church girl

OK. As a member of the LDS church, do you not have a Bishop? I do. I think it safe to say there are hundreds of them, and they are all called Bishop. All of the offices in church and priesthood have this in common, MORE THAN ONE PERSON CAN ACT IN THAT OFFICE. I believe that the LDS people have more information on the multiplicity of gods and the various offices that they assume, than any other people under the heavens. I think this understanding is critical to the understanding of who's who in the scriptures. "The Son" is an office. Also, where is there a son without a father? The father of Jesus of Nazareth must have also been a Son and could just as easily act as such just as an Elder can act in an Aaronic office. In the scriptures, the character of God introduces himself as the Father and the Son. Bear in mind too that the bible dictionary and cross references were done by well intentioned, but possibly mis-informed man, not God. Not in my bible(KJV) John 4:26 He referred to himself as the Messias in conversing with the woman at the well. You are right, moving the comma helps. The title or office"Iam" does refer to God, so then, before Abraham, was God. He is not claiming to be God himself. The god of the OT and early BOM referred to himself many times as " the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end", etc. These and other titles Jesus of Nazareth never claimed/used for himself. These scriptures are indeed filled with such references. However, if you look closely,there are subtle differences. I am not saying that Jesus Christ didn't create the heavens and the earth and all things therein, I am suggesting that it was not the character you have eluded to. The office of Christ is that of creator. An unembodied spirit , such as Jesus had in the pre-mortal sphere, cannot create an earth, man, or any other tangible thing(in the mortal sense) . It requires a resurrected being that has qualified to be a god. Mortality must be a prerequisite for such exaltation, or all we do here is in vain. There would be no point to mortality. Also, if Jesus of Nazareth created man in his own image(Ether 3:15), then that makes our elder brother our spiritual father. Oh it gets better. If you follow that line of thinking, then Jesus( our "father and God")came to Mary(his mother) in the meridian of time and sired himself. I am not trying to make light of the the subject, but to put Jesus of Nazareth into the position of God in all times and places only brings confusion to my mind. I guess if all else fails, go back to the endowment. All these things are answered therein, but I can't very well use it as a reference. This is where my understanding came from so I have a hard time proving anything.

What are you refering to as Triune?

I don't necessarily disagree, (and I am just throwing stuff out here),but just what if ...no, I better save that one for later. How so? Lets at least look at one of your references. I prefer BOM , but the Bible will do.

Oh, that is very true. We arent the first to pass through mortality as a test. I agree with you, and apologize for not pointing that out in the beginning. Yet, are there different qualifications in the preexistence as lets say.... mortality? I was just trying to lay out some ideas. That sounds a bit apostate, yet the only reason that spark this current train of thought is that Jesus was part of Deity in the preexistence. No one else achieved that. Jesus of course had to go through this earth and get sealed, etc. But Jesus was Jehovah before going through mortality. Hence, my questions/ train of thought. Do I explain myself a little bit? Again, everything seems to flow until we try and put Jesus of Nazareth as the "God" of the old testament and early Book of Mormon. Jesus has a father who, as I understand the doctrine, had already passed through everything he sent his son to do. The only way the scriptures make sense to me is if the person we call "Father in Heaven" is also known as Jehovah, the god of the old testament. Any thoughts? CrimsonKairos How did you conclude that they where the same being?

I don't disagree with what you've said. Apparently we aren't using the same definition of "god" As xhenli pointed out, there can be many ways to interpret it. Would it be unreasonable to say that it was the office of Christ, someone who had fulfilled that calling, that was speaking in the pre-meridian sctiptures( such as Ether 3) and not necessarily the character that we know as Jesus of Nazareth? From this prospective, scriptures like Ether 3 make a whole lot more sense to me.

Adomini I think the rules where established long before this earth was even created. Just because the peopling of this earth had not commenced at the time, the whole plan of salvation was very much established, it being the same eternities without end. The trick here is to know and understand that plan.

Where did Joseph say that?

I believe the statistics in the church are quite different. Not the births, but the ratio of available worthy males vs. available worthy females. I have heard reports that the men are out numbered, but I don't know exactly how much.

CrimsonKairos D&C does state that one does have to be married by proper authority, but that union must also be sealed by the holy spirit of promise( which is not simply priesthood authority ) to be binding or efficacious in the next life. The way I understand Jesus progression, he was the first born of the Father in the pre-mortal sphere, our elder brother if you will. The same rules would obviously have to apply to him as us, therefore he would have to sojourn in mortality and live worthily, just like we do, in order to become a god. He obviously far exceeded any other man on earth in righteousness, but was none the less subject to the same law, as he amply demonstrated himself in the New Testament . If any of us could have become Gods in the pre-mortal sphere, what could possibly compel one to go through mortality? Furthermore, one must be resurrected to be a god. Spirit and body inseparably connected. If he where a god previous to his entering mortality, he could not have been killed on the cross. So I agree with you, but don't.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary FUNDAMENT'AL, n. A leading or primary principle, rule, law or article, which serves as the ground work of a system; essential part; as the fundamentals of the Christian faith. The gospel as restored, taught, and lived by Joseph Smith jr. is the above for me, which makes me a Fundamentalist Mormon. The vast majority of Fundamentalists that I know are monogamists. I, however, am a plural wife.

To my understanding God is unchanging , everlasting to everlasting, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I believe some reasons for this are: If he wasn't constant, mankind could not have much if any faith in him. Also, as we are governed by Gods law,in theory at least, so too is he governed by law, eternal law. I don't see how he can break, suspend, abrogate, or release from an eternal law. He can bar people from access to the higher laws and has done so because of the disobedients or corruptness of the people( As in Exodus). When the law was taken from the people, so where the blessings that are predicated upon the living of that law. They where given the lower law and in turn, could only receive the blessings for those laws. Even though Israel was given a lower law, Moses, at least, and probably his close associates, received and kept the higher law that was intended for all Israel.

Temporary comfort? That's an interesting turn of speech concerning the survival of God's Church. It wasn't about comfort. It was about being able to continue to administer the gospel and ordinances of salvation. It's not like the choice was, "Practice polygamy and live in a cardboard box, or abandon it and have a mansion." It was, "Practice polygamy and have your Church cease to exist overnight, or abandon it and retain the legal right to serve God as you choose." Comfort had nothing to do with it. The latter part seems an oxymoron. "Practice polygamy and have your Church cease to exist overnight, or abandon it and retain the legal right to serve God as you choose." Comfort had nothing to do with it. What legal right did the people of the church obtain, to serve God as they chose? The hierarchy of the church at the time chose to live the full law of celestial marriage including a plurality of wives. What further right did they obtain from the government by giving up that principle? It was a loss of thir rights to serve theirr God as they saw fit. It matters not which principle was abrogated, the loss of any part leaves the balance lacking or incomplete. I am not criticising Willford Woodruff for what he did for the temporal salvation of the church. As I believe he was a prophet of God, I can only assume he had good reasons for issueing the manifesto of 1890. However, his actions and the actions of his associates after the manifesto tell me that they (those that presided over the preisthood) where still under obligation to keep that principle( celestial plural marriage) alive. A very limited search of the court procedings and the testimony given by these men under oath will ll prove that.

The ancient Rabbinical law required marriage to qualify to be a Rabbi. Somewhere in the 20th century certain groups or sects changed the law requiring marriage. Today some sects hold to the old ways, others do not. This may explain the opposing answeres you found. The ancient law is found in the Talmud and is presumedly there because the very first commandment given to man was to muliply and replentish the earth. At any rate, the Jewish culture was big on marriage.

Dr T Many here have been attempting to illustrate the reasons why and give evidence that Jusus was married. Can you provide Scriptural reasons or even logical ones for his being unmarried?

One think to bear in mind when looking for the plain and simple truth in the bible, it quite possibly won't be there. 1 Nephi 13:24-29 An angel explains to Nephi how many plain and preciuos things where taken from the bible by the great and abominable church for there own purposes. Now if you have a church that, lets say for instance, taught celabacy as a higher order and had complete access or control over the written word of God, perhaps during the dark ages, would not that church then stand to gain from ommitting certain facts about marriage? That is not to say there are not still many references left that support the idea that Jesus was mrried. There are actually Biblical references that support what the angel told Nephi.

Well, As I understand Mormonism, and probably most Christian denominations, Jesus is our example. A perfect example. We were commanded to be like him (Matt 5:48, 3 Nephi 12:48), a difficult task if we don't know him. I know it seems odd, but there are many people that believe Jesus was celibate and therefore celibacy is a higher order.

Unless I misunderstand, you have just eliminated most anyone that would have any motive to research and publish on the subject. I'm limited to atheist authors/recourses?

When has God ever taken into account whether or not a particular municipality would approve of his divine will? If there were a water shortage in Europe and baptism was outlawed, then what? The practice of plural marriage was against the law of the land since it began in the 1800's. As a child we listened to the faith promoting stories of Christians as they smuggled bibles into Russia in opposition to the then law of the land, and the many miracles that happened as God delivered them from the authorities. We perceive that the Christians of the ancient church suffered a martyrs death as they where thrown to the lions ( it was illegal to be a Christian), we are inspired by their commitment to the gospel despite their sufferings. And there are many more examples of the same. The rules seem to change when it's our turn or a principle conflicts with our traditions. I think that if God wants something done, a man made law is going to be the least of his concerns.

Dr. T That conclusion came from my study of the jewish culture, laws, and customs of that era. It might take me a while to show resources as it was several years ago. It's not hard at all to prove, just takes time.

Polygamy was not only legal in the time that Jesus of Nazereth was upon the earth, but a requirement for a Rabbi, and the scriptures show that he was a Rabbi. Ogden Kraut simply compiled references pertinent to the Saviors marital status, no one claimed he was an authority. Also, doesn't Mormonism claim all truth no matter where it is found?

Maybe we should wait for the millenium to be baptized or pay tithing, etc. If one principle can be put on hold, why not all of them? Doesn't make sense to me.

I have to agree whole heartedly with Lionheart. If the principles of salvation can change from one president to the next, how can any faith be put in any of the gospel? And what about the poor shmo that did everything the current president told him, then the next pres says it's all backwards, do it another way. Would a just God require X Y Z of one saint for exaltation, and only X from another? How is that just? This is why God is unchanging, a rock upon wich our faith can be placed, not some wishy washy, change with evry tide of opposition pansy.

Father in heaven is not only just and merciful, he is a very loving father. I do not know how anyone could have any kind of relationship with Him and not know this to be true. "For behold, this is my work and my glory- to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses1:39. It would be impossible for him to instigate any program that was not calculated to bring a fullness of joy and exaltation to all those who obey him. If he did, he would cease to be God, for God cannot lie. So there is really nothing to worry about or stress over in any facet or principle of the gospel as long as we trust in him.