brotherofJared

This one piqued my interest. Was Jesus a God in embryo during his mortal probation? I don't think so. What did Jesus mean when he said: "I said ye are gods" (ps 82 and John 10)? Did he mean ye are gods in embryo or did he mean ye are gods? The idea that there is any such thing as a god in embryo, seems to be contradictive to the nature of a God which is not something we "graduate" into. It is something that we are. I believe we can stop being what we are, but I don't believe that we can start being something that we aren't especially if that something is supposedly eternal. That requires addressing the question, what is a god? D&C 132 at around verse 20: … which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. I believe the key to the definition of a god is that "they continue [the seeds]" or that they have power to continue the seeds. Nevertheless, the above description makes no requirement for perfection to being gods nor does it even require one to be sinless. If we consider Ps 82, it is easy to see that the beings that God called gods were not perfect and had a propensity for doing evil or bad things. Despite their wrongdoings, he still called them gods. I believe our definition of what a god is, is far different than what God defines a god is. God creates. We create. God continues the seeds. We are promised to be able to continue the seeds (and we are certainly doing that now). God has knowledge of good and evil. We also have knowledge of good and evil. Couple what we have with eternity and providing we don't lose what we have, then I don't see how we can stop being gods unless we choose to ... if the above definition is accurate.

I don't see that is sacrifices were made as a mockery. Please show me where Cain understood that only blood sacrifices were acceptable and all others were a mockery. If you can't show it, then there was nothing "wrong" with Cain's sacrifice. The problem wasn't the sacrifice, the problem was with Cain, in his heart. I believe you are speculating about whether or not Cain was condemned because of his mocking sacrifice. He may have been, but we know for sure he was when he killed his brother. When he did that, he wasn't worshiping.

That quote isn't from the KJV, but the reason why we worship is not the same as worship. I see no correlation between being ignorant of what and who we worship, but we do the best we can with what we understand and the story of Cain. I also do not see where the Lord condemned Cain for the way he worshiped. When @prisonchaplain offered his statement not worshiping the way he worshiped was a serious error, I assumed that meant that we'd be condemned for it. @person0 asked why it would be a serious error and I'm still waiting for the answer to that. My question is actually very specific to what and who we worship, not the reason we worship nor acts of evil that we perform in the name of worship. Evil is evil and it cannot be justified by religion (which creates a serious problem because God commanded genocide in the old testament which is an act of evil and I'm afraid I would rebel). The reason we worship is an issue that is a common malady in our worship today. I do not think that Satan actually told Cain to offer sacrifice in a literal or verbal way, but rather influenced his decision to worship with the expectation of reward and when Abel obtained that reward but Cain didn't, that caused the rift which Satan expected. Abel wasn't really looking for rewards, his offering was a thanksgiving offering, not an expectation offering. I can see that Cain's worship was less that perfect or sincere, but still God did not condemn Cain for the way he worshiped, at least, not that I can see

Hmmm. A lifetime of experience has taught me the opposite as well. Your statement, "I think most speculation is dead wrong" is, in itself, speculation. We can't get away from it and I believe your statement is dead wrong, IMO. I don't really see the difference between speculation and reasoned assumptions. But, that's my view. I would just say, don't fall in love with your reasoned assumptions because you might be wrong and as long as we understand that, then speculations or reasoned assumptions are not unhealthy in any way,.

What is truth? I agree that if we have the truth our worship would be more effective, but worshiping according to our understanding may not be truth, but I do not see where it would be a serious error.

I said elsewhere that I have no idea what "fraudulent attempts" were made at worship by Cain. But my point has been, all along, did God condemn Cain for the way he worshiped... that's the vein I'm driving at. Quite frankly, even LDS worship much like Cain did. We bring fruits, even the first fruits of our labor, but seem to have expectations that when they are not met, we act in predictable ways, often out of offense or jealousy or lethargy. Cain was condemned for what he did, not for the sacrifices he offered.

Yes. I concede that there are wrong ways to worship. When that worship includes breaking the commandments of God, then it is wrong. But I understood the discussion was about our understanding of who and what God is. In that sense, it does not matter if a person thinks God is 3 in 1 or 3 of 3 or a great spirit, nor does it matter what His name is, whether one person calls Him Allah and another person calls him Father or another person calls him by any other name. In this, there is no wrong way to worship. It doesn't even matter if our prayers to such a being are scripted or free form, but taking the life of another person as a form of worship is wrong or if that worship broke any of the other commandments of God as part of that worship.

I think it's healthy to speculate. I think it's unhealthy to deny one of our basic driving motivators that enables us to reach higher than ourselves. There is the ridiculous that should be avoided, but I've found that people who get ridiculous about their speculations are usually ridiculous about everything else (they just seem to come up with odd ideas about anything they choose to do). In the Gospel principles manual, we have general authorities being quoted that we will create worlds and people them with our own spirit children. That's speculation. I personally think that's absurd speculation, but it stems from what we believe that God did for us though we have no clue how He did it. We just believe that we will be able to do whatever He did and that's reasonable because Gods do what Gods do, right? But who knows what a God does but God? We have some idea of what a God does by the life of Jesus Christ, but that doesn't help much with what we're going to be doing after we die. We understand that we will have some interaction, however little that is, in the lives of those who will live on worlds like this one. There are two things we can glean from the scriptures. 1. We, as resurrected beings, will have almost no interaction with those beings. and 2. The one who will interact with them the most will be one who will actually live on their planet with them (He will be one of them as opposed to being one of us - I hope that statement is understandable. non-LDS Christians will have a hard time with that concept, but the being we had the most contact with is the Messiah, the Savior, not God the Father, who is a resurrected being. We also know from some specific statements what we'll be doing and that gives us a clue too. According to Joseph Smith, a god is defined as one who continues the seeds and that isn't really that hard to do since we kind of already do that. Meeting that condition is not hard to do and it is something we can do without a lot of training or learning. We don't have to be perfect to do it. Now, as far as what our Heavenly Mother is doing, I think a lot of women would like to know especially when one considers the possibility of eternal polygamy, so Yeah, speculate away. The way things stand right now, we need a better understanding of the woman's role in the resurrection and why it is that they never talk to their supposed "spirit offspring". Frankly, I think we have it all wrong. First off, becoming a God doesn't mean we'll go off and do our own thing. God certainly wasn't doing his own thing. From what I can gather, the work of God is a community effort and will always be a community effort. Anyway, like I said, I think it's healthy to speculate and to share it and try to defend it. In the exchange of ideas, we can draw closer to the truth.

The same could be said of the victims of Christian worship or the victims who chose not to worship as Christians worship.

Again, the question isn't just about the wrong way to worship, it's about what God is going to do about it on judgment day. I fully agree with you about wrong ways to worship. I believe worshiping a 3 in 1 God is just as wrong as thinking that Jesus is only a prophet. There is enough support for that idea from the Bible, that many who also claim to believe the Bible also believe that Jesus wasn't God. So, there is only one truth about who and what God is. Everything else is wrong. But given what we know, i don't think it is realistic to condemn one person who things God is 3 in 1 or 3 of 3 or 1 but that one isn't Jesus because there is no absolute proof which of these He is. I'm not aware that Jesus condemned anyone for their ignorance. What it all boils down to is men condemning other men because they don't happen to believe the same way. It's not something that God would do.

This issue with the prophets of Baal wasn't about the people who worshiped Baal. It was about the Israelites who seemed to be confused. Was the Red Sea parted? Did the Israelites walk across the river Jordan on dry ground when they entered the promised land? Didn't the wall of Jericho fall based on the exercise of simple faith? Did God feed them in the wilderness? The list goes on and on. The problem wasn't about ignorant people who worship whatever they worship. The problem is about a people who constantly left their God for other gods. The Israelites knew better, but they chose to indulge themselves in the freedoms that these other gods permitted or even encouraged. It had nothing to do with the people who worshiped Baal. God didn't kill them or punish them, they were doing that to themselves.

You'll have to explain how what they did is called worship. I suppose killing one's brother is a very wrong way to worship, but perhaps we understand worship a little differently. The point I was trying to make, however; relates to who and what we worship. If one has no teacher sent from God, then the best we can do is what we teach each other pending a day when a teacher is sent. But I guess we'll just have to disagree on the wrong way and the right way to worship. I just don't know how anyone can be so self-important as to dictate to others the right way to worship. You can't prove your 3 in 1 God any more than we can prove our 3 of 3 Gods. There is no physical evidence. I have yet to see how it would make a difference to how one worships if they believe your way or our way. Where is the serious error? (I assume if the error is serious, it would mean damnation and until you show me where God condemned anyone for the way they worshiped,, the condemnation is manmade and not from God at all. The way I see it, if one goes to the commandments and uses the Bible, then as long as they keep the commandments and worship God the way the Bible teaches, then He is worshiping the right way, regardless of what they think His nature is. Again, the problem I'm having is getting an answer to why it is a serious error to worship God according to one's understanding of the Bible regardless of whether they are right or wrong about their understanding of His oneness.

I'm just wondering, why do you feel you need to share this counsel with me?

I apologize for using your post to clarify my point. It was a debate I had with myself whether I should or not and I chose incorrectly. I won't make that mistake again.

I agree that there isn't a label that descibes our form of worship. One of those labels that isn't accurate is monotheist. My pick for the closest label that fits our belief system is polytheist because there are three Gods in the Godhead. Three separate and distinct beings. Now, back to the question at hand, why would God condemn me for believing as I do, even if it was wrong? The point being made here and on fairmormon is that our belief, a 3 in 1 God is not that much different that what most other Christians believe. The stumbling block comes in the idea that God the Father, is an immaterial being without a body. We believe he has a body and yet, we all believe that there are three Gods who are one. Most other Christians can no more claim they are monotheists than we can. But again, what is this a point of contention? Why would God condemn anyone for not correctly understanding the character of God?

By the definition of a pantheon, if there are three Gods in the Godhead, by definition. However, I don't believe we worship the Godhead. I don't even know how one could do that from our religion's perspective. The idea that we worship a pantheon is false since we worship God the Father and as much as I think McConkie got a lot of things wrong, I gleaned that from one of his talks which happened to be about heresies. Saying this, generally, we pray to the Father as Jesus indicated that we should. That is not meant to degrade or subordinate Christ in any way. I know that there are occasions when prayers were offered to Christ and he didn't stop them from doing so, but I have to believe that those were special occasions.

It is neither heretical nor is it deadly. Purgatory is spelled out in D&C 76 These are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the blast resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work. The principle qualifying factor between any of these glories is who one is willing to accept as God, from what I can tell. Telestial, accept the Holy Ghost or the being best described in the creeds, The terrestrial accept Jesus but not the Father and the Celestial accept the Father. The other major factor is the glory they are willing to abide, meaning the law they are willing to obey. If one can progress from hell to the telestial kingdom, it seems that their only limit would be based on what they were willing to obey and who they were willing to accept. I see no reason we cannot see a person who is willing to accept the Father and obey the Celestial law cannot advance, like all the other sinners to be in the Celestial kingdom with them. Like others have stated here, it is not likely that they would be willing to do something for eternity that they were not willing to do for a small moment in time. However, with encouragement from family, it must be feasible that it could be done. As far as I know, nothing but McConkie says otherwise.

Exactly! With McConkie, it was either my way or the highway and McConkie got a lot of things wrong.

I believe that the statement that Joseph Smith made meant, simply, that God was once a man on an earth just like we now are and has experienced all that we now experience. In other words, God is one of us. He was dispelling the myth that God is a being that lives outside of time and space and has no connection with us at all. No amount of study about what God did would lead one to God. In fact, I would think that a neutral study of Christ would lead a person to question whether Jesus knew what he was doing because it all relied on things that were not yet realized and still aren't realized. However, if one is convinced that Christ is who he said he was, the study would be quite different. It's not the study of the character of God that brings us to him or even enables us to strive to be more like him, but; there is a separate element which draws us to him which cannot be found in books or even association, had we been alive in his day. There are two things that I believe lead to this, 1) His message is familiar to us, we knew him before and heard this before. and 2) the inexplicable blessing of a witness that He has what we are looking for, that He is the way. Then our study of him will be more meaningful, but such a study will not reveal how truly close to us He actually is. To get this "first principle", we needed a teacher sent from God.

I believe that members of the church have a pretty good idea of what they are getting into with this whole Celestial kingdom thing, especially if they are married with children. But the Celestial kingdom has something for everyone who wants to be there. Singles get all the power, but no added glory and there will be those that have no power but get to be there and just basically go along for the ride. So, if one just wants to visit friends and family, they will be able to do that. I don't think there will be any "if you don't do your chores, you'll be relegated to the Telestial kingdom for 2 Millenium" kind of situations.

I think it's interesting to note that his son also had differing views.

I did teach that to my class and they all revolted. Now I'm not in the EQ presidency anymore. LOL .The temple endowment clearly shows a movement up and down the rungs and as far as I can see, there is no difference between Romney's and Smith's statements concerning the rungs of Jacob's ladder. These are all temple related. As I was thinking about this, we symbolize the Terrestrial world in the temple, but in reality we are still in a telestial world. IOW, when we go to the temple, we repeatedly climb that ladder only to return to our telestial world. Joseph also indicated that by sealing our posterity, family, in the temple, we can reach through the eternities and bring them with us or words to that effect. The idea is that a lost son or daughter can be recovered from their condition and brought up with us. How is this possible if Bruce's concept of being locked into a particular kingdom is correct. We already know that many who will live in the telestial kingdom will arrive there after spending time in hell. The workings of life hereafter is not well known and there is very little doctrine concerning it. However, it is evident that many have asked questions about it and some have obtained answers that, when it was received, it was significant enough to be included in the scriptures. Two instances come to mind, though there are many subtle statements, mostly made in parables, but the two that come to mind are Joseph Fielding Smith's preaching to gospel to the dead and Alma the Younger's explanation about the state of the soul betwixt the time of death and the resurrection. Outside of these, there is precious little so everything else is speculation. I personally think McConkie taught the gospel according to McConkie. He said several things that I just can't accept, so I wouldn't rely on him as the final word on anything. He is one GA who has had to apologize for more statements than any other GA I know, but a lot of members still accept what he said as gospel and I think that is why I had such a hard time with my lesson. The source of my topic actually came from Elder Oaks' talk referring tot he woman who wanted to know if she would have a separate house or would have to live with her husband's other wife in the same house. The gist of that talk was that we not dwell on speculation nor teach it in our classes. Specifically, he stated that such conversations are ok for small intimate groups but are inappropriate for a public discourse. Joseph Fielding Smith made this statement: Those born under the covenant, throughout all eternity, are the children of their parents. Nothing except the unpardonable sin, or sin unto death, can break this tie. If children do not sin as John says, "unto death," the parents may still feel after them and eventually bring them back near to them again.... If this is true, it seems that parents can reach their children and bring them up with them. How is this possible without the possibility of moving up from one capacity to another, from one glory to another? Joseph Smith said pretty much the same thing in the KFD. He said this continues until the resurrection. It would have to also continue in the spirit world in that time between death and the resurrection. The question then becomes, when is the resurrection and frankly, I don't think anyone can specify when the last resurrection will be, but I suspect will will be a sufficient time for every person who will have lived on this earth to accept or reject the teachings of Christ. We cannot force anyone to do something they don't want to do. I personally believe that every person will obtain the kingdom they are willing to accept the principles that govern that kingdom. We might think that given the chance, everyone will want to do what God does, but I don't think that's true. What God does is hard. It's painful and comes along with a lot of grief, but it also comes along with a lot of inexplicable joy. There are some people who simply are not willing pay the price.The joy they have without the grief is enough. And what about those who had the truth here and then turned away? That is not really a subject we can judge. I know we teach there are no second chances, but how can we say who really had it the first time? We can't. I would never suggest that anyone decide on these ideas that they can let go of the iron rod and play in the mist of darkness because even if they ende up in the great and spacious building, they might still have a chance at celestial glory. Those who are on the right path have so much the advantage over those who never had it and over those who decided to take a vacation from it. I am curious about what others have said on this subject... Good topic.

My point was that sin isn't always or even the most common reason people leave the church (It may be the most common reason people become outspoken and align with obvious anti-Mormon propaganda after they leave). We make the assumption that everyone goes to church because they have a witness that it's true. I believe the majority (mostly among the youth, but if among adults, it's 50 50 I think) of people who attend, don't have that witness. My biggest challenge came after I had a witness of its truth. When I wasn't active, or should I say, when I was actively not being active, I had no problems with the church whatsoever. Once I started going to church, I was super excited about the good news and then one day, some anti Mormon guy showed me some material from the Journal of Discourses and I was floored. I honestly felt that the church was lying to me and I was offended. Was I doing some sinful things then? Yes, but no more than what I do now. Sin had nothing to do with the reason I felt so betrayed. People are having to deal with this all the time now. It has nothing to do with sin. A husband's wife refuses to marry him in the temple because of polygamy (eternal polygamy). Parents are hurt that their grandchildren can't be baptized until they are 18 (old now, I believe and no longer policy). Good members all their lives and bam, out of nowhere their faith is challenged. Mean and hurtful things that the church does, even though we can reason that it wasn't done to hurt us specifically. These things have nothing to do with sin. In fact, sometimes it is repented sin that causes the pain the most. I listen to some conference talks and I think, baloney. Some of us will carry a scarlet letter for life and we have to deal with it everywhere we go, even if it was our fault that it got put there. Some of us will have to deal with the consequences of those things. I have one friend who has been rebaptized but still can't hold the priesthood. He's 60 now. Every ward he moves too, it's a reevaluation of the person. It doesn't take long to realize that something isn't right. He always manages to fit in, but it makes it hard to keep going. The reasons to go to church have to overcome the reasons not to go to church and it will take more than the promise of better things after we're dead to do that. Fortunately, the reasons do come. My challenge was easily overcome with a prayer and some pondering. I realized that the church wasn't hiding anything. The information was in our own Journal of Discourses. It was the way it was packaged and presented to me that made me feel that way. But I had a reason to push through the fog, the mist of darkness, so-to-speak. A lot of people don't and that's the reason they leave. A new member of the church discovers that marriage is really really super important in our culture. So, important that exaltation depends on it. He's floored. Comes to church after discussing it a couple of times and then disappears for good. Another new member attends Temple prep class and out-of-hand, it is discussed that Satan and Christ are spirit brothers. That closed the chapter on his membership. What's the solution? Some think we shouldn't talk about these doctrines. Well, for sure, it isn't to eliminate sin. And likewise, since we aren't the Holy Ghost, it isn't that we should instill the Holy Ghost's witness in them either. We can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink.

I was making a cynical objection to the statement to the quoted reason why people leave the church. I believe people leave the church because they have no reason to keep going. I've been through a lot of situations where going to church is an uphill battle. Several times, there has been nothing to entice me to return, no spiritual food, so-to-speak. I get more from personal study than I do from church and I can't share what I've learned because everyone else poo poo's my observations. Sitting in Sunday School is like sitting in a room full of bobbleheads. But I still go. There is a reason for that and, unfortunately, it's not a reason that I could bottle and replicate. I did all the things opposite of what I was told would give me the answers I was seeking and still the reason for my hope came. Sadly, after I'm homebound, I know no one from the church will come visit me. I won't get the sacrament or get to listen to any more dry and boring unprepared talks from fledgling members of the church. It seems odd that I'd miss that, but I think I would. Sorry, I was prognosticating there and not really addressing your statement. In response, I will go back to a statement I made in answer to another comment. The reason they leave is because there's no reason to keep going. He has a lot of questions, really means, he's not getting any answers ... to anything. That could be a result of some personal issue. We could blame it on pornography or internet game playing or blogging on LDS sites, but if the man has a lot of questions, that means he's getting more questions than answers and church isn't filling that gap. I don't believe any of those things I listed for reasons he's not getting answers are valid. Lots of people who do all those things still go to church and will continue until they are homebound. It could be his own doing but it could also be spiritual starvation, like deer who starved to death with their bellies full of hay. It's okay if we disagree. I'm fine with that. Tell me, when you pointed out that man didn't really have any questions, do you think that helped him or do you think that helped alienate him?

I believe it's kind of like the marshmallow test that Elder Uchdorf spoke of in his talk. Based on a promise, some kids were able to wait for two marshmallows instead of eating the one they had right then. What it boils down too is that those who leave the church trade eternity for the moment. But, I have to wonder why we'd want to wait when we can have fun now or do what we want now. Is it enough just to get the other marshmallow? After all, it is just a duplicate of what we already have and I can always buy more of these when I get home. I think it is the reason why we want to wait that makes the difference or the experience which gave us the reason we want to wait. For me, it was a real game-changer. Though I too am not living in that kind of state of grace, ATM, I'm in a constant battle to get to that state because I want to be there. I do so believing that God will forgive me of those things I couldn't do or didn't do. I guess that makes the "state of grace" the second marshmallow.