AnthonyB

Vort, I don't know if you can always put clearly in words why some things are repugnant to people. But here goes.... Jesus in most Christians mind is the ultimate example of good, love, compassion, justice. Lucifer is the ultimate example of evil, hate, injustice and general alround nastiness. In traditional terms one is God and the other is a degenerate creature. First point of revulsion is around how could two being so utterly different be related in such an intimate way. Wrongly or rightly it leaves people perplexed. Like meeting the family of mass murderer and finding them nice, there is no inherent reason why they shouldn't be nice but most people I think would find it disconcerting. The other is that by making them brothers it easy to leave the impression that in some sense they are being placed on the same level. The ultimate expression of good and the ultimate expression of bad are not utterly divergent but not that far apart. I'm sure if I thought more I might be able to explain it better but in the words of the guys from the movie "Princess Bride" it is just "inconceivable". I personally like a lot of LDS ideas and beliefs (just don't accept some of the them as being in line with my views of scripture) but I got to say the thought of even under a nuanced expalnation of placing Jesus in anyway the same context in any form to Lucifier is disconerting on a gut level response.

Vort, Which part of the statements below is wrong? We are all spririt children of God the Father Jesus and Lucifer are both therefore spirit children of God the Father People who share the same Father are siblings Therefore Jesus and Satan are "spirit siblings" If the concept of "spirit sibling" is not within the reference of understanding of an individual, it will be taken to mean siblings in the more normal sense. The LDS nuance of Jesus and Lucifer being spirit siblings collapses in non LDS minds to Jesus and Lucifer being brothers.

ram, I have often wonder about the LDS idea of God verses the traditional idea of theophany. LDS maintain the phsyical is an intrinsic part of who God is. Whereas a theophany is an manifestation or expression by a spiritual being into the physical world. The Holy Spirit is neither intrinsically a dove or tongues of fire but expressed His presence through being perceived that way. I have no doubts that God the Father and the God the Son can both express themselves as if they were physical beings and even eat etc. If I beleived Joseph Smith to have told the truth, why not maintain the First visions as theophanies of the persons of both the Father and Son. I don't know if I expressed that very well.

Mornimngstar, You've got to see that saying Jesus and Lucifer are brothers is deeply troubling to mainline Christians. Sort of like if your beloved Dad (presuming you really love your Dad) is brother to Pol Pot or Stalin. It just sounds so incredible offensive and although I don't often use the term, it comes across as about the most blasphemous concept imaginable. It really freaks people out. Although I thought you response was humurous, I don't know if it would change how gobsmacked the pastor was by the idea.

just_a_guy, The correct (trinitarian) mainline Christian term is person, not "facet or manifestation" which are terms used by people who believe in modalism. Trinitarian - 3 persons in 1 God or being Modalism - 3 facets or manifestations in 1 God or being Vort, Granted it is a very simplified and unnuanced saying but surely it does flow logically from LDS teaching. We are all spririt children of God the Father Jesus and Satan are therefore spirit children of God the Father People who share the same Father are siblings Therefore Jesus and Satan are "spirit" siblings (as are we all in the LDS view) The trouble probably is that most people have little understanding of the LDS concept of pre-existence, the idea of "spirit" siblings is not comprehended and the concept collapses in thier minds to the simple statement that Jesus and Satan are brothers. LDS believe that what mainline Christians views as different classes of being are infact a single class of beings in differing stages. So Gods, angels, mankind, intelligences are all the same type of being, what term or do you have a term that describes this single type of being that exists in those differing stages?

There are at least 6 ways that I can think of, to reduce a national deficit 1) Default -Simply refuse to pay 2) You can use inflation to reduce the relative size of you deficit. 3) Increase taxes a) by raising them b) growing the economy 4) Decrease spending 5) Sell assets

Traveller, I'd agree that you can hear echoes of the voice of Jesus outside of Christianity or Christians. Ghandhi is a classic example of a man, who although not within the visible church on earth yet often spoke truth and at times clearly spoke words that reflected Jesus better then many Christians. I simultaneously hope the grace of God is wider then I can imagine but also maintain that we are called upon to speak the truth Jesus spoke regardless of how unpopular it may be. (eg No one can came to the Father but by me)

Traveler, I disagree with your statement. If two things are in the same category (not sure if that is the correct maths term) then they cannot add to over 100%. You cannot be 70% English descent and 60% African descent, fruit juice cannot be 100% apple and 100% orange. As LDS think of G_d and humans are in the same category then I can see why for you to say 100% for each is odd. However if you view them to be distinct categories then they can both be 100%. A lemon can be 100% yellow and 100% fruit. President Monson can be fully the LDS president and fully an american citizen.

PC, Great question. Jesus said in John 10 He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice. So our aim should be able to hear his voice, then we would follow Him no matter where He leads us. Maybe we currently see dimly, so that we may learn to listen to his voice instead? (We read that verse in church on Sunday and it really made me remember, that it has to be more then just doing right and not doing wrong but really knowing Jesus.)

Hmm no problem with praying, speaking in tongues might be a whole different matter. :)

I had thought that the acronym "TBM" was the LDS word for orthodox LDS, or have I got it wrong? (TBM -although I've heard varying explanations of the phrase, temple believing mormon)

I wonder whether the OP, would benefit from an LDS version of "Alpha". A group course were people get together to learn and discuss (traditional evanglelical) Christianity. (Given your the Latter Day Saints, you could call it "Omega")

Christian is used in two senses.... Firstly it is used of anyone who consideres themselves somehow connected to Jesus Christ. That includes everyong TC's, LDS, JW, Christadelphians, etc Secondly (I think wrongly) it is sometimes used by people to define those they think are truly "in Christ", actually part of his church. Everybody has a different list of people they think is and isn't in. Partly I think we should leave that judgement up to God but we all have beliefs about the nature of authentic disciplehsip of Jesus. There is always going to be some tensions between LDS and non-LDS, your churches claims to exclusivity and your very distinctive doctrines will ensure that. However it always should be done within the ethos of Jesus, we both should always act from love and concern for those we disagree with. I have no problem that you wish that I accept the need for priesthood authority and the restored gospel. Hopefully you'll understand that I wish you would give up the extra doctrines that Joseph Smith and the LDS prophets that succeed him have added. But that doesn't negate the need for each of us to respect one another.

Interesting read, clearly a man with strong convictions. However he misinterpreted what non-LDS Christians believe about God, I shall presume it was due to his viewing things from an LDS perspective and not his being mendacious. There are enough threads about the differences between LDS and non-LDS on these forums that I don't want to add another. However I have seen quotes from that speech quoted by LDS as if they actually are a truthfull respresentation of what others believe and they are clearly not.

Vort, Thanks for your response. I apologize that my summation of your original post was inappropriate, I suppose I was writting what the post got me thinking about. So do LDS beleive (or is it just an opinion) that Jehovah wasn't fully exalted God before his incarnation? His baptism "to fulfill all righteousness" was it for the remission of sins? (I would presume not) I suppose my questioning is that the plan of salvation appears to me to not line up very well with what I understand about the members of the Godhead. I am just trying to understand how LDS understand that. (estradling75 posts did help explain one of the quanderies I had) I come from a Christian faith tradition that is not big on official doctrine. The idea of having official doctrine people (GA's) and official doctrine explanations (outside of scripture) is foreign to me. I tend to veiw that what the church believes is what the people in the church believe, since the people of God are the church not any heirachy. If I have a magisterium it is the NT as mediated through the cumulative voice of the people of God for the last 2000 years.

Thanks, I had presumed the conditions for exaltation had to be completed before exaltation could occur. The idea of latter fullfilling the conditions never occurred to me. So I presume the Holy Spirit will at some stage follow the same path of "fulfilling all righteousness" and become embodied, baptised and married?

It was stated on the thread on "if Jesus was married", that since marriage is part of exaltation then Jesus must have been married. Almost as if his time on earth recorded in the NT was essential for exaltation to the Godhead. However I thought LDS believed Jesus was the OT Jehovah and that he was already eternal God, creator of this world before he was born into the world. Basically (in LDS thought) if embodiement and marriage is essential to celestial elevation, and since Jesus was already fully celestially elevated before his incarnation, then he must have already been embodied and married before his coming to redeem mankind.

Can't help feeling if you converted the Pope, the Catholic church would just elect a new one. Convert Billy Graham, on the other hand and you would have every Evanglelicals in s quandery.

Eowyn, I think BBC viewed it originally as a kids show, it started off with a grandfrather figure as the doctor and his grandaughter, doing visits to historical events. The modern version is quit a deal upmarket from the original episodes. I grew up on the original series especially the series with Tom Baker as the Doctor, with Romana and K-9.

Vort, Actually I agree with what you say above but it is a matter of lanuguage and usage. Salvation in traditional thinking includes several concepts. Justification - Is the initial and legal removal of the negative penalty of sin and an impartation of a positive standing before God. Santification - Is the on going change of our nature to holiness, that God works through our circumstances in life. Glorification - Is the change when we die, to get us ready to be in the presence of God. Now unfortunately many Christians use "salvation" or "saved" as short hand for justification because it marks the initial change of state. Clearly we are justified in our sins when we come to faith in Christ. (And I personally take faith to mean more then just mental ascent but a faithful response to discipleship in Jesus.) Clearly we can't be sanctified in our sins, since it is the removal of sinful habits. Nor can we be glorified in our sins because sin cannot abide the presence of God. I presume you'd agree that we can be justified in our sins and that is what most Christians mean when they say they are saved in their sinful state.

Are there LDS prison chaplains in the US?

Traveller, Mary was Jesus mother but does mean she was his gestational carrier or that she contributed DNA to him? I would guess LDS probably see it as Mary's DNA and God the Fathers DNA. There are two other options firstly mix of Mary's DNA and DNA created by God for the purpose (As he created Adam's DNA) Or God created all the DNA from scratch without using Mary's DNA as he created Adam's DNA in the first place. Mary was his mother in the sense she carried him. I don't see the NT explicitly stating which of the three above is what happened. I'm sure you have modern revelation that might shed light on it for you but I simply don't know.

PC, Although I agree with you, that I find hard to concieve Jesus to have been married, isn't there a big difference between Jesus being married and the idea of God the Father physically assisting in conceiving Jesus. IF Jesus was married, it would have been a mutual covenant. Mary when she conceived Jesus was already engaged to Joseph. A much more serious commitment in that culture then it is today.The idea of God the Father engaging in what has the appearance from my perspective of a seedy one night stand is detestable. I know others may view it differently but a one off encounter by someone in such a position of authority over her, when she is already engaged to another man just appears wrong to a degree way beyond Jesus being married does. The first, I don't agree with largely because of the evidence isn't there to support it but I could accept a married Jesus if it was proved historically. The second I find a horrible idea, even if God the Father had a body, it was someone elses fiance, done outside any public covenant and a one off event by someone in position of ultimate authority over her.

I feel a bit out of place posting on this thread and I don't want to add anything to the generally good advice but would like to make a comment. I have been married 16 years and could never imagine saying that kind of thing to my wife. But what I really wanted to say was since LDS believe in eternal marriages, and as we are going to get perfected bodies in eternity, what kind of a man couldn't live with a few extra pounds for miniscule portion of our existence that this life is, if he was going to have the joy of being partnered to his wife for eternity. (and presumeably getting to enjoy extreme marital happiness to boot.)

Just wanted to point out that there are several denominations that like the LDS do not have any paid clergy (eg Christian Brethren).