Jersey Boy
-
Posts
333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Jersey Boy
-
-
18 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:
This is regarding a correction of translation in the Bible concerning Luke chapter 23 verses 42-43. A thief hanging on the cross conversed with Jesus as He was also crucified next to him:
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits. A correct translation of Luke chapter 23 verse 43 should read as follows according to Joseph Smith:
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in a world of spirits."
In the spirit world the thief would hear the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to him. (See page 96 of the New Testament 2019 Come Follow Me – For Individuals and Families.)
The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught this. Why is this not in the Inspired Version of the Bible or at least in our footnotes of the Latter-Day Saint edition of the King James Version?
I believe it’s very likely that, much like Alma the Younger, the penitent thief’s sinful journey through life had finally brought him to the point where he was genuinely sorry for all the wrongs he had done, and that when he cried out to the Lord in faith he was deeply sincere and in a state of authentic contrition. No doubt the Savior keenly perceived the thief’s profound remorse of conscience and passionate profession of faith in him, and for these reasons it could very well be that the man’s change of heart was felt deeply enough to spare him the fate of being cast into the spirit prison with the unrepentant thief.
As a consequence, it’s possible that immediately after he died the repentant thief was brought to a place in the spirt world where he was far better off spiritually than the unrepentant thief who was cast into the spirit prison. So at least when compared to where the unrepentant thief ended up after his death (hell), the repentant thief was, spiritually speaking, very likely in a far better place than hell, a place and condition where his opportunities to fully embrace the gospel would be greatly facilitated. In a manner of speaking, it might very well be that the penitent thief was in a place in the spirit world that’s much closer to the paradisiacal state than to the spirit prison.
It’s also possible that the Lord granted the thief the special privilege of actually being able to enter paradise itself, where the Savior was about to preach the gospel to the spirits of the righteous dead who were gathered there in the joyous anticipation of his arrival. What better time, place and condition for the repentant thief to hear the gospel preached than by the Son of God himself immediately death? After all, the Lord promised the man that he would be with him in paradise, not separated from him. It appears that it would be somewhat disingenuous and misleading for the Lord answer the penitent thief’s heartfelt plea to “remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” with “today shalt thou be with me in paradise,” when what he actually meant was ‘today you and I will be in the spirit world, but I will be in paradise and you will be in hell.’
I believe that in all likelihood the penitent thief was fully sincere in his repentance, and for this reason he escaped the condemnation of hell in the same way that Alma the Younger instantly escaped the condemnation of hell after coming unto Christ with full purpose of heart. It’s often said in the church that there’s no such thing as deathbed repentance, but isn’t that tantamount to what happened to Alma the Younger when he was delivered from the pains of hell instantaneously, immediately after crying unto the Son of God for deliverance? Therefore in answer to your question, the Savior’s heartening promise made to the repentant thief very likely is close enough to the spirit of the actual truth for us to be able to rightly leave the verse just as it is.
-
On 3/13/2024 at 3:33 PM, askandanswer said:
The expression “they are one God” in verse 4 is referring specifically to Christ in his simultaneous roles as the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, the Creator (Father) of all things in heaven and earth when an unembodied Spirit, and the Father of salvation through the atonement to all who believe on his name. Hopefully, the following annotated verses will help make things clear…
3 The Father (Christ is here being referred to as the Father of our of salvation) because he was conceived by the power of God (I.e. Christ was endowed with the divine power needed in order to successfully offer an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice while in the flesh); and the Son, because of the flesh (the same person whom we call the Father of heaven and earth and the Father of our salvation is also be called the Son of God because he is the literal earthly Son of Elohim); thus becoming the Father and Son (the Father because he is the Father of heaven and earth, as well as the Father of our salvation through the atonement, and he is also the Son because Elohim is the literal Father of his earthly body).
4 And they (i.e. the Father of heaven and earth, the Father of our salvation, and the Son of God in the flesh) are one God (in this particular instance the prophet is speaking of only one personage, namely Jesus Christ), yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. (Mosiah 15)
These seemingly inscrutable words of Abinadi become clear when it’s understood that in these verses the prophet is speaking of Christ in his dual fatherly role as the Father of heaven and earth, and even more especially as the atoning Father of salvation.
- mrmarklin, JohnsonJones and askandanswer
-
2
-
1
-
On 2/6/2024 at 6:03 PM, zil2 said:
I'm not convinced of this. I think our "intelligence" and ability to make decisions (aka free will) predates our spirit (probably, but I acknowledge we really don't know anything about "intelligences").
There is no “probably” about it. The Lord makes it perfectly clean that the intelligences that existed before the organization of spirit bodies had free will, and if it were not so nothing could exist.
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (Doctrine and Covenants 93)
-
On 1/21/2024 at 12:45 AM, Looking for help said:
Hi. I’m a life-long LDS member outside of a break from the church from ages 14-21. I’m in my 30’s now, sealed in the temple with three young kids, and have remained very active over the last 12+ years since I came back from my “break”.
I have struggled over a multi-year period on the question if God is real. The point of this post is not to try and convince anyone that God is not real, I genuinely want to believe that He is and am looking for people to help me work through this issue. The nagging question that has dominated my mind is if men have made up religion over time to help themselves feel better about, and give purpose to, life. Everyone wants to know why they are on the earth, how they got here, where they go after.
I understand logically that religion provides answers to these questions and that these answers (if believed faithfully) give us peace and purpose. What I can’t get out of my head is what if all these things were made up specifically to fill those gaps but is not true. I’m not calling anyone a liar or saying anyone is pretending to believe - I absolutely believe the leaders of our church (and most members) truly do believe it all and are not trying to mislead us in any way. I desperately wish that I didn’t have these doubts, but I do.
What is life is just completely random and the bad things that happen to us are not part of a plan? What if all the suffering (a child dying, losing jobs, etc.) has no silver lining and are just random happenings that will make our lives worse. I struggle to see how God could allow a lot of things that happen in the world everyday - there are so many places where people suffer and die from hunger, people are regularly beaten and raped. A family with young children loses a mom or a dad. How can that be a part of God’s plan in any way? There are other more scientific questions about the Big Bang theory, dinosaurs existing, evolution, etc. that seem to be real things and in my mind and conflict with LDS beliefs. A lot of places where the LDS answer is that “we don’t know why these things happen”, but we should believe there is a reason.
One of the parts where this messes with me the most is with death (if not obvious from my examples given above). I love my wife and kids more than anything, but what if there is no afterlife? What if I’m one random act (a car crash for example) away from losing a child, and if there is no afterlife then I will never be with them again? If there is no afterlife and I die in a car crash, what happens next to me? Blackness for ever?
A natural defense for someone (especially a life-long member) to know that God is real is to think back on the spiritual experiences they have had as proof that God exists. But what if these experiences were figments of our own imagination that we have convinced ourselves of and didn’t actually happen?
It is easy for me to see that believing in God / religion results in a better life overall - navigating all of life’s trials and tribulations is 100x easier if we believe that it is all a part of God’s plan; if we believe that all bad things that happen in the world are for a reason and all make sense / work for the best from the perspective of an omniscient God.
A few years ago I came to the conclusion that I would not be able to PROVE God was real, but I also wouldn’t be able to prove the opposite. So if I can’t take solace in any spiritual experiences I’ve had to date because I’m worried that they were made up in my head, then since it can’t be PROVEN one way or the other, it’s simply a choice of believing or not. I am trying to choose to believe but it has been difficult to not let these doubts take over. I have tried to pray for confirmation but the thought of spiritual experiences possibly being made up is probably blocking that from happening.
On a separate note, I have both lived in accordance with the gospel and have done the opposite, and can say I have a strong testimony that following things like the word of wisdom, our views on family / marriage. etc. will result in a happier life while on this earth. I have not deviated from these beliefs and regardless if I think God is real, I know this is the blueprint for the most happy / successful life on earth.
So that is the core of my testimony for now: 1. I am trying to choose to believe that God is real (despite the doubts I have) and that everything the LDS church teaches is true. And 2. That following the gospel way of living will continue to bring the most happiness throughout life.
I know this has been a long post and a bit all over the place, so thanks for sticking with me if you have. As I said above, I wish I didn’t have these doubts, but I do, and I’m trying to figure it all out. I would be grateful for any thoughts you have that may help me as I continue to try and work through this.
What do you think you will gain if you decide to believe there is no God? I’m being quite serious about this. I’m very interested to learn how you think you might benefit if you decide to surrender to unbelief?
-
On 11/24/2023 at 10:27 AM, laronius said:
I have thought about this very thing so I offer a couple thoughts I've had. First of all, it may very well be tied to the principle of faith. In the next life that veil we currently have over our eyes is removed and as a result much of the faith we must act under here is removed. I think that may be a factor.
But I think a bigger factor simply comes down to the amount of law we want to submit to. It's not just about where we want to end up but also which laws we want to obey. Most everyone would say they'd like to be rich. But how many are actually willing to do what it usually takes to become so? It's the same here. I don't think anyone will be barred from the celestial kingdom that is willing to live a celestial law. And as a rule how a person lives in this life, with whatever amount of truth they possess, will be a pretty good indicator of what people really want. But I also think that there are those who take a little longer to figure things out, like Alma the younger and the Lord makes sure that all such individuals will have that opportunity. God WANTS to save everyone to the fullest extent they are willing to receive and will provide sufficient opportunity to each individual according to His perfect knowledge of us. That is something we can have complete faith in.
I largely agree with the second paragraph. The only problem is that in order for the fair-minded concepts of the second paragraph to be fulfilled there can be no room for accidental and/or untimely deaths that prematurely thrust those who haven’t been given enough time to believe and repent into a state of existence where they will automatically be barred from entry into the celestial kingdom because, as you said, the spirit world requires less faith to believe.
-
1 hour ago, laronius said:
I have thought about this very thing so I offer a couple thoughts I've had. First of all, it may very well be tied to the principle of faith. In the next life that veil we currently have over our eyes is removed and as a result much of the faith we must act under here is removed. I think that may be a factor.
But I think a bigger factor simply comes down to the amount of law we want to submit to. It's not just about where we want to end up but also which laws we want to obey. Most everyone would say they'd like to be rich. But how many are actually willing to do what it usually takes to become so? It's the same here. I don't think anyone will be barred from the celestial kingdom that is willing to live a celestial law. And as a rule how a person lives in this life, with whatever amount of truth they possess, will be a pretty good indicator of what people really want. But I also think that there are those who take a little longer to figure things out, like Alma the younger and the Lord makes sure that all such individuals will have that opportunity. God WANTS to save everyone to the fullest extent they are willing to receive and will provide sufficient opportunity to each individual according to His perfect knowledge of us. That is something we can have complete faith in.
I’ll respond to the thoughts in your second paragraph later, as I have something I presently need to do. But I’ll take a moment to say that if one of the reasons why it’s not possible for those who take advantage of their “second chance,” by embracing the gospel in the spirit world, to eventually obtain the celestial kingdom is because less faith is required there to know the gospel is true, then we’re right back where we started! How could it be considered fair and just if someone who rejected the gospel in the flesh at age 25, but then is shortly thereafter killed by a drunk driver, to be placed in a state of existence that will necessarily preclude him from obtaining the fullness of salvation? Meanwhile, if the same man had lived to the ripe age of 85 he would have had a much better chance to accept the gospel before death and strive with his might to obtain eternal life. If God truly is fair and just, it appears patently unreasonable that someone would be deprived of his opportunity to strive toward exaltation due to unfortunate circumstances that were not his fault.
-
On 11/20/2023 at 1:02 AM, DAL said:
D&C 76 says if we reject the gospel in this life, and accept it in the spirit world, we do not obtain the celestial, but the terrestrial kingdom. I would be warn of using the term 2nd chance in this case because, although we may have a 2nd chance to accept the gospel in the next life, the reward may not be the same. Also another warning is that we cannot be the judge of when, or if someone has received fully, or rejected fully the gospel. We have to leave that kind of judgement to the lord as far as determining final judgement>
Why do those desperately wicked and rebellious souls, like Alma the Younger, who at first reject the gospel message but later receive it while still in the flesh, have a pathway open to obtain the celestial kingdom, while the not so not desperately wicked, who receive the gospel after death, can only hope to obtain a terrestrial glory? What’s so magical about death that a balanced application of mercy and justice no longer seems to apply after one’s mortal body is laid down the grave? If Alma had died during his exquisite spiritual suffering, before thinking to cry out to the Savior for mercy, would he have only been able to obtain a terrestrial glory as well? If so, why? It seems terribly unfair that an untimely and/or accidental death, something that one often has no control over, could mightily change one’s spiritual destiny forever.
-
22 hours ago, Traveler said:
I have a great deal of respect for our Traditional Christians but that does not mean agreement. As much as I revere @prisonchaplain – I have strong reservations in the logic of what is labeled “Trinitarian Doctrine”. There are a number of problems for me – among which is the necessity of “Agency” and with agency a “Pre-existence”. Though there is some similarities between agency and free will there is at least one stark difference in my understanding. Free will is something internal to an intelligent being that cannot be externally gifted or externally created – because if gifted or created externally it is not an internal will but an external will from which the gift is granted or created. If G-d created our will it is not ours but rather the will that was created for us. If there was no pre-existence but something created at birth – we have no pre-existing will but only the will that G-d created uniquely for us. Who then is ultimately responsible for that will? – the obvious answer is the creator and giftor of that will. If there is no pre-existence, then G-d alone is responsible for what he alone creates – definitely not to be transfered that which is created by him alone.
But there is another doctrine that is somewhat unique to LDS doctrine – which is the doctrine of “Agency”. We LDS are taught by our doctrine (we believe is doctrine from G-d) that agency is a gift from G-d. This differentiates agency from free will. I have logically concluded that free will is our internal choice. Agency is the power to make our will reality. It is the making of reality that I believe is the gift from G-d. But there is a caveat – Because agency is a gift from G-d – G-d is in part responsible for the resulting reality. Not completely responsible because the free will part is not of his making, doing or creation. Free will is ours alone to create and to have – not G-d’s creation forced upon us.
There is one more consideration. There are in essence two extensions to the meaning of “Father”. One is the sire – which in the physical sense is the genetic male creator of our physical being. Also known as our biological father. The other is the proctor of what we become or develop. Anciently the proctor was the controller of our covenant and the giver or our provider and overseer of our destiny or possibilities.
Jesus clearly taught that we have a Father in Heaven that is the father of our spirits. Jesus also clearly taught that – that Father is and was his father as well as ours. Our LDS doctrine clearly teaches that Jesus (Jehovah) was from the beginning (in the pre-existence when The Father established his covenant with his spirit children and mankind) was the Son of G-d (son or heir of the Kingdom Suzerain and proctor to the plan of salvation) and as such became the Messiah or proctor of the plan of salvation. Being the proctor of the plan of salvation he rightfully also became the Father of our covenant (plan of salvation) in order for us participate in the plan of salvation. As the father, proctor of the covenant or Messiah, Jehovah also participated in the responsibility for our sins because he is the one through whom our gift of agency was granted – which allowed him and only him to justly pay for and redeem our sins – that our spiritual sire and immortal physical being could not redeem through death.
Without a pre-existence and agency granted in that pre-existence there can be no account for justice nor mercy in the variant conditions to which each individual is born. Likewise, without an existence after death there cannot be an account of justice nor mercy to account for our choices between when we are born and until we die. For all the logic that demands something after we die – there also must be something for before we were born.
The Traveler
You seem to fail to take into consideration the fact that the atonement of Christ is infinite and eternal, extending forever backward and forever forward in one eternal round. If it weren’t for the fact that the atonement is infinite and eternal nothing could exist, including the elemental intelligences (the free agents Doctrine and Covenants 93 calls the “light of truth”) that existed prior to being organized in heaven as the spirit sons and daughters of God.
In point of fact, if it weren’t for the infinite and eternal atonement of Christ nothing would or could exist. The only reason why agency and free will exist in any of the realms of existence is because of the foundational reality of the infinite and eternal atonement that replaces nonexistence (chaos) with existence. The atonement of Christ is the very glue or binding agent that allows all things to exist and consist, and without it agency cannot exist. Why? Because without the infinite and eternal atonement of Christ all things would be a compound in one, without sense or sensibility; in other words, nothing would exist.
Until it’s firmly understood that the atonement of Christ is the very foundational matrix upon which all reality, element, intelligence, thought and action exist, the erroneous idea that intelligences and things can exist outside of the atonement of Christ will begin to sap the mind of light and truth. The Book of Mormon even goes so far as to say that if there were no atoning Christ even God the Father himself could not exist!
7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. (2 Nephi 11)
-
On 6/4/2023 at 8:22 PM, askandanswer said:
I thought I would share something from my scripture study this morning in the hope that it might be of interest of benefit to someone else. After an absence of more than 2 months I have finally returned to study instead of reading.
For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your anakedness[ 1] before God, and also the glory of God, and the bholiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you[2] .
[1]Probably this means something like exposure, to be seen as we are, with every subterfuge and all guile and pretense stripped away, without shield, protection or defence. Everything will be open to examination and nothing can be hidden.
[2]This is the moment when we will fully realise the difference between what we are and what we could be or could have been. The knowledge of that difference and the realisation that we have missed, forever, that opportunity, that we have lost that potential to become as Jesus Christ, will be the flames of that unquenchable fire.
This is the awful, eternal fate that Mormon, motivated by love, is trying to save us from with his pleadings in verse 6.
Context is all-important when it comes to gaining a correct understanding of the word of God, and by presenting the above verse in isolation and out of context.you misunderstand the actual intended meaning of the words. The verses that precede Mormon 9:5 make it clear that Mormon is speaking of those who will remain in their sins as implacable enemies of Christ at the time of the final judgement. In other words, Mormon is speaking of none other than the unbowed and unrepentant sons of perdition who remain ‘filthy still,’ even after the resurrection. Doctrine and Covenants sections 76 and 138 makes it clear that all will eventually come unto Christ, receive a remission of their sins, and inherit a blessed kingdom of heavenly glory befitting their degree of faith and diligence, except for the sons of perdition.
1 And now, I speak also concerning those who do not believe in Christ.
2 Behold, will ye believe in the day of your visitation—behold, when the Lord shall come, yea, even that agreat day when the bearth shall be rolled together as a scroll, and the elements shall cmelt with fervent heat, yea, in that great day when ye shall be brought to stand before the Lamb of God—then will ye say that there is no God?
3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a aconsciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?
4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your afilthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the bdamned souls in chell. (Mormon 9)
-
6 hours ago, Vort said:
I believe this is what it means to deny the Holy Ghost.
Yes, because denying the Holy Ghost is not only a turning away from God and an abandonment one’s sure and certain spiritual testimony that the gospel is true, but it also amounts to a rejection of the Holy Ghost’s witness that exercising faith in the redemptive power of Christ is the only way to receive forgiveness of one’s sins and thereafter obtain an inheritance in one of the three kingdoms of heavenly glory.
-
On 6/23/2023 at 12:23 AM, Vort said:
I disagree somewhat with this interpretation. Christ's atonement frees us from the wages of sin, which wages are spiritual death. But if we do not avail ourselves of that gift, we will inevitably suffer the same horrific spiritual death that Christ himself suffered and overcame. But such suffering will not sanctify us; it is simply the price of our sinfulness, a price that will not be paid by Christ until we accept his payment for us.
Some have understood the above verses of Section 19 as a proclamation that we ourselves must "pay" for our own sins if we don't accept Christ's atonement, but this is antidoctrinal. We are unable to pay for our own sins. Period. No amount of suffering on our part pays for anything. We are unclean and in a damned state, and we cannot be cleansed from that damnation save by the blood of Christ. There is no other way. And until we accept that atoning blood of our Savior, we, like Alma the younger, must suffer eternal damnation. I see no other reasonable interpretation for Section 19.
In accord with your correct understanding of Doctrine and Covenants 19, the reason why the suffering for sin of the sons of perdition truly is endless is because they utterly refuse to exercise faith in Christ and repent of their sins. The ‘unpardonable sin’ is the steadfast refusal to come unto Christ to obtain pardon.
- askandanswer and Vort
-
2
-
On 10/1/2012 at 8:52 PM, prisonchaplain said:
I'm no expert on LDS prophet quotes, but I might suggest a yes answer to these. Jesus did impart the Holy Ghost to his disciples.
That Judas walked with Jesus for three years would suggest that the heavens had opened to him. He literally knew God. If Judas still had a chance at one of the heavenly kingdoms--even the Telestial one, would it not be better for him, despite his shame, that he was born, than that he had never been born?
Christ’s intercessory prayer makes it clear that his disciples had not yet received the Holy Ghost, even though it was at the end of his earthly ministry, and he told them that they wouldn’t receive the Holy Ghost until sometime after his resurrection. On that holy night of the Last Supper and his entry into Gethsemane, the Lord instructed his disciples that as long as he remained in mortality they could not receive the Holy Ghost, but that he would send forth the Holy Ghost to abide with them soon after his resurrection. In fulfillment of this promise, the resurrected Lord’s disciples did receive the Holy Ghost soon thereafter on the Day of Pentecost.
What this indicates is that Judas had not received the Holy Ghost and it’s therefore unlikely that he’s a son of perdition.
-
On 4/29/2023 at 9:23 AM, romans8 said:
How can baptism be a covenant for them when they rejected the gospel?
Why don’t you spend some quality time in a sincere attempt to learn what the Latter-Day Saints actually believe instead of asking silly, ill informed questions that make it obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about? Rather than spoon feed you the correct information, I suggest you read, study and deeply ponder Doctrine and Covenants 138 and you’ll get the information you need to be set straight as to whether or not the inheritors of the lower kingdoms of heavenly glory will have a covenantal relationship with Christ. But I’ll cut you some slack because, in all honesty, most Latter-Day Saints are clueless when it comes to what Doctrine and Covenants 76 and 138 actually teach.
-
6 hours ago, mikbone said:
Im sure when Jesus cleaned out the temple the money changers were terrified. And he didn’t need to use any of his almighty powers at that time. A man on a mission who is full of determination and knows that his cause is just is an unstoppable force.
I can’t think of a time on Earth when there had ever been a more determined man.
And the fact that it was also widely known that courageous Jesus was also a worker of many mighty miracles, including the raising of the dead, had to have added to the trepidation of those who were sent to arrest him.
-
On 4/9/2023 at 10:27 AM, mikbone said:
John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
If I saw this in a sci-fi script I would imagine a pressure wave forcing the band or multitude away and off their feet.
Yet Matthew does not even mention the event.
Matthew 26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
Mark 14: 50 And they all forsook him, and fled.
Mark’s writing suggests that it was Peter, James and John that went backwards and fell to the ground.
I am uncertain though. We know that John was an eyewitness though.
Also, how many is a band, multitude, and legion?
The way the narrative unfolds makes it a virtual certainty that it was the enemies of Christ who fell backward, not the Lord’s disciples. And why wouldn’t Christ’s enemies be fearful, as it was common knowledge that Christ was a worker of great miracles, including the ability to raise corpses from the dead? Christ had also only very recently demonstrated himself to be an extraordinarily fearless and intimidating figure, as he had only recently aggressively thrown the money changers out of the temple in a justifiable demonstration of divine outrage. In light of these things, I would imagine the band who had come to arrest Christ were filled with great fear and apprehension, dreading the possibility that he might use his miraculous power on them to their overthrow. Their nerves were likely already at a hair-trigger when he was asked who he was, and when he calmly and boldly answered them “I Am,” they blew a gasket.
-
On 4/9/2023 at 7:52 PM, Just_A_Guy said:
John is the last of the Gospel writers, and throughout his account he is addressing various nonsense theories about Christ that had spring up in the first century—one of which being that Jesus wasn’t really God, but just a man who God’s “essence” could jump in or out of at will.
(Note too that John, the only Gospel writer who actually saw Christ praying and suffering at Gethsemane, doesn’t mention Christ’s suffering there at all. He just makes it look like “they went there after dinner, and suddenly Judas showed up”. Perhaps the account of Jesus’s suffering in Gethsemane was already common knowledge when John wrote—or perhaps it was just too tender for him, the eyewitness, to discuss in any detail.)
Bear that in mind as you look at John 18:5-6. And note that when the account has Jesus saying “I am he”, “he” is in italics—it’s not in the original Greek text; the King James translators added it for clarity. In the original account Jesus asks who they’re looking for, the soldiers reply “Jesus of Nazareth”, and Jesus simply replies “I AM”—the Tetragrammaton—the name of God that no one in Israel dares utter except the high priest, and him only once a year on the Day of Atonement. Jesus is, in effect, proclaiming Himself to be one and the same as Jehovah; which fits into John’s overarching theme. John is subtly saying “see? Even the guys who KILLED Jesus sensed they were dealing with a god made flesh, and understood that this gnostic in-and-out-stuff is nonsense!”
What Jesus has said is shocking enough, but then we remember Luke’s account of the sweating blood. Jesus, drenched in blood and his clothing stained accordingly, is asked “where’s Jesus of Nazareth”; and His reply is basically “oh, you mean, Jehovah? I’m right here.”
If you aren’t backing away from Him because of respect the horrific majesty of it all, you’re backing away because of the apparent unhingedness/ insanity of the guy who’s talking.
John wasn’t much of an actual eyewitness of Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane when it’s considered that he, Peter and James were some distance away from Christ at the time of his suffering, and that they were fast asleep. It may rightly be said that John accompanied Christ when he entered the garden and that he was with him at the time the Gethsemanic suffering was over, but it’s a stretch to say he was an eyewitness.
-
On 4/2/2023 at 4:40 PM, mikbone said:
Anyone seen anything like that before?
Im sure social media will hate it.
I loved it.
I doubt elder Oaks’ rather strange and totally uncharacteristic General Conference address is the one he originally planned on giving. It’s hard to believe that after 6 months a brilliant mind like his couldn’t have come up with something more original to say. It seems to me his address was hastily cobbled together at the last minute just to be able to fill his allotted time.
After President Nelson admitted in his address that President Oaks and President Eyring have been having disagreements, albeit civil ones, I’m wondering if President Eyring opined at the last minute that President Oaks’ originally planned address was too hard hitting and controversial, and for these reasons President Oaks was forced to prepare a talk on the fly that included virtually no thoughts of his own?
I know what I’m saying seems far fetched, but at very least I’m fairly certain something happened behind the scenes that caused President Oaks to give the most unoriginal and unusual of all the General Conference addresses he’s ever given since becoming a general authority. To reiterate, President Oaks had a full 6 moths to come up with another one of his thought provoking talks, but the best he could do was quote the Savior on a wide range of subjects with no particular central focus or theme?
Now I do indeed realize that I could be flat out wrong, but I think it’ really is possible that something unusual happened behind the scenes that caused him to give such a strange and totally uncharacteristic conference address.
-
3 hours ago, Traveler said:
I have pondered the war in heaven. Obviously, there could be no physical damage – not even a physical threat. There are some things for which I believe we have some idea. We are told in scripture that heaven was divided and that a third part followed after Lucifer (Satan). The culture that provided this notion did not have math theory that included fractions. What this means is that Satan did not take 1/3 of heaven with him as many modern thinkers interpret the revelation. What it means is that heaven was divided into 3 parts – one of which followed Satan. There is no indication if the parts was somewhat the same in number or of one was much bigger than the other two combined.
We do, however have a good idea about two of the parts of heaven. One was the part that followed Satan, another was the part referenced in the scripture @mikbone quoted. They were called the noble and great. There is no mention of the final third part. But we know they were not noble and great and we know that they did not follow Satan. What I find interesting is that humanity was also divided into 3 parts in mortality as symbolically represented in the sons of Noah. The first division are the children of the covenant (represented by Shem). The second are the Gentiles represented by Japheth. The third group are the infidels (rejectors of divine covenant) represented by Ham.
The children of G-d are again divided into 3 groups in the resurrection and final judgement – Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial.
My impressions is that these divisions into 3 groups are related. That the society of earth is a parallel to the society of the pre-existence and like wise that the resurrection of glory society is parallel to the society of earth and the society of the pre-existence. I have speculated that the individuals in the glories of the resurrection will have mostly displayed their military colors and preferences in the pre-existence and during our mortal probation. I have pondered if there will be any exceptions but have concluded such pondering is fruitless.
What I believe that I have concluded that the methods of war that were established in the pre-existence have continued in mortality and will continue even after the resurrection – that the same concepts that divided the Children of G-d have and will continue – even after the resurrection. That this is the primary reason that there will be a separation and division. Not just of individuals but division in beliefs, laws, ordinances and covenants.
The Traveler
If those who remained loyal to Christ and freedom were the first part and those who followed Lucifer and tyranny were the third part, who exactly were those in the second part and who did they follow? You say they were not numbered among the noble and great who followed Christ, but are not the rank and file soldiers who fight for their nation in war considered loyal? Or are they only considered loyal if they do something above and beyond the call of duty?
-
On 3/26/2023 at 7:51 PM, laronius said:
59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.
This verse concerns those who are in spirit prison and have the gospel preached to them.
My question is if a person pays for their own sins of what are they washed clean from? Is their having paid the penalty different than the Savior paying for their sins making a cleansing still necessary?
The scriptures make it clear that it’s impossible for fallen mortals to atone for their own sins through suffering. The only way sin can be be properly atoned for, in order to fully satisfy the infinite and eternal demands of divine justice, is through an atoning sacrifice for sin made by an infinite and eternal being, and that being is God. It’s folly to imagine it’s possible for wicked, fallen men to have the power to make an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice for their own sins.
The purpose of suffering in hell for those destined for the telestial kingdom is to humble them through suffering until their hearts are fully broken and their spirits are rendered fully contrite, and this that they might finally be able to exercise living faith in Christ, sincerely repent of their sins, receive divine pardon for their sins, and at last receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost being that member of the Godhead who ministers to the inheritors of the telestial kingdom of glory.
The penalty spoken of is finally paid when the penitents have suffered enough to enable them to understand that they are utterly dependent on the Savior and need to advantage themselves of his atoning sacrifice if they are ever going to be able to escape what would otherwise be an endless punishment in hell. Suffering for personal sin actually is endless unless and until the sufferer exercises living faith in Christ unto true repentance that allows the burden to be lifted.
In order to gain a proper understanding of Doctrine and Covenants 138:59, it’s essential to read and correctly understand the verses that immediately precede verse 59. With this correct understanding it becomes clear that the washing referred to in verse 59 is the saving ordinance of baptism. With this comes the realization that the Savior really did speak the truth when he testified that only those who believe in him AND ARE BAPTIZED can be saved.
The answer you are looking for is found in the very same Section of the Doctrine and Covenants (138) that prompted your question…
57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead.
58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ORDINANCES of the house of God. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)
The “ordinances of the house of God” referred to in verse 58 are the same referred to in verse 33:
32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
33 These (I.e. the wicked who rejected the gospel message taught by prophets while they were in the body on earth) were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. (Doctrine and Covenants 138)
-
22 hours ago, askandanswer said:
John 11: 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the aglory of God, that the Son of God might be bglorified thereby.
John 9: 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this aman, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the aworks of God should be made bmanifest in him.
My understanding of John 9:2 is that in response to a question about whether a man’s affliction was a result of his, or his parent’s sin, Jesus said neither, and that this man was afflicted with blindness so that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
My understanding of John 11:4 is that Jesus explained that the reason for a man’s death was so that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Can these two incidents – a man being born blind and another man dying - and the reasons given for them, be interpreted to mean that God gives afflictions to His children so that He might be glorified and His works advanced?
Although at times it may not appear to be so, due to man’s limited understanding, the fact is that God never does a single thing, ever, that isn’t for the benefit and salvation of his children.
23 For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness.
24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he Loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw ALL men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. (2 Nephi 26)
-
2 hours ago, mikbone said:
Does Heavenly Father have DNA?
I have no idea.
Probably not as we know it at least.
DNA is amazing. Its primary function is to store information and create structural protein.
1 Corinthians 15: 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Blood and protein seem corruptible.
Joseph Smith once said that God lives in everlasting burnings.
God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” … All men who are immortal dwell in everlasting burnings. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367
The above situation would denature protein.
Also…
Luke 24: 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
D&C 130: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
I also doubt that pre-mortal spirits have DNA. dwelling in everlasting burnings also
If dwelling in everlasting burnings denatures protein, why doesn’t that fire also denature the protein in God the Father’s body of flesh and bone, a body that’s as tangible as man’s? In other words, why doesn’t the fire consume and destroy God’s flesh and bone? Or is it only the DNA portion of resurrected human protein that will denature in fire?
-
1 hour ago, mikbone said:
Does Heavenly Father have DNA?
I have no idea.
Probably not as we know it at least.
DNA is amazing. Its primary function is to store information and create structural protein.
1 Corinthians 15: 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Blood and protein seem corruptible.
Joseph Smith once said that God lives in everlasting burnings.
God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. “Our God is a consuming fire.” … All men who are immortal dwell in everlasting burnings. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367
The above situation would denature protein.
Also…
Luke 24: 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
D&C 130: 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
I also doubt that pre-mortal spirits have DNA.
Do you believe the earthly body of Only Begotten Son of the Father, Jesus Christ, had human DNA? If you do, from where and whom do you believe he got the male side of his DNA profile?
-
On 3/14/2023 at 9:10 AM, Carborendum said:
Seriously?!?!
And some people wonder why we avoid talking about this subject.
Yes seriously… Why don’t you try answering my very reasonable and logical questions? How about the following?
1) Do you believe the glorified man we call God the Father has DNA?
2) If you answer question 1 in the affirmative, do you believe Jesus has DNA from both his mother AND his Father?
-
16 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I've heard of it. But I don't buy into it. I've offered my take years ago. But not too many people seem to accept it.
So do you believe Mary was somehow impregnated without a sperm fertilizing her egg? Do you believe that Jesus had DNA from his Father (meaning that God the Father was his literal human Father?)? Or do you believe he was some sort of hybrid half-human with DNA from his mother only? One last question: If God the Father is a perfect Man whose resurrected human body functions perfectly, do you believe his resurrected reproductive system produces DNA?
What does this mean? Christ said to Mahonri . . .
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
The following observations on this subject are from the Prophet Joseph Smith: “After a person hath faith in Christ, repents of his Sins & is baptized for the remission of his Sins & recieves the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands,) which is the first Comforter then let him continue to humble himself before God hungering & thirsting after righteousness & living by every word of God, & the Lord will soon say unto him Son thou shalt be exalted, &c. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him & find that the man is determind to serve him at all hazard then the man will find his calling & Election made sure then it will be his privilege to recieve the other Comforter which the Lord hath promised the Saints as is recorded in the testimony of St. John in the XIV ch from the 12 to the 27 vers note the 16-17-18-21:23 verses Now what is this other Comforter it is no more or less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself & this is the sum & substance of the whole matter that when any man obtains this last Comforter he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him or appear unto him from time to time Even he will manifest the Father unto him & they will take up there abode with him & the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him & the Lord will teach him face to face & he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God.”
Discourse, between circa 26 June and circa 2 July 1839, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff, pp. 32-34, The Joseph Smith Papers.