AnthonyB

I suppose it may help to think about what a personal relationship is not.... What would an impersonal relationship look like? You can have an institutional relationship, the kind you generally have with a bank or insurance company. You can have a professional relationship, with a lawyer or doctor. That being said I could imagine it is possible to have a personal relationship with someone you disliked. The phrase is often used as code word for people who (like myself) believe in the need to personally engage with discipleship of Jesus not just rely on an institutional relationship or a parental connection.

PC, I'm not disagreeing with your post but think we need to ensure that we as followers of Jesus highlight that we advocate purity for both boys and girls. I understand that you said "her" as that reflects your situation but in the past it has often appeared that people emphasized girls more than boys. Abstinence before and fidelety within marriage for both sexes.

If you wanted a female Dr Who why not just start a new series and have Romana star in it.

Skalenfehl, That's my gospel to.....Nothing in that passage I couldn't give a hearty amen to.

PC, How do we distinguish between a heresy within a belief, and a seperate belief system? Most groups started off as a break away from another group, that some point seperated out. I think people teach about other groups mainly to discourage their own people joining the other group. In some ways the easiest way to teach your own groups distinctives is to compare with other groups. When Jesus said..."You have heard it said but I say to you" he was contrasting belief systems.

Do they have parent controlled schools in the US? My kids go to a PCS, the school up front says that education is a parental responsibility expected of them by God (its a CPCS (Christian PCS)), that the school is a tool for assisting the parents in this responsbility. Education is far more than what any school can teach, kids need to learn more then the 3R's. Parental involvement is very consistent but voluntary, every class for the first 3 years generally has 2 parent helpers for every class every day. (That is around 10 helper per week per class about 50% of the parents in any class) Parents are members of as association who make the big decisions for the school and elect a board made of parents (and principal and teachers rep) to run the school. Principal runs day to day.

G'day, welcome to the forum. Was originally going to reply because I thought you were Australian, I saw the thread heading and guessed wrong. But welcome anyway from a fellow member of a Commonwealth Realm of EIIR.

Norah, Curious to hear more about what you believe..... Is BoM still scripture to you? Is JS a genuine prophet of God? Are eternal marriages possible?

jdcofc, Did it get mentioned in the "counsel to the church"?

I think we had better define the period his body was the same as our current one, happy to be corrected if I haven't got something right... (Was going to include the TC perspective but as this is LDS Gospel Discussion don't want to offend although I personally think if people are going to fully understand LDS doctrine it might help to reference to the more commonly held views as a contrast) Pre-incarnation LDS Jesus - Spirit body (Same as our pre-birth spirit bodies) Incarnation LDS Jesus - Human body (This is the body I think your discussing the level to which it was human) Post Glorification/Ascension LDS Jesus -Celestial body Then there is the period post ressurection till ascension, which some hold he had a partially glorified body.

StephenVH, I apologize for using wikipedia however Patripassianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you are saying that where the Father the Son is also, aren't you saying that when the Son was crucified that the Father was crucified. However wasn't that declared heretical as Partripassianism.

Vort, I have no problem with you wanting to call yourself a monotheist. On my part it isn't playing with definitions but attempting to follow what I believe the NT presents about God. I assure you if I could find a way to read the NT consistently in an easier way I would. There have been no shortage of attempts to invent easier ways to describe or talk about about the Godhead but they all seem to miss part of what i think God wants us to know about him. When you say "seperate" what do you mean? Which part is "seperate"? That they have seperate wills and emotions we would agree on, I believe. However does the Father love more then the Son? Is the Spirit more gracious then the Father? Is one person more holy then the others? Is one more powerful, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent etc In other words do all three equally share what it is that a devine being as described in the bible is? (Anyway I hope your having a blessed day.)

Vort, Absolutely none on specifically LDS Gospel understanding, although I would have thought that if you your going to discuss something, you might have to include what it is not. The OP mentioned "historically" and it was directed at that. I have removed the line that appears to have offended you and am quite happy if a mod wants to remove it all.

Eowyn, He would pray to himself because he is multiple persons. All personality and the best of our relationships are merely an echo of what existed perfectly from eternity in the one being multiple person God. A single source of all relationship perfectly haramonized, so close they are perfectly one in being and essence but still they are there own person within that oneness. The only purpose in God revealing himself to man is so that we may truly know and be in relationship with him. He doesn't chose to reveal himself this way, he reveals what He truly is.

Vort, No it is Trinitarianism, one God being with three persons. The persons each can will seperately, can manifest physically seperate but they are one God and one being, share in the one essence of devine being. Polytheism is multiple gods, I do not believe in multiple gods, just one God being with multiple persons.

Bini, No pre-mortal existence so no pre-mortal name. Not sure from scripture precisely when ensoulment happens but fairly early and certianly before the quickening (probably at conception). There are two views as to how the soul is created. One is that it is created by God for each person. The other is that it is passed on from our parents, as flame is passed on from a candle to another. (All the way back to the first souls given to Adam and Eve.) I thin God creates each of us individually. God knows us before we exist through his foreknowledge of all things.

Andennex, The first vision in and of itself does not automatically lead to an LDS understanding of the Godhead. I think it would be possible to believe in having seen the Father and Son individually without believing they are sepearate beings. Traditional orthodox/catholic christianity has always held that it was the Son he lived on earth, was crucified and was raised from the dead. The Father did not do any of this. The Father and Son could manifest and appear as seperate entities/personages if they chose to do so. Just as at Jesus baptism the Son was Jesus, the Holy Spirit come down out fo heaven and the Father spoke from heaven. LDS have a presupposition that being perceived as physcially seperate means that something cannot be one being. Whilst I understand that for you subsequent revelation has endowed the physical appearance at the first vision with this significance, it need not do so nor from my understanding did it do so for all the earliest LDS, who took some time to move the current LDS understanding. (I am happy to be corrected on this but that is my understanding from the little reading I've done about early LDS beliefs in the Godhead)

There is not a single document of "Q" in existence, nor is there reference to it anywhere in early Christian writing. Given that the author of Luke indicated that he used other sources, I would suggest that the idea, he used Mark and Matthew is at least as plausible as Q existing. The BoM is a translation by Joseph Smith (although from my reading he appeared to use dynamic equivalance (eg NIV) not word for word (eg NASB.) of purported ancient writings which are no longer available for confirmation. If you had the plates you could make a case for it being older then the NT but it is a translation without originals.

madeliene1, Many trimes I have had it pointed in sermons and bible studies that we (ie any member of the church) are saints, even had it personalized that we all individually are saints. I would have no problem saying I'm a saint, albeit only through the grace of God. It is not me that makes me a saint but what Jesus has done for me. (I might even change my posting name to St AnthonyB) There is a song at the moment by "Third Day" that goes.... We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven We are the sons and daughters of our God We are the saints, we are the children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven We are the sons and daughters of our God

Paul routinely referred to all the members of the churches he was writing to as saints, that is they were the set apart holy people of God. However even a quick look at the people in the churches that he was writing to shows they were far from perfect. (Corinthian church was so dysfunctional that all sorts of things were going on.)

I'm not sure if I can express an idea I've been thinking of, but here goes. I believe scripture clearly teaches that hell is eternal (ie for ever) I believe hell is a place of punishment. It includes the idea of a 2nd death. Death involves us becoming less and less of what we are, those who choose evil shrink their souls and all they are. (Whereas those in heaven who have eternal life are ever expending and able to experience greater and greater joy) Life grows and enlarges, Death shrinks. I have had an idea which I have not yet had the time to really test against scriptures. What if hell is an eternal punishment but the punishment is the diminishing of who we are. The diminishing goes on forever and is eternal. But as we diminsh our ability to suffer diminishes. Rather like an asymptote in maths which for ever moves towards zero but never reaches it. This would make the punishment eternal and unending but effectiviley limit the cruelness of it. it never ends but is not eternal torment of the utmost kind. When you enter hell, all goodness is removed, only the evil in a person is left with them. The more evil someone is the more evil there is to diminsh, therefore the greater their suffering. Correspondingly people with less evil would diminsh faster and therefore suffer comparatively less.

Finrock, Once saved, always saved is part of Calvinist theology. If you start from where they start with there theology it unavoidably follows. It is the P in TULIP. Total Depravity - We are utterly able to do anything to get right with God Unconditional Election- God chooses by his will, there are no conditions on our part. The faith we have itself is a gift from God. Limited Atonement - Jesus atonement was only for the elect not the whole world Iresistable Grace- If God calls you to be saved, you cannot resist being saved Perseverance of the Saints- What you term as once saved always saved. Now I won't defend the above as I have Arminian views. LDS largely fail on the Armininian side of Calivinist/Armininian discusssion. However if you want to understand how people end up believing that, you have to understand the whole framework and presuppositions that Calvinists have not just isolate one particular doctrine out of place in the entire framework. Anyway there are some scriptures which appear to lend some credence to their view, such as... Jude 1:24-25 King James Version (KJV) 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

I'm sure I have said this before, LDS and tradition Christians use the same words with differing nuances. Salvation includes at least three things. 1)Justification -This comes by our faith through grace. It is a gift of God. It is both the removal of negative standing and an impartation of positive standing. TC's tend to place the emphasis of salvation here. 2)Sanctification - Is God work on us and through our efforts to make us holy. It is the ongoing process of refining us in this life. LDS seem to emphasis this area. 3)Glorification- Happens when we die or Jesus return for us, it is the tranforming of us into being capable of being with God. Now faith is and has to more then mere mental ascent to a set of facts. For me biblical faith is a personal relational covenant with Jesus. Faith without works is no true faith. Works without faith is utterly futile. Faith that works, faith that tranforms us is true faith. Works cannot save us, faith alone saves. However if your faith is not transforming you, if your faith in Jesus, isn't making more every day into his image then you need to reasses if you have real faith.

Getting back to the Roman Catholic church..... Maybe for the next Papacy, the Cardinals chould elect a Pope and two assistant Pope in the one Papacy.

Traveler, A genius maybe someone who excells at a specific field but may not excel at others. EG musical genius, maths or physics genius You can be a genius at something without being very smart in traditional terms. I think the humour comes partly from the mismatch in skill levels (eg Sheldon is very good at maths but lacks eQ). There is also probably a part that responds, well your better then me at x but your not so good at y.