brotherofJared

I wasn't making an argument. I was asking for clarification. Is it your understanding that if the parents receive a temple divorce, the children are no longer sealed to anyone? It appears that I have my answer to the previous question. This idea that the sealing status of children who would technically be born into a broken covenant remains intact even though the covenant it was sealed under is now broken only confuses the situation even more. I was talking about a specific reason for maintaining the eternal relationship, keeping it for the children's sake. Where to people divorce and the spouse really hates the other, it is vain to keep it in force. Another reason why one might struggle to keep the relationship is the prospect of dying having never remarried or being in a relationship where the spouse does want a temple marriage. You miss understand me. The marriage is already dissolved. There is no keeping a foundering relationship together for anyone's sake. I would submit that no one here as a perfect understanding of what is to come or even a reasonably good understanding. My comments are based on observations of General Authorities and their reluctance to break a covenant that was sealed in the temple. Why are they reluctant? What do they understand the sealing to mean between husband and wife and children? Well, I, for one, don't know. But if they are reluctant then so am I. Let's take a situation where a man was sealed to his wife and had several children born in the covenant. The wife divorces the husband in civil court for irreconcilable differences. At this point, there is no change in the eternal sealing, but of course, the wife would really like to see that disappear. She doesn't want to be sealed to the jerk who made her life miserable. That's understandable but, without good reason, the brethren won't dissolve the sealing. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that so far, where the sealing is concerned and the church's reaction to divorce. Now the husband remarries and finds himself in an equally precarious marriage but the new wife won't marry him in the temple because he is still sealed to the first wife. Now he's in double jeopardy. If he dissolves the first marriage, there is a reasonable concern that the sealing to his new wife will never happen. She has already given every indication that being sealed to him isn't really that important nor even desirable, apparently. So, if he cuts ties with the old sealing, he destroys the sealing connection he as with his children (the question that your statement raised) and has no prospect it seems, without divorce, of obtaining an eternal relationship, possibly no connection (this is, of course, based on limited understanding of how all this works). If I was in this man's shoes, I wouldn't cut the connection with one when the prospects of a new connection are so uncertain and ultimately be left with nothing but frustrating effort. On that note, It seems that effort is all that is really necessary. I don't think that God will condemn anyone who tried and failed and He certainly won't judge anyone who just didn't know. This life, in my opinion, is a place where we learn and we often learn from our failures and our mistakes. So a person who fails to get married in this life may not be forever without an eternal companion. It is a shame that our culture pressures us into a situation where it is marriage or bust and treats the unmarried as second class citizens because they haven't reached the pinnacle of exaltation... yet. But this is all speculation. Your observation just raised some concerns with me. You answered my question. I believe, based on my limited understanding, it is best to keep what we have with the understanding that circumstances that are outside of our control will be managed by someone who has a greater degree of control.

Moses 5 gives a pretty clear account of Cain's deeds. God did put a mark on Cain, but I suspect that it was Cain's idea. It is fitting of a weasel to ask for such things. My personal perspective on it is simply that God allows us to make our choices and we have to live with the consequences of them. If blood atonement would have fixed the problem for Cain, he chose not to die thus sealing his fate as perdition. God only gave Cain what he wanted leaving Cain to carry the burden of his crime for eternity. We often read the scriptures that say ask and receive, knock and it will be opened, seek and find and assume that it is only for those who ask for good things and seek for truth, but I believe it goes both ways, though, with the exception of Cain, most of those who seek bad things don't ask God to help them do it. They just do it and maybe ask for others to help them do it, but it seems apparent to me, that whatever we seek, we'll find and whatever we ask for, we'll get (I don't mean onetime shots at winning the lotto or getting a job we want, I'm talking about the general direction in life we want to take.) What one's heart truly desires, they will obtain. Cain got what he asked for.

This creates a problem, I think. If that marital union is broken, your statement means that the children are also not sealed to their parents. I can understand the sealing of parents to children is broken when a temple divorce occurs, but what if the parents only get a civil divorce? Is it in vain to maintain a temple sealing in an effort to keep that connection with one's children even if the spouse no longer wants to be married? I have never considered this proposition you've provided.

I'm curious what you call "continuing revelation" in this context. Whatever it is you receive in this form doesn't affect the scriptures. There doesn't seem to be any new information coming by these revelations. What would be an example of such revelation and is it binding on the church or just on the individual? There are many forms of revelation, but if the revelation is concerning truth, I think it would be binding and I think it would be scripture. I'm assuming that no one in those 700million people you mentioned can receive revelation for any of the other 700million. Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that for revelation to be of any value in the church, one person should be designated to receive that revelation for it to be binding on the church. Otherwise, it seems that revelation is anyone's opinion, making it relatively useless to the church.

When you say "traditional Christ" are you talking about the traditional Christian view or the church's view? My understanding of the above statement is that it is strictly an LDS view. Do traditional Christians believe that Christ left so the Holy Ghost could come? The way the statement is made isn't really correct. It reads that one happened so the other could happen and that's not the reason or the cause. It was the Holy Ghost that told Peter that Jesus was the Christ and the Holy Ghost settled upon Christ at his baptism, so the influence of the Holy Ghost was present. My understanding is this is the way the Holy Ghost is present for most of us. It's incidental and not nearly as life-changing as what occurred on the day of Pentecost regardless of whether or not the gift of the Holy Ghost was given. I believe the reality of the situation is unknown. Can Jesus and the Holy Ghost be present at the same time on the earth? I believe the answer to that is a resounding yes. So, Jesus didn't have to leave for the Holy Ghost to be present. I think Jesus had to leave so the people, the apostles and his other disciples would learn to lean on the witness of the Holy Ghost. It is difficult to listen to a still small voice when a voice that is loud and clear and emanating from a visible source is present.

I would say that God isn't passing the sacrament, so it's not really applicable.

*Now, could someone explain how this is different than predestination? If God controls which spirits are unaccountable then they are predestined to eternal life and glory. I'm not saying I disagree. It is a very comforting doctrine. I just feel like God allows agency to take its course and that can result in untimely death-also I think he allows nature to take its course. So, he put the plan in motion and things happen because of our agency, nature, the agency of others, etc. He is in control in that he created the plan and set it in motion. Not in making every thing that happens in our life happen. Does that sound right? I'm am of the belief that God could have decided for us who would go to what kingdom without there ever having to be a mortal probation, but that wouldn't be fair. I view our mortal existence as the perfect setting for an all-knowing God to let his children learn for themselves who they are and what they will do. This could only be done if we were isolated from him, no knowledge of our previous condition, his physical presence being removed and left to the natural laws where actions have consequences. His knowledge of our actions before our actions occur doesn't effect our actions because we are not aware of what he knows. He knew who we'd marry, how many children we'd have, what their names were down to the last child, but; of course, we don't know any of that. It is obvious from the lost of the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, that God is intimately aware of the details of our lives. Knowledge of things does not mean that he causes them. Of course, where something occurs that was not a result of something we did, could mean that He controlled it. I find very little comfort in that, but I trust his vision better than I trust mine.

I haven't read the article yet, but here are my thoughts on salvation vs exaltation. I believe they are relative with respect to the person receiving the glory. Those who obtain a Terrestrial glory will be happy and, quite frankly, will have most of what non-LDS Christians expect. From my point of view, they will receive their salvation. The same is true of those who receive a telestial glory. These are weights of glory, but to be exalted, by the meaning of the word, implies a much greater weight of glory, the highest glory. While all of these beings who receive glory, they cannot consider themselves exalted, but for us, being exalted is salvation because that is what we teach salvation is. Unfortunately, it creates a culture within the church that those who aren't married are less than those who are. We struggle to overcome that, but the culture still exists. I don't believe that in the kingdom of God, single persons who dwell there will be treated any less than those who are married. They accomplished all that was expected of them, certainly; they are no less perfect than anyone who is married. The only differences between them are that one will have glory added upon them and the other not and that one will continue is pain and sorrow and the other not. The cost of glory is a heavy one.

Will what? I'm assuming it means that he will save, but then I have to ask why? Why would he save anyone and based on the answer to that, then we'd have the definition of what Faith is... Besides, belief precedes faith. Because I believe God will, my faith is seen by the things I do to be one with Him.

The subject isn't really about polygamy, but... I think it being a trial was not the purpose of polygamy but, rather, polygamy is a natural result of eternal marriage. Stating it simply, if a man's wife dies and he marries again, what is to become of the first wife? Is she to be cast aside in the eternities? Life was so simple when everyone's marriage ended at death. Extending marriage beyond the grave massively complicated things.

I don't believe the OP meant "forced" marriages. I believe he meant it more along the lines of arranged marriages. A father arranging a marriage for his daughter would be thought of as a "loving and caring" thing to do for his daughter. But it does appear that women had little choice in their future husband choosing as is described in the woman and her being passed around by her dead husband's brothers. The same is true of Ruth, who chose her husband, but he went to see if any of the other kindred wanted her first before marrying her. If you're not seeing it in the Bible, it's because you don't want to, but it's there.

Just some thoughts. Based on my trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I view polygamy with mild curiosity. I can't judge Joseph Smith on today's social norms any more than I can judge Abraham. Every person's reaction to this kind of news (polygamy is only one of many issues) is going to be different. This one might not be a thorn but another one might be. I'd have to say that one has to question, if they trust their faith, who's "understanding" they have, where did it come from? As an example, during a priesthood lesson, we were talking about the social pressure that the church puts on its members. No one else in the class seemed to take it the same way I did, but I understood these social pressures were ones like not being a single parent or not being single at all and that some people, through no fault of their own, remain single and they feel left out. I had to spell this idea out as it seemed that nearly everyone in the room was married, but the one single person was a new member, recently baptized, who took offense. After the class, he came to me and demanded to know what I meant that marriage was necessary to obtain the highest degree in heaven. He would only accept a word-for-word quote from the Bible. "Show me from the Bible where it says that we have to be married to be exalted in heaven". I could see that there were a lot of problems. That, as yet, this individual did not trust that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, so my options for appeal were limited. He's no longer active in church. Even though he appeared to accept my answers, I could see that the seed of doubt was planted. Personally, I think it's both words and thoughts. Thoughts, like dreams, fade over time. We can remember the feeling (can you feel so now?) but the thoughts disappear. Words, on the other hand, are something that we can return to and read again and again (if we write them down when we get them or if we take the time to read the words we already have). In reading the words, we can reflect and ponder, meditate, think thoughts. But more important than words and thoughts is that we trust our faith and hang on when doubts arise. It is healthy to have doubts. It's normal. Normal is healthy. What isn't healthy is when we allow our doubts to dictate our reality. Doubt, if it is allowed to run wild, is the killer of hope. My stumbling block was Brigham Young's statements about Adam and God. When I was first introduced to this subject, I believe that the church was intentionally covering up a sore spot in its history. They were intentionally deceiving me. Those were my doubts. They are not the reality. The church wasn't covering up anything. It was right there in the Journal of Discourses. There was no deception. So, was my understanding based on the reality of my doubts or on the reality of my faith? Both make the term "reality" an oxymoron. Perhaps the question should be, which do I trust? My doubts or my faith. Trusting one's doubts is not a safe thing to do.

Why would the cause of saying one thing is true be any different than saying the other thing is true? If a person is compelled by social mores to say "I know the church is true", what is to say that saying, "I know that Jesus Christ lives", is not also compelled by social mores? Further, I have to question what one means when they say, "I know the church is true". To me, it includes, "I know Jesus Christ lives" as well as, "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet" and "I know that this is Christ's church". But I don't know if it means the same thing to everyone who says it.

You have a subtle way of pointing out an error in a statement.

You are missing my point. The hypocrisy is not about the Muslims. It is about the Christian he threw under the bus.

Too many by's in there. Jesus would have denied his own identity... Um. No. His identity as the Son of God, no, He didn't deny that. We are all son's of God. That includes Muslims. Deny His role as The Son of God. No. He was the only one who could fulfill that role and that role defined his identity. However, He did deny his deity, specifically stating that he was not good because there was only one that was good and that is God. Obviously, Christ was not that God (so He must have been a different God -- so to speak). Did she deny that Jesus was God or the Christ? No (identity and role). Those who deny He is God. Though they speak with their mouth, their actions betray them. If they follow the teachings of Christ, all that is left is to know He is Christ. You nor any other modern Christian can possibly know who will and who will not accept Christ. The fact that they are Muslim has no bearing on their ultimate decision. It has no more bearing than modern Christians that claim they know Christ but don't. "the worship of God by those who deny His deity (we really need to escape presentism but I fear that it is impossible for some of you) Is the same as the worship of God by those who follow him..." Oh yes. Definitely. Christ didn't care that the person robbed wasn't an accepted Israelite. Who was the neighbor? Certainly not the pious modern Christians who passed him by on the other side of the road But instead a regular non-descript Jew who actually did something to help the man. And what was the second great commandment? Love thy neighbor. Thus the person who follows Christ (whether he knows Christ or not) is a Christian, those who don't are not. It doesn't matter what they confess with their lips. Thus, those who deny him, but follow him, only need to meet him. Those that claim they know him, but don't follow him will have no hope in the life to come. There is also the sad issue that modern Christians think they worship God by worshiping Jesus. For them, there is no other God than Jesus. So for the Muslims to worship Allah, and we know Allah isn't Jesus, then they are condemned to hell in the modern Christian mind. But the fact is, they worship the Father of us all, the Father of Christ, the Father of you and me and of every man and woman who has ever been born, how is now living or who will yet live. He is the same being that Christ worshiped. Christians don't get to corner God and block off everyone else. I addressed the problems of presentism. The problems that Muslims face are the same as the ones Christians face because history has made a mess of their beliefs (not the facts, because we don't have the facts today, but the opinions of men and their lust for power). Today, Muslims don't know God any more than Christians do. The world was without God until Joseph Smith revealed Him. They worship an idea which has been clouded through time and now the God they worship serves them and not the other way around. Mohammed, on the other hand, had a much clearer picture and understanding of Christ than we do. The problem that arose in history is that God is a three in one being. When we address Christ, we address the Father because they are the same being. Mohammed understood that they were not the same being and that Christ was the son of God and God was Allah... That being said, I haven't had any more chance to talk to Mohammed than anyone here, but I'm positive that the existence of elohim and it's implications were beyond the scope of his understanding. His purpose was to unite a people and preserve a promise made to their father's mother. They were smart enough not to get suckered into the idea of Christianity that flourished in Rome because it was false as Mohammed stated, though I believe he gave them the benefit of doubt. He didn't condemn Christians as Christians condemn them. Again, in this scenario, the professor is the follower of Christ, Vaught is a Pharisee. I know the Muslims need to come to Christ and I believe that will happen in the Lord's time and Christians would do well not to judge.

That's not my premise or conclusion. It has nothing to do with his opinion of Muslims but of his treatment of Christians. My conclusion is that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. My premise is that while claiming respect for Muslims, he condemns Christians even though he is a Christian and he did so while defending a Christian institution. I realize this creates a problem when defending oneself against those who are supposedly of the same faith but act in ways that differ. Kind of like, me on this site. I claim I am a Mormon, but I'm getting hacked up by Mormons because my views are different. What do we do? Or, more pointedly, what do you do? Should the admins ban me because my views are different? Should I be placed on administrative leave? How do you deal with differences and where do we draw the line of right and wrong? Is this statement wrong: Was she condemned because she said Muslims and Christians worship the same God or because she quoted a Catholic? What did the Pope mean when H\e said it? What are "people of the book"? What are my responses to the harassment and ridicule I get in this thread? How could you expect me to respond in any other way? I believe in a concept of being Christian in the generic form as those who are following Christ. I don't care if they are Mormon, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic or Evangelical. A Christian need only learn of Christ and they will take his name upon them. It may happen after death. It will have to happen after death for billions of people because for them, there was no Christ during their life. This is a fundamental tenet of the Mormon faith. Those who have not learned of Christ will be taught and given an opportunity to accept baptism (taking the name of Christ upon them) and the endowments, even eternal marriage... Does anyone think that God really cares if they are Muslim or Jew or Mormon? The path to exaltation is simple and it is not exclusive to any one group. Now, I, like Larycia, make my statements in hopes that others, especially Mormons, will stop dwelling in the darkness and see the light that they apparently don't comprehend. My doctrines are not false, we do worship the same God. This argument is no different that the argument that modern Christians use to claim that we worship the wrong Christ, a different Chris with the same name. So what if the Muslims call Him Allah and we call Him Elohim or God. People of the book references a common source. We call it the Old Testament. The Muslims call it the Torah. We both are descendants of Abraham. And Christian or Muslim or Jew, this is more true that anyone could possibly imagine. I'll cease from my self-defense now and return to the OP. I don't have a problem with Wheaton College defending what they believe. That is their right even if I disagree. I don't have a problem with the position that the Professor took in taking a Christ-like stand for the unfair judgments being leveled at Muslims as a race and a religion. Sure, they have their bad guys. They are no different than evil Christians (not an oxymoron) who use religion for their own personal gain. But they also have many many good, and though they don't know it yet, Christian people among them who wear hijabs. Sanders was wrong in applying a religious test, but only in that, he stated that the answers to that test were the reason he wouldn't vote for him. I think we, the people, needed to know Vaught's position. I was impressed that Sanders would bring that previously unknown information to light. However, if it had been presented in any other way, it would not have the weight it carries today. Vaught is a bigot and a hypocrite, claiming respect he does not have and vouching a Christian love that he doesn't show his own. The test that has been brought to bear here begs the question: are Mormons no better than other modern Christians claiming to have truth but don't live it? Do they respect others or is it only lip service? The lesson to learn here is that none of us is ever able to rise above another to condemn them. It doesn't matter what the Bible says, we are not the judges of who meets those conditions and who does not. We have a responsibility to protect our beliefs but I would have to ask of whoever severs the tie, what if you're wrong? What if they are right? Will it matter?

Which early Christians are you referring too? @Carborendum Note: This is what a request for clarification looks like.

Eh. Due to some odd cut and paste issues with this forum, I had to save my comments before I finished. I brought it back to the OP through an examination of presentism which is what opened the door to this discussion. My point being that Mohammed had a pretty good idea of who Christ was/is. History, for the Muslims who refused and repelled the modern Chrisitan soldiers, as well as for Christians, has eroded much of the truth that was taught in early Christianity. Islam, through bigoted Christian eyes, will never have the gospel and the Muslims who adhere to it will stand condemned. But that's not the Muslim's fault. God put them there. I believe He has a plan for all of his children that all might obtain the reward. It is not offered just to Mormons or Jews or Christians. No one, not Christian or Mormon, has the right to state that any person stands condemned before God because we aren't God. My issue with Vaught is he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. He says all people deserve respect while He denigrates his own kind for acting like a Christian who simply followed God's great commandments.

I'm don't know what to do with this. Are you asking for clarification or just making a statement?

Nope. I didn't say when it got in the Bible, but I'm pretty sure it was after John was no longer with the Church. But I'm pretty sure that the people who put it there did believe it. I believe it. The early Christians didn't necessarily, but if they did, they had a reason for teaching God the Father was God and Christ the Lord was Lord without ever specifying that Christ is God. It developed over time. John doesn't specifically state that Christ IS God, He said the Word WAS God. After the Word was made Flesh, the then refers to The Father as God. There was some mencing of words there. Joseph Smith cleaned it up a bit. John 1:1 JST "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God." Here, the word isn't the Son, but is the gospel. No statement was made that Jesus was God. We have completely gone off the rails here to the point where I'm defending an argument that has little or nothing to do with condemning Muslims. So, I'm going to take a walk back up through this thread and see what the point of this argument is supposed to be. --- My statement that Mohammed was in harmony with teachings of the early Christian Church concerning the nature of Christ, in that Allah was God and is the God we worship. I still believe that from Mohammed's perspective and point in history, he was right. The issue that was developing was Christians praying to Jesus or to Mary or to the Saints (which actually developed much later). I read the Quran as stating that we all worship Allah, that is who we pray too. It is still who we pray too.

Indeed, but they are not as harsh as these opinions that keep flying my way. Tomatoes anyone?

Ok. Here's an idea. How many apostles were present at the time Christ was baptized? Answer: 0. Whose testimony do we read in the beginning of John? Answer: John the Baptists. He was THE witness and therefore it is His testimony. But the facts are, we don't know who wrote the Gospel of John. You used evidence to support the teachings of the apostles when there weren't any apostles. The apostles didn't teach Christ as God. They were very specific to address The Father as God and Christ as Lord. The evidence is abundant, especially in the Bible. Whether you take such facts as credible or not is, of course, up to you.

Well, we certainly can count on "facts" coming from there. I feel so much better.

I'm not trying. It seems to come natural to me.