brotherofJared

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.

What do you think they always existed as? What does that have to do with my question? Don't you believe they have always existed?

I don't know why they wouldn't. I was under the impression that God the Father was a Father and God the Son was a Son. That equal family, doesn't it?

Well, NeedleinA is not talking for all of us. I can see there is a valid point in E v e's statement. We certainly understand Christ to be the literal Son of God; Father and Son. Does that not equal family? Who's child is the Holy Ghost? Is the Holy Ghost the son or daughter of someone? If we go by the strictest view of LDS doctrine, none of us were created. We were organized. Organized into what? Well, that part, we don't know, but I suspect it was organized into families. God the Father has always existed. God the Son has always existed. If that is true, then how can God the Son be the literal Son of God? IMO, The trinity is family as are we.

That's the eminent base of modern Christian beliefs. For example. the word Elohim doesn't mean gods, it means judges and no matter how you show from the content that it could not possibly mean judges, they still hold to their definitions (and then you get one modern Christian who will come along and say, oh, it really does mean gods and in the face of his own admission, he still insists that they are "no gods". I find that people, especially when they are translating from another language, tend to apply whatever meaning they feel will support their belief system regardless of the word(s) used in other translations.

Yes. but that was a two-way conversation. We don't often get a chance to debate with God.

Ok. I can see your answer about what substance is. My understanding of substance is matter and is DNA. We have the same DNA. We share the structure, but like your DNA is different from my DNA, each of us owns a completely separate DNA, just as Christ and Adam and God the Father all have their own unique DNA, but are of the same species as are we. However, many can share a spiritual connection. We see this in peoples who identify themselves by a common denominator, like American, Military, or Christian. We can see this in the words "esprit de corps". God is not the Borg. He is not assimilating us who will share his spirit. He is seeking those who, of their own volition, will join him in his work who know happiness and how to obtain it. He knows how and we can learn from him. We through him can obtain the same vision as He has, the same understanding as He has. for example, a person plagued with same-sex attraction struggles with how this can happen if God's plan for happiness doesn't include their shortcoming. How can they ever be happy in a world where advancement comes only through marriage to the opposite sex. They may live in a heterosexual relationship but are still plagued with desire that they don't know how to escape. How is it possible to ever see it as God sees it? And if God can fix it, how wrong is it that they had to spend most, if not all, of mortality dealing with it. This just seems to be cruel. Will this person's mind be absorbed into the great God in heaven where he has no memory of his former life where he can only think what God wants him to think? That seems to be the only way to fix it, memory wipe. But why remove from this person valuable experience which makes him unique, his understanding unique? Why not benefit from his experience? I believe each individual's unique experience folds into the whole. Each person's vision elevates everyone else's understanding, but what good would this experience be if the person still suffers? I believe it is a matter of perspective. If God choose, He could, in an instant take away the thorn. I believe it is done by giving us understanding and it is through understanding that the individual changes. I used to complain that I had no shoes until I saw a man who had no feet. It's not that simple, but the principle is sound. I have seen people who, through sheer willpower, stopped a sin they were committing. It didn't seem to do them any good. Nothing changed in their life that was dramatic and I didn't see that they gained anything from the change. Of course, they did. Continuing in sin brings a great deal of suffering and causes the same in others. I could go on about that, but I want to discuss a change in perspective. The word of wisdom is probably the most abused temple interview question. I know a lot of people who cheat on that question and get a temple recommend. Some drink tea because the doctor told them too in order to prevent a recurring ailment or the vape, it's not smoking and it's not tobacco or they have wine occasionally for dinner. But I had an experience that changed my life forever. I've always had a problem with caffeine (not really part of the word of wisdom, technically). I struggled with quitting caffeinated drinks for years, decades actually and then one night during prayer, I was given to understand what I was missing and I discovered that the reason I was missing it was this caffeine issue. The change was immediate and instant and required no willpower of my own. I haven't had an issue with it since. My point is that the desire was taken away because of a change in my understanding. My perspective changed. I also immediately realized the blessings associated with the change, not health, though I believe over time, my health has improved, but the blessings I realized were more of a spiritual nature. I believe this can occur and will occur for every shortcoming we have. We don't even know most of our shortcomings. My point here is that we can share in that spiritual substance by following Christ and learning all we can about him, and by no other means can this occur. We were created, all of us, to that end if we so choose to do so. I cannot see any reason that a good person wouldn't choose this course of action. But, we see no other shared substance with God, not in us, not in Christ, not in Adam. We are all as uniquely individual as are those three as well as is the Holy Spirit.

I still don't know who "He" is. I assume you mean Adam is God. Adam is a God. He is not God we worship. He is neither Christ nor is he the Father. We don't know what Young thought. We have a few of his words, but not his thoughts. He stated that Adam is the only god with which we have anything to do with. I believe this is in reference to Daniel 7. Adam was given dominion over the earth and all things therein. We are part of that dominion. As such, we are under his jurisdiction but he cannot save us and though he may subdue the earth, he is not the king or the savior of this earth. It behooves him to turn over his dominion to a king who can save it. With that, I don't know if that's what Brigham Young thought either. I'm just saying that it makes sense that he is a god. He was perfect and everlasting and his actions affected all of his children. No other man can claim that power except for one and we all agree that He is a god. That is what Christ did, but Christ is not Adam. Christ was another Adam or a second Adam by virtue of his acts, like the first, affected all men. I realize this is all difficult to understand, but I can make no sense of the idea that Christ died twice. If that is true, then the scriptures we have are a sham and there can be no hope. If God can die twice, then the resurrection is a false concept. I just want to point out that you didn't answer my question, How do you define substance? I offered my explanation of what it is. I'm curious as to what yours is.

I think it will be the other way around. The 144K and all the inhabitants of the earth will meet Adam at the gate before they go before God. Christ will receive the keys of this kingdom from the hand of the Ancient of Days (who is Adam). Those keys are the right to rule and reign over the earth, but the earth will be subdued by Adam before that occurs.

deleted

We get emotional about the things we believe too.

The image is how we appear, what we look like. We are created of the same substance He is, but it is not the substance that makes us what we are. Substance, in this definition, is the same as matter. Essence, the characteristics of a person, are mostly born with us but they can be given and learned, but I don't believe they can be shared. While we are learning them, we may rely on the person giving them, but ultimately, we must come to own them for ourselves.

Define substance. What are we sharing? Is it physical or spiritual?

As I understand it, his spirit and the Holy spirit are not the same thing. Spirit is both genders in hebrew, neuter in Greek and masculine in Latin. But that is the nature of the word, not necessarily descriptive of the person. Wisdom is also a feminine word. And has been identified by some as being another name for the Holy Spirit. Margaret Barker is one who makes this observation. I dont believe we know what the early Christian's understood it to mean. I would not go do far as o say that The Father and the Holy Spirit are the parents of Christ (thus making the nucleus of a family. I believe we.see.them all.as members of the same family; a family of which we are also members.

The answer to that question is No. I want to point out that there is no such prophecy. There is an in depth article that can be found on byustudies if u google Edwin Rushton white horse prophecy. Two parts can be sources to Joseph Smith. 1. That the constitution would hang by a thread and 2. That the saints would find refuge in the rocky mountains. Both have already occurred. The rest is speculation about some future event that will never happen. The church refuted the white horse prophecy in 1918. It is not a reliable document. It is based on the false notions of mankind who do not understand the Book of Revelations. The 4 horsemen of that revelation have already come and gone. Any reference to them now is just fuel for Hollywood fictional drama.

To spilt my comments and respond as you go, highlight the text and then select "quote selection" in the pop up. You can do this several times for the same post. It will put the new quoted selection in the reply box where your cursor was last positioned.

That Adam, on the other world is the exact same Adam who fell and became a mortal on this earth <> us but = the first man, a single individual with his wife who was Eve.

Ok. I can see how you get that, but I believe the inference is not people who were alive in a thriving community in the days of Adam, but it is actually speaking about us, as though we were there. The information we are given is meant to be symbolic, not an actual representation of events as they occurred. But the idea that "of one blood came all the nations of the earth" would exclude the possibility of other people being present when Adam and Eve arrived. Of course, the Rabbi wouldn't have that scripture.

I'm talking about physical people. Adam is not a conglomerate of men and Eve is not a spirit inside of man and Christ is the Son of God who was crucified for our sins.

This would assume that there were people on the earth before Adam arrived. Which means that there are people on the earth now that are not descendants of Adam. Which means the scriptures are not correct.

Just to be clear, Christ is Adam, the first man who died when he was 900 years old? It is apparent from the scriptures that the enemy was already in the garden of eden before the fall. Might as well be heiroglyphs, I don't understand what you just said. I have peices of it, but what you believe doesn't make sense to me. I agree that Satan and his followers were once in the divine council and that he made them fall, but he succeeded because they were evil. I believe you are talking about human sons though, and those that follow him here are also doing so, not because of innocence, but for the same reason his followers followed him. I cannot agree that God is employing any war tactic. His work is that we choose for ourselves good or evil, Him or Satan. He will willing to help anyone who asks him for help, but we are not pawns in his war.

She WAS incapable, but having knowledge of it and being given the choice, then she IS capable. Whether or not she ever did any wrong after she ate the fruit is unknown. I don't think she or Adam ever did any wrong or evil after the fall. They are probably two of the most perfect persons that ever walked the earth, nevertheless, their actions had consequences. Now you're just denying what the scriptures tell us. Some being, who I think is God, but you seem either not to know him or to have a different idea of who that being is, told them not to eat of the fruit of that tree. I would presume that the reason was, besides dying, would be to obtain something they didn't have, like the tree of life. That tree was unimportant while they had life, but it suddenly became important enough for God to guard it to keep Adam and Eve from partaking. In other words, the name of the tree provided an attribute that the individual did not have. It's obvious she wasn't God as I'm sure that God knows the difference between good and evil (both Lucifer and God acknowledged this truth) and neither was Adam. However, none of that changes the one fact that the earth was Adam's and he was given dominion over it. He still has that dominion. But, Eve did need to eat it. It was possible for her to die. It was impossible for God to die. There was an obvious difference between her and God. So, not God. Having children wasn't the problem, at least, not a problem that we are aware of. Not having children became a problem once she would be separated from Adam. I don't think Eve was tricked into anything. She knew full well the consequences of eating the fruit. She had Lucifer's input, she could be like the gods and she had God's input, she would die. There's no trickery there. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that God must know good and evil and she did not. Lucifer's statement that it was how God obtained his knowledge may not be true, but it was how she could obtain her knowledge, but she also knew that it would cause her death. In my mind, it was a matter of weighing the consequences against the benefits and she made a choice based on that. It seems to me that she had more information about it than we do. I would suggest, speculate, that she knew that her destiny was to live with God, not spend eternity in a garden tending it. How to get from point A to point B? I believe it occurred to her that there was no other way. I've said this before, but I do not believe that connection is what makes a man and a woman one. They were and always have been separate entities. She was alone because she is a separate entity and can and does make choices of her own free will. Her decisions, however, can and often do affect the whole, the husband and the wife. This was a big one and it wasn't a mistake. I believe it was carefully planned and executed. It opened the door for temptation because we would be accountable having knowledge, but God made sure that it would not be more than we could bear.

It is indeed strange that you believe that the only God(s) that you know of are working for the devil's team. Further complicating the issue. If God has a father, then certainly you must believe that He is a God also, so doesn't that mean that you know of more gods than Adam and Eve? And where did Adam's father come from? Is it not possible that you only have a few pieces of the puzzle without a picture to guide you to complete the puzzle? And then, who is Christ?

Uh. No. We don't need to prove anything. You've provided your evidence and all we need to do is agree or disagree. There is no such thing as proof when it comes to the gospel, my friend. God doesn't give impossible commands, that is true. And it would work if everyone did what they were supposed to do. Eve didn't. She ate the fruit. Now, doing both would be impossible. Eve is clearly the transgressor here. Adam had very little choice. At least there weren't very options that he knew about based on what we are told. Once Eve ate the fruit it was over. Either we would never come into existence or Adam would have to go with her. The burden of our existence fell on Adam's shoulders right after Eve ate the fruit. We can all agree that Eve broke the commandment to not eat the fruit of that tree. There can be no doubt about that, but is what she did evil? It was wrong, we call all agree on that, but I don't think we can so easily say that it was evil. When she ate the fruit, she was incapable of evil. She had not yet fallen and had no knowledge of good and evil. We are not told the reason she chose to eat the fruit, but it seems obvious. When Lucifer told her this was how God did it, it isn't too much of a stretch to see that she could easily compare her current condition and that she could not be where God is without eating that fruit. Is wanting to be where God is evil? If it was, then is wanting to be saved now, to live where God and Christ are, evil? I don't think so. It isn't evil now and it wasn't evil then even if it was wrong.