"Lost Planet" is freakin' awesome! I love that game. Haven't tried it online yet though. Have you? The in-game graphics look almost pre-rendered at times. Beauty.

Here's one of my earlier posts dealing with this: I found the above article to be sound and I agree with much of it. There are a number of things which are not taught or discussed among LDS Church members that bear consideration. The main problem most LDS members have with evolution is that it requires the occurence of the death of billions of organisms over millions of years to account for the fossil record in the strata of the earth's crust. Yet the scriptures say there was no death before the Fall of Adam (Moses 6:48, 59). How can these two seemingly contradictory teachings be harmonized? There is a way for both views to be correct at the same time. The first clue is found in the Pearl of Great Price. Readers should note that the account of creation in the Book of Moses is a record of the spiritual creation of the earth and the life forms inhabiting it, etc... while the account of creation in the Book of Abraham is a record of the physical creation of the earth and the life forms inhabiting it, etc... Abraham 5:3 says the Gods decided to sanctify the earth on the seventh day of the physical creation. Well okay, what does sanctify mean in this context? Does it just mean to designate it as a day of rest? Or could it mean something else entirely? Let's turn to D&C 77:12 for the answer: "Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation? A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming." I've put important bits in bold type. I'm not putting forth this idea as gospel truth (if you'll pardon the pun), but bear with me if you'd be so kind. This verse links the sanctification of the earth and all life on it on the seventh "day" of creation with the sanctification of the earth that will take place at the beginning of the Millennium, after Christ's Second Coming. Well I won't list all the scriptures but I'm sure we're all pretty familiar with the fact that during the Millenium there will be no death, the earth will be changed (valleys exalted, mountains brought low, etc...) and essentially "translated" into a more glorious state than it now occupies. So we have sanctification being loosely defined as changing a telestial planet where death occurs into a more glorious planet where there is no death. Hmmm, a glorified earth without death...sound like the conditions of the earth during Adam and Eve's stay in the Garden of Eden prior to their Fall? Well if you look at D&C 77:12 again, it not only says that the earth wasn't sanctified (which involves banishing death if we define sanctification according to the sanctification of the world during the Millennium) until the seventh "day" of creation, but it also says that on the seventh "day" of creation is when man was formed of the dust of the earth...basically, when Adam and Eve were placed in Eden. So let's construct a few syllogisms, shall we? Syllogism #1: A. During the Millenium, there will be no death and the earth will become more glorious than it now is; B. D&C 77:12 calls this change "sanctification;" Therefore... C. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death. Taking the C from above and using it as the starting point for a new syllogism: Syllogism #2: A. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death; B. D&C 77:12 says God sanctified the earth on the seventh "day" of its creation process; Therefore... C. For the first "six" days of the earth's creation process, it was unsanctified. Taking the first and second syllogism's C's we form the next syllogism: Syllogism #3: A. For the first "six" days of the earth's creation process, it was unsanctified; B. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death; Therefore... C. Before the seventh "day" of creation when the earth was sanctified, there could have been death among the forms of life inhabiting it. Note again how D&C 77:12 links the placement of man onto the earth with its sanctification. This sanctification can rightly be called "a beginning." It was the beginning of the earth's existence in a more glorious, death-free state, and it was the beginning of mankind's existence on this new death-free earth. So... Syllogism #4: A. The earth was sanctified on the seventh "day" of creation; B. Adam and Eve were formed of the dust of the earth on the seventh "day" of creation; Therefore... C. There was no death on the earth after the arrival of Adam and Eve, until their Fall. Hence, Adam truly did bring death into the world with his and Eve's transgression. This does not preclude the possibility that life forms inhabiting the earth could have died before the earth's seventh-"day"-sanctification. As we've seen, sanctification is linked with changing matter and life to a death-less state of existence (as per the Millennial change to come). So for first six "days" of the earth's creation process, all manner of life could have lived, multiplied, and died on the earth, leaving massive amounts of fossil data for us to uncover in our day. But, after the seventh "day" when the earth was sanctified and Adam and Eve were placed on it, there would have been no death if Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the forbidden fruit. With these concepts in mind, it is entirely possible to marry the seemingly contradictory ideas proposed by science and faith, namely: First, the idea that organisms (simple and complex) lived and died for millions of years in this earth's ancient existence; and, Second, the idea that there was no death prior to Adam's Fall after the earth was sanctified or made death-free on the seventh period of creation. Remember, Abraham's account of the earth's physical creation refers to the seven periods as "times," not "days" as does Moses's account of the earth's spiritual creation. Furthermore, Abraham never states that the seven periods of time were equal in duration. So one last syllogism: Syllogism #5: A. For six periods of time in the earth's creation process death could have existed among the many life forms living on it (since it was not yet sanctified); B. The earth was sanctified or made death-free in the same period of time (seventh) when Adam and Eve were placed on the newly-sanctified earth; Therefore... C. After the earth was sanctified, there would have been no death from the time Adam and Eve arrived until their Fall, hence Adam did bring death into the world as the scriptures teach. I'm not saying this is the gospel truth. I'm proposing a way of reading and interpreting scripture and scientific data that allows both to exist side-by-side without contradiction. I will leave you all to draw your own conclusions. My view about all of this is liquid and dynamic, open to change as new facts and/or revelations come to light. For now, I take the stance that death could have existed prior to the earth's seventh-day-sanctification, but not after Adam and Eve arrived on the earth until they transgressed. These concepts are explored in greater depth in the excellent book "Earth in the Beginning," by LDS author Erik N. Skousen, Ph.D.

The Big Bang defined: In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.

I have a testimony of the power of obeying the Word of Wisdom. After my dad was hit by a driver having a seizure, he was in a coma and had extensive skeletal and brain damage. Despite all the expectations of the doctors, he did not develop pneumonia (sp?) or a host of other "complications" they expected him to develop. The doctors commented repeatedly that my dad was in great health for a then 51 year old. He has obeyed the Word of Wisdom his whole life. God blessed him with health in his navel and marrow in his bones (D&C 89:18), even after a horrific car crash. God promised my father that He would do this if my father obeyed the Word of Wisdom. My father obeyed. God came through. I don't care why we aren't to drink coffee or teas, alcohol, etc... I only care about acquiring the blessings God has promised the obedient. And God does bless the obedient. We either choose to be blessed or we forfeit the riches of God's bounty.

Good luck with the new job Trav. God bless, I've enjoyed our discussions.

Dang Ben, I didn't know you played Gears of War! Sometime we'll have to rev up a chainsaw on Xbox Live. B) My username there is...you guessed it...CrimsonKairos. By the way, your entertainment system setup sounds ridiculously sweet!

Wow, I hadn't noticed all the replies to this thread until just now. So I'm not the only video game lover. Sa-weet! Sugarbay, you do know about emulators for computers, right? You can play tons of NES, SuperNES, and N64 games on your PC. The legality is questionable, unless you own the actual games and system, so I won't post any links, but if you Google "Project64" and "N64 roms" you should find some cool stuff. Yes, the Xbox 360 can overheat. That's why I have the Nyko intercooler (though the sucker's louder than sin). That's one thing I'll give the PS3 credit for...it's whisper-quiet compared to the 360. The Wii looks fun, but I doubt I'll buy one. Being a cinematographer/videographer and into high-res (or HD if you wish), the Wii's 480p resolution is laughable compared to both the Xbox 360 and PS3's 1080i/p ability. Long live HD! B) miztrniceguy: If you get a PS2, you have to get "Shadow of the Colossus!" Read about it here. Then again, you may not be into action adventure games.

Can't drink coffee, but is it okay to drink decaf coffee? Hmmm. Why not ask: I know we're not supposed to have sex with anyone outside of marriage...but what if it's "dry sex" (a.k.a. Levi-lovin', et al). After all, it's not really sex...