• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Reputation Activity

  1. Love
    brotherofJared got a reaction from e v e in The trinity = the family   
    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.
  2. Thanks
    brotherofJared got a reaction from prisonchaplain in The trinity = the family   
    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.
  3. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to prisonchaplain in The trinity = the family   
    The difficulty--and we discuss this often here--is that we trinitarians insist that God is one is an essential way. The family relationship is obvious between the Father and the Son. Yet, we say they are one. If there is too much emphasis on the family aspect of the Trinity then we fear that our monotheism will be compromised. I would have thought LDS would be more open to God as family, but I suppose we all feel hesitant about strongly embracing descriptions of God that fall outside or beyond those given by our religious authorities.
  4. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to e v e in The trinity = the family   
    All through history, terms have come to be. The term christian for example, did not come to be until Christ. The term trinity is a fairly new one, starting in the medieval period and heavily influenced by the Platonic precursor. In various different thinkers, these terms meant different things. In scripture skin and curse means one thing. Yet, people today can take that as a racial slur, when that is not at all the topic in scripture,  yet, a newer usage can supplant other usages and come to dominate. That Rome jumped in with their canon view of trinity does not mean Rome got a monopoly on the term trinity. Many broke with Rome in fact. Might doesnt make right.
  5. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to e v e in The trinity = the family   
    Oedipus is correct in that the actual islam as a religion based up on earlier forms, and not even in this world. THe hieroglyphs describe the same 'circling around the kabba stone.' However, I would not know if oedipus even knows that, or if in fact he is simply jumbled up. Don't know him. However, he is incorrect in that it's currently in a very dilute form, and disconnected from the reference I just made, re: hieroglyphs.  I don't know who Peterson is. I taught at a quasi Ivy league university, with a great football team on the east coast, subjects being philosophy ancient to modern and Medieval theology. 
  6. Like
    brotherofJared got a reaction from e v e in The trinity = the family   
    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?
  7. Love
    brotherofJared got a reaction from e v e in The trinity = the family   
    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.
  8. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to Jane_Doe in The trinity = the family   
    Yes, such is a belief in the Creeds.  .  LDS Christians to *not* believe this and find it to be a major error.
  9. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to e v e in How do you pray for a long time without being repetitive   
    Falling asleep while someone talks is very pleasant... it’s like falling asleep while someone else drives.
  10. Like
    brotherofJared got a reaction from LoveIsTruth in Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam   
    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.
  11. Like
    brotherofJared got a reaction from Anddenex in Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam   
    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.
  12. Like
    brotherofJared got a reaction from Rimon in Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam   
    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.
  13. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to Anddenex in Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam   
    The musings of the OP remind me a little of a previous poster who would present his interpretation of scripture as "sound" and the prophets/apostles interpretation as "opinion" and "weakness" of men.
    Here are items of speculation (not overtly true) provided by the OP:
    1) Does this not say that there was no way for Adam to keep the first commandment to multiply without transgressing the second commandment not to partake. No it does not.
    > The point of the verse is simply stating Eve had already partaken of the fruit, as such would be cast out (otherwise God would be a liar), and in order to keep the first commandment with Eve Adam had to make a decision. Thus, we have verse 25, "Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy." So, at this point, after Eve's decision there was no other way for him to keep the first commandment with Eve.
    > Was there an alternative way. Sure. When Adam and Eve were tempted, and Eve recognized the fruit would allow her to become wise they both could have waited for the Father and Son for more knowledge and instruction when he returned to the garden of Eden. Again, this is speculation (theory).
    > Eve was wise. She was the first to recognize (at least according to what is in scripture at the moment) that partaking of the fruit of good and evil would make her wise (or as God particularly said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil;.") It is also the OP's opinion (not an overt truth) that they weren't wise and heroic, although I can't find anything online specifying Adam as heroic and Eve as wise from words of the prophets and apostles. The more I read the prophets and apostles it sounds more like they are grateful and praise Adam and Eve's willingness to be our first parents.
    I tend to accept this interpretation, not the OP's pertaining to Adam and Eve, "If we correctly understand the role of Adam and Eve, we will realize that those who have labeled them sinners responsible for the universal depravity of the human family are misguided." (emphasis mine)
    2) Can't find this quote anywhere, "We were so foolish and disobedient, that were it not for our transgression, (which forced us to learn obedience through a punishment of a curse), we should never have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. For there verily was a better way for us in the Garden, were we willing to listen to the Father more than to the devil,” that is proclaimed to be the words of God.
    3) "One is a lie, and there other is not, because they indeed COULD have had, had they listened to the Father."
    > We don't know if they could or would have had children if they remained. The point of the verse is that through their transgression their eyes were opened. More speculation. To act as if Eve is lying is pretty poor. Eve is speaking from the knowledge she now has at that moment, which she didn't have prior to that. Much like us in our day when we come across something, even if through making a wrong choice, we now say, "If I had not known this, I would not have done this or could not do this." It doesn't mean there was no other way, just simply due to knowledge we now have we speak according to that knowledge.
    4) Plan A -- Pure speculation
    > In this light actually, I also have a similar theory that Adam and Eve could have brought mortality into existence another way. If Adam and Eve though did not "Fall" or receive some type of transition from immortality to mortality then our Savior would have never been able to offer himself up as a Sacrifice. There would have been no gethsemane and no cross. Some sort of Fall needed to occur, as that is one pillar of truth.
    > This is entering now into a Protestant teaching rather than a restored gospel teachings, "Adam and Eve were foolish and unwise, we all could have remained in the state of immortality."
    > I am not sure our state/bodies will be the same type of body Adam and Eve had in the garden. Adam and Eve could not die. We do not know if this means there could have been some form of "translation" in the the twinkling of an eye (a form of death) from mortality to immortality as it will be during the millennium.
    > As with Eve's statement, I am more inclined to believe Adam than the OP, "Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God." Adam refers to his transgression as a blessing, and blesses God for the opportunity to have joy and see God once again in the flesh.
    5) Zion CANNOT be redeemed and restored to a Terrestrial state while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place!
    > Clear speculation. The Church isn't bound by the OPs interpretation of the Fall, nor God. Zion will be redeemed as we live the principles of a Zion society. There will be truths unknown, or people aren't believing correctly, when Zion is established once again.
    6) This is how Jesus got His eyes opened to know good and evil, by resisting temptations, instead of yielding to them.
    > Item missed by the OP. Jesus was already part of a "Fallen" world which allowed for good and evil -- in all accounts -- for him to resist.
    > True though, our eyes can be opened by resisting temptation. That is why the scriptures use the word "entice."
    7) Adam and Eve made the WRONG choice in the garden, or God is a liar and a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all!
    > Adam and Eve made a choice God already saw they would make -- thus a Savior was provided. The "Fall" was necessary. That is clear in scripture. How the "Fall" occurred could be easily argued, but a "Fall" was necessary.
    > God is God. There could have been a better way, but that isn't the point of scripture. If there were a better way (which we could say there is), the better way did not happen, and do dwell on it places a person in missing the mark. Thus we have scripture, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive."
    8. It is ALWAYS wrong to transgress the commandments of God. There are no exceptions to this rule.
    > Well, that is correct, this is why they were cast out of the garden, because transgressing the law broke the law and they were cast out. God doesn't excuse them, but provided a Savior (which required a sacrifice > death).
    9) Secondly, if Adam resisted the temptation sufficiently, his eyes would have been open without transgression, and he would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded him.
    > This is speculation. Could they have, sure, but we don't know except for what scriptures specifies. We are welcome to speculate and make it clear our speculation, but your words are stating you aren't speculating and go against scripture and words given by the Lord's servants his prophets.
    > When a person denies the importance of the/a "Fall" -- a pillar of truth -- they are already on the wrong track. I choose to accept the following that has been repeated over and over, "The plan required the Creation, and that in turn required both the Fall and the Atonement. These are the three fundamental components of the plan. The creation of a paradisiacal planet came from God. Mortality and death came into the world through the Fall of Adam. Immortality and the possibility of eternal life were provided by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement were planned long before the actual work of the Creation began" (in Conference Report, Apr. 2000, 105; or Ensign, May 2000, 84).
    10) This means that this earth was the first one that fell. Millions of other worlds created by God before did not fall! This is why the Savior was born here, because this was the most wicked world of all.
    > Speculation. We don't know if this was the first or one of many. We don't know the "real" reason why the Savior was born here and not some other earth created by God. We don't know if this was the most wicked world of "all," but surely has had some wicked people born here.
    11) Last one I will mention, " By the way, if Enoch or Melchizedek were in the garden of Eden instead of Adam, they would not have fallen. Does it mean they are greater than Adam? No. It means they were less volatile, or more steadfast in that point.
    > Another point of speculation. You and I have no clue how Enoch or Melchizedek would have responded if they were in the garden of Eden with their wife. You don't know how Enoch and Melchizedek were and how many mistakes they made before bringing them to the knowledge and understanding they had. You don't know if they were less volatile than Adam or more steadfast. Adam was chosen as the first male, and yet indirectly you mock God for choosing Adam. If the fall was not required, as you have shared, and Enoch and Melchizedek could have not fallen, why did an omniscient God then choose someone he knew would "Fall" --- transgress? If the fall was not required, wouldn't it have been a more perfect and wise decision to choose Enoch/Melchizedek according to his foreknowledge? Isn't God perfect?
    I think its wonderful to theorize and to try to more completely understand the gospel and its truths. Its not good to provide speculation on things you don't know and teach them as truth -- which some are in direct discord against revealed words.
  14. Haha
    brotherofJared reacted to Vort in Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam   
    I actually agree with much of what you have written. Parts of it (e.g. "Plan A") are pure speculation, wtih all the pitfalls and dangers of such speculation, and you should take those ideas with a grain of salt. But this:
    Brother, you are way, way off the reservation on this. You're spiritually derailed. This is disloyalty at minimum. It's what many ostensibly faithful Saints said about Joseph Smith before he was lynched. We live in a top-down Church, not a bottom-up Church. It's not called the democracy of God. It's a kingdom.
    This is pure ark-steadying. You are blinded by your own perceived cleverness. Please do not pursue this path. It does not lead where you think it leads.
  15. Thanks
    brotherofJared got a reaction from DennisTate in A Great Christian Civil War predicted?   
    Well, he is right in that case, those denominations will experience a great civil dispute, but those "churches" do not constitute "the" church. Among all these various opposing beliefs, only one church can be right (and even that church, if it exists on the earth, may not have it all right at this moment - maybe they will in April of 2020, but I doubt it), but those churches can't all be right. And the church will not get it right because of a civil dispute. That is not the way God works.
    I don't believe the messianic "movement" is "the" church.
    There is no White Horse President prophecy. There is only your interpretation of the scriptures and, IMO, it is a failed prophecy. The white horse prophecy is about a specific person who has already come and when he comes again, it will not be to run for the white house presidency. That person, IMO, is Adam or Michael.
    I would suggest that when anyone asks for wisdom, understanding, or the Holy Spirit, it will be given. The "ask, seek, and knock" offer was not made to Mormons alone, it was made to anyone who lacks wisdom.
  16. Like
    brotherofJared got a reaction from e v e in "It's time Christians started including Latter-day Saints"   
    I have to disagree with this statement. Paul's teachings are spot on with the teachings of Christ. modern Christian interpretation of Paul smothers Christ's true teachings. That's another problem altogether.
  17. Like
    brotherofJared got a reaction from e v e in How do you pray for a long time without being repetitive   
    The keyword is vain repetitions is the word "vain", not who you pray too or what you're praying about. As I read the definitions, vain would be self-serving, self-loving and narcissistic or, praying for the sake of being heard so that everyone who hears you think, boy - that guy really knows how to pray.
    If you're alone, you can probably repeat yourself a thousand times and it wouldn't be vain... unless you think God is watching and thinking, boy, that guy really knows how to pray.
  18. Thanks
    brotherofJared got a reaction from prisonchaplain in How do you pray for a long time without being repetitive   
    The keyword is vain repetitions is the word "vain", not who you pray too or what you're praying about. As I read the definitions, vain would be self-serving, self-loving and narcissistic or, praying for the sake of being heard so that everyone who hears you think, boy - that guy really knows how to pray.
    If you're alone, you can probably repeat yourself a thousand times and it wouldn't be vain... unless you think God is watching and thinking, boy, that guy really knows how to pray.
  19. Love
    brotherofJared got a reaction from lilscorpie in The Glory of Men is the Woman   
    You must belong to a different church than I do.
    In your mind it might be, but not everyone in the church would agree with you.
    Sorry. That is simply not true.
    The intent was to seek out how they could work it out making to that both partners were equal and one. So, in making it equal and one, it appears that you'd decide that the wife has to give up something. How is that equal? In the perfect Mormon world, she'd not even consider pursuing a career in that direction but instead pursue a career in being a housewife and stay at home mom. But that isn't what she wants to do. Do you, as a husband support her or squash her dreams and insist that she do the "right thing".
  20. Okay
    brotherofJared got a reaction from DennisTate in A Great Christian Civil War predicted?   
    I believe that civil war has been going on ever since the first protestant movement started and is still going on. The question I have is what church this Rev is talking about.
  21. Like
    brotherofJared got a reaction from MrShorty in "It's time Christians started including Latter-day Saints"   
    If we're going to go by personal definitions of what I Christian is, then anybody can say everyone else is not a Christian. The fact that there are so many diverse Christian sects, the definition of a Christian has to be generic enough to include Catholic and Protestant times 1000 or so sects, all with differing doctrines. That definition is simple which basically goes like this: if they claim they follow the teachings of Christ, they are a Christian. I find that to be an acceptable definition and am willing to abide by it.
  22. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to Traveler in Progression between kingdoms?   
    Generally I believe it is always possible for a person to repent.  However, repenting is not the only stone in the foundation of Agency, resurrection and the kingdom of glory.  We are told that in order to be in the Celestial Kingdom we must abide and live by the Laws and Covenants of a Celestial Glory.  BTW - this does not sound like a "place" to me as much as it is a "WAY" of thinking and behaving.  I will add something else about elements of the plan of salvation as presented in Genesis - specific to chapter 3 - the last verses.  Most interpret a concept that the Cherubims are guardians to prevent mankind from reaching the Tree of Life.  There are some versions of the Bible that explicitly imply that man must be prevented from reaching the Tree of Life.  A rather lengthily article could be written about Cherubim and the path - but I leave it to the reader to ponder and wonder concerning who in the history of the world and in scripture where man encounter Cherubim in the worship of G-d.
    There are both primary and variant readings of Genesis that indicate that the Cherubim take on the role of "Keepers" - that is a gate way - not that is always closed but that insure that those the pass through are prepared and worthy.  Another way of thinking from the ancients is perfect or complete.  I would use the temple and the temple recommend as a parallel understanding.  Temple recommends are not so much to prevent anyone from temple worship as much as that people are prepared for temple worship and sacred covenants.  There is a difference from being forbidden and not being ready or prepared.   I believe this is also in the principles and teachings of being perfect or complete.  Anciently being perfect was not intended to mean never having a flaw - it is meant to mean that flaws have been dealt with and resolved.
    I would like to suggest that it is possible to move from one kingdom to another.  That nothing in this regard is forever "fixed".  It does seem logical that someone could not only move upward but that they could also fall from one glory to another.  In fact we have proof of that possibility of a fall in scripture - it is called the fall of man - but there is also the fall of Satan or Lucifer.  The very principle of Agency would indicate that it is possible (regardless of however unlikely) that a Celestial being could fall from a being of Light to Outer Darkness to become a being of Darkness
    But there is a very interesting principle of the resurrection.  We are raised to a resurrection of Glory so that our physical body is of a particular type of Glory.  It is also my understanding that we are resurrected in the flesh to stand before G-d at what is called the final judgement.  My question for many that think they will be judged of G-d at the final judgement - how can that be if we are already resurrected to glory?  Something does not fit the general narrative.  I will not pretend to resolve this paradox but rather present the principle for others to conclude how to resolve such with their own understanding.  Except to say that it does not appear to me that many in the religious community have even attempted to address the paradox - let alone to reconcile themselves to truth.
    Here is my personal recommendation.  Start now to do all you can to prepare for the Celestial Kingdom.  Not in the manner of pretending but to honor as best as you can and as you understand - Celestial law.  Then prepare yourself by participating in all the ordinances both for your self but your kindred both in your seed and kindred dead.  And finally to love by Celestial covenant - in heart, might, mind and strength.  Then when you have accomplished obedience to the laws, participated in the ordances and kept the covenants - then consider yourself the expert in the finer points of doctrine.
    The Traveler
  23. Haha
    brotherofJared reacted to anatess2 in The Glory of Men is the Woman   
    Well, that's messed up.
    If I was conditioned since birth to be a slave and so my parents married me off to a slave owner and I became his slave because it's the only thing I know then my husband and I are equal because we agreed I'll be his slave and he'll be my master.
    GREAT!  We've accomplished Equality!  
  24. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to estradling75 in The Glory of Men is the Woman   
    There is the world thinking of equality and God's thinking of equality
    My wife an I are not physically equal... while we both can take physical action we are not interchangeable when it comes to physical ability.  Which is what worldly thinking of equality would demand.
    The same holds true for emotional, mental, and spiritual things.  We are not interchangeable, and depending on what is being asked one of us might clearly be superior.
    Let me give a very basic example.  I am taller.  I can reach the top shelf my wife can not.  She can reach the top self with a small step ladder, and often she simply asks me to get it.  In this area we are clearly not equal.  The world would demand that I stop getting things on the top shelf or that we redesign the house to make all the shelving lower.  Both kind of doable both kind of ridiculous.  In spite claiming to value differences they would have us all be exactly the same.
    The thing is there is nothing inherently wrong with being different or being better or worst at some arbitrary thing, it just is. Unlike what the world would tell you the problem is not the difference, the problem is our reaction to the difference.  If I think my being able to reach the top self makes me powerful, or an authority so that I can make others do what I want that is a problem... Its also a sin... and it is not a new sin it is a very old one of pride and unrighteous dominion.  On the other hand if my wife can't stand that she is not as tall, and can't abide me getting stuff she can not... well that is a problem to... it is also a sin... and it is not a new sin either... it is also a very old on of pride and jealously.
    I find it interesting that in the scriptures the Lord does not use equal to describe a man and wife.  He uses being 'one.'  The same terminology he uses to describe his relationship with the Father, his command to his leaders, and his command to the body of his followers.  Paul goes into detail about how different the members of the body of Christ (aka body of his follows)  can be, while still being important and valuable part.  Husband and wife can and should be different while still being an important and valuable part of a marriage.
      The Church does use the term equal do describe marriage... does not use the term equality in attempt to ignore or wave away the differences between individual men and individual women in a marriage as the world would try to do.  Instead the modern use of the term 'equity' is the church's way of teaching and reinforcing ancient instructions against sin.  If a husband and wife truly think themselves as equal partners... well one can't really think they can dominate an equal... and it is really hard to be jealous of an equal partner.  But rather we can glory in our differences.  When one of is strong we can use that strength to bless the other when one of us is weak we can count on the support of the other to help.  Their triumphs become our triumphs their struggles become our struggles.  And thus we become one... and our uniqueness is not lost but encouraged.
  25. Like
    brotherofJared reacted to MrShorty in Progression between kingdoms?   
    True, it doesn't help us decide which side of the debate is more true than the other. My hope would be that, recognizing that the Church has no official position would allow us to show grace to each other whether we land on the side of the "no movement" or "full movement" between kingdoms.
    I have heard it said that the most contentious debates in the Church are over Book of Mormon geography -- an issue that the Church claims "no official position" (outside of the BoM presents a history of some real people who lived anciently somewhere in the Americas). Some of the most contentious debates I have participated in have been "creationism" vs. "evolution" -- another issue where the Church claims no official position (other than God is ultimately the creator and the Father of our spirits).
    Which is not to say that we cannot have opinions, or even strong opinions. Present your ideas and support them with your favorite scriptures and proof texts and GA quotes and theological/philosophical arguments. Allow others to do the same. Ask questions and respond to questions and let the discussion run its course. At the end of the day, allow that we won't all come to the same conclusions, and that its okay that we won't come to complete agreement.