brotherofJared
-
Posts
536 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by brotherofJared
-
I was agreeing with the similarities in what you believe and what we believe. They are one, but I dont believe they are not one being. They are two separate beings each with their own identity.
-
On the rare moment that a Christian accepts the idea of a mother in heaven, why do u feel you need to provide evidence that we agree? None of ur QUOTE supports ur statement that she is a different person than the spirit.
-
Reference please.
-
I dont believe that I implied that it was the reason he was chosen. Yes. And so? Is he not still the son of God? No matter how u slice it. The trinity is familial. No one, as far as I know, has made the claim that it was the reason Christ was chosen. Stop trying to make it so.
-
There wasn't another. Christ was chosen from the beginning. We don't know why, we just knew he was. But the Holy Ghost is still God's child, you say son, I say we don't know if the Holy Ghost is a son or a daughter, but since God is the Father of spirits and the Holy Ghost is a spirit, then clearly the Holy Ghost is a child of God. And, as far as I can tell, no one has suggested that the Godhead would cease to be the Godhead. In fact, I don't believe we were ever talking about the Godhead. We were talking about the individual members of the Godhead usually referred to as the Trinity. We have a unique understanding of who those members are and what their relationship is between them. That relationship is familial, Father and Son. Certainly, the Holy Ghost would be a sibling to Christ. I agree. The Godhead doesn't cease to be the Godhead because the Heavenly Mother is not mentioned in it, but the fact that she's not mentioned doesn't make it not equal to a family either. I really can't tell what your issue is concerning the OP. To me, it appears that you just want to be right at any cost including denying the obvious family connection in the Godhead. And I'm still stumped about that, but I suppose you won't bother to clear that up.
-
Care to provide a reference?
-
I don't see where the power and authority of the priesthood is mentioned in that little paragraph anywhere. It does not mention giving the ordinances, but instead, receiving the ordinances which do not require one to hold the priesthood to obtain them. The umbrella that is being held up is the tree of life and it has to capacity to cover all who want to get under it and it doesn't require the priesthood to do it. My point is that you all are calling prayer, the power of the priesthood. It is not. Anyone can pray. I don't believe the power of the priesthood elevates anyone's prayer over another. Conferring blessings in the name of God requires priesthood, forgiving sins requires priesthood, but we don't normally see these done in a family setting for protection or guidance. What we see in most Latter-day Saints is the same effort as any person puts forth, using the priesthood generally is not done. It is in my life, but when I mention using the priesthood to fellow LDS around me, I usually get laughed at. What I see here, that is being called the priesthood, is taking what we do regularly in our lives and calling that priesthood authority. You might as well say that eating breakfast is done by the power of the priesthood. It's not. It's done with a spoon or a fork and neither of those is an implement of the priesthood.
-
I am not living below my privileges All of these are available to anyone who has faith in Christ (I'm not sure what you mean by part the veil, but I assume that means receive revelation which does not require priesthood authority) and has received the gift of the Holy Ghost. These are not privileges that are solely associated with priesthood power or authority. I think it arrogant to suggest that temple endowments gives one the power to "commune with God", just to mention one. Anyone, Mormon or not, can have that privilege.
-
Sorry. Most of this just sounds like make-believe, IMO. But I fail to see where any of this is different for a non-LDS family than for an LDS family (which I hope to explain in this post). No one is set apart to be the head of a household. That comes by virtue of getting married. The Bishop has no authority in my home unless I give it to him (by requesting his help). Outside of that, all others, no matter who they are, are just people. As far as power is concerned, well, I don't control that in or out of my home. A person outside my home can, using his priesthood authority, bless my home regardless of whether or not I ask. The power of the priesthood exercised in that manner can influence my family life. The prayer of the righteous availeth much. In fact, most of the time, I wouldn't even be aware of those blessings or from whence they came. However, I don't believe this ever happens except on rare emergency cases if that person knows about the emergency. The presiding authority in the home is the head of that house, member of the church or not. The Bishop/Stake President/Area/Frist Presidency/Christ have no authority in my home unless I give it to them, usually by asking them for help. That being said, usually, the priesthood is not involved in blessing house or members of the family except in the case of emergency. A truly dedicated priesthood holder might bless his house, dedicate it, once... might. Most priesthood holders don't. A faithful member might lay his hands on his child's head as they head off away from home, once. Sometimes, a rare and sometimes thought to be strange home, there might be a father's blessing each year. So I don't really see the priesthood as being used to "lead and protect" his family. Most of the time, we shoot from the hip and might offer a prayer, but anyone can pray - they don't need the priesthood to do that.
-
Oh. I didn't say pastors. In our church, ALL the (worthy) men hold the priesthood. We're not all pastors.
-
😂🤣
-
Having reached the end of all these posts, I thought I might address how the trinity is a family and their relationship to all of us. I believe that spirits are not born, they are organized. I believe that this organization took place according to the word of God, the Father and that is how He is our Father, literally. He organized us into families, starting with Father Adam down through all time, placing his Son, Christ in the meridian of time. In such an organization, that allows us to be both children of God and children of our mortal Fathers. Thus the Trinity is family as are we all. I'm not sure how our Heavenly Mother is involved in all of that, but I don't believe there was any procreative activity going on to make spirits, not even Christ. I believe, like as it is here, that Christ brought us out of chaos into light and brought us to the Father where we were begotten sons and daughters of the Father by his word. It's all about family and it will be forever more.
-
It's not the same view. The trinity is a word that describes three members of the Godhead. We can all agree on that. Your definition is exactly in line with that definition. You're view, as I understand it also has three members in the Godhead, you just believe that one of them is female. You are not alone in that understanding. I have to say, I agree with you, there are a lot of nitpickers around here. In addition, I'm utterly shocked that no one here, that I've seen so far, can see the familial relationship in the Godhead. I have to wonder who the people on this board think we are. Maybe they think that God really isn't our Father in Heaven or maybe they don't see that as a Family relationship. I'm stumped.
-
See, I can except some of this if I translate into what I understand of the trinity. It may be my male ego, but I believe the Holy Ghost to be a man though we are not told either way. We make assumptions but frankly, the influence that the Holy Ghost has over us, it would make sense that it may be a woman, though not our Heavenly Mother as some have suggested. It will be a real shocker if in the next conference women are accepted into the priesthood. It certainly seems to be the way things are leaning with some of the changes that have come about. I would certainly agree that there is a war between the two realms, God's and the other. That war is not entirely fought by unseen forces. He is one God with both male and female attributes. He and his wife together making one whole being. This is essential LDS doctrine. To me, I believe that some of the ideas may seem strange because of terminology, it is not really that much different than the religious practices of ancient Mesoamerican peoples, what we have of it. It is clear to me that the feathered serpent represented Christ. They called him Quetzalcoatl. It's a different term, but I believe they are talking about the same person. History has a way of skewing the information in such a way that as we read it, we come to different conclusions even though it may actually be talking about the same thing. What e v e is talking about is a shadow of truth, even though she is not using the same words we do. Our commission isn't to correct error. Frankly, I don't think we'd know error if it slapped us in the face and I think we're about to discover even more of our errors that have been slapping us about for some time. We've certainly seen enough error as we've grown, race and the priesthood, single men and exaltation, wearing of veils, ministers of other religions being hirelings of Satan just to name a few. I honestly don't know why we get stuck on an idea and insist that it's true when it's been shown and proven that we don't have it all. Our commission is to accept what good others have and invite them to see if we can't add something to it.
-
I disagree. It very much is a family with parents, and children and siblings. Sorry, I only see a pattern of three and unity in the work. But clearly, Christ is the Son of God. That is family. I suppose a Bishop could call his son as a counselor in the bishopric and then it would be family also, especially if both counselors were his sons, like in the Godhead. But I don't see it as anymore than a pattern which we don't follow in detail. If we did, then it'd be family as well.
-
Nope. You keep barking up the wrong tree. There is a conundrum here and you want to talk about beings. 🙄
-
I didn't see e v e increase or decrease the number of the trinity. The fact is, in the LDS religion, they are related along familial lines. Period. I seriously don't think she was redefining the word Trinity anymore than we redefine it.
-
Don't change what I said and then argue about that. They are eternal beings. If you want to disagree with that, then feel free, but don't change my word to spirits because that isn't what I said. If you can't see the conundrum, then there is really no discussion, is there?
-
Well, we know who the mother of Christ is. There's no problem there. How do you know that e v e's post wasn't addressing that set of issues? In fact, it appears that's exactly what she was addressing. What is the LDS view? But what we got here is a false statement that we believe the Trinity is not a family when I believe that we believe that they are. I admit, there are some terminology issues. I struggle with definitions of other people also. I've struggled with them in this thread as well, but it seems that it would be reasonable to learn what the other person's understanding of their terms are, even if they are not similar to ours, to level the playing field. As for Heavenly Mother, we know she exists. We don't know what her role is. Some modern Christians have postulated that her role is as the Holy Ghost. I don't agree with that. You're right, we have no scripture or doctrine to clarify it, but isn't it amazing that modern Christians are coming around to realize that not only does she exist, that she was an important part of early Israelitish worship. Here, we have another self-proclaimed Christian who also believes that there is a heavenly mother. That's progress in my book. I'm not sure why you all are playing soccer with her head.
-
I only used the term "literal" because the church uses that term. I wasn't inquiring about the term. I was inquiring about the obvious conundrum that you seem to be tap dancing around. Are they eternal beings without beginning of days or end of years or not? Is one the father of our spirits or not? How can they both be true? The question you seem to be missing is how can they both be true. Try working on that one.
-
I would agree. That is a problem for traditional Trinitarians. But it poses no problem for Latter-day saints which is why I'm stumped at the opposition offered here.
-
Yes. It all depends on perspective. Mormons believe their religion originated with Adam and Eve making it the oldest religion in the world, but no one else believes that. They all believe it's only 200 years old.
-
First question, I don't know. Literal as in procreated? No. I don't think so. Literal as in He, The Father, is directly responsible for our presence on the earth in our mortal state, yes. But as far as I know, we have no doctrine on that subject nor do we have an explanation as to how that occurred. We believe He, God the Father, is the father of our spirits. I accept that and I believe the relationship to be familial. Second question, Yes. We are co-eternal with the Father and the Son. I believe that is doctrinal.
-
He did answer it and I believe E v e asked why he disagreed. Just because it's the commonly accepted belief doesn't make it true and the commonly accepted answer, as far as I know, isn't the LDS view. I was under the impression we did understand that there is a familial relationship between the members of the trinty. Or maybe she just wanted to see where it would go. I guess we'll never know.
-
And I asked for clarification because, frankly, your question makes no sense to me. Either they have always existed or they haven't. Do you believe they haven't always existed? My statements don't need clarification. But I'll answer. I DON'T KNOW what they existed as forever. I just know they have existed forever. There was no time when they didn't exist. Does that help?
