larsumms

First of all, the tone of the challenge I am recieving is not good. I have seen this before, and it is unbecoming of members of Christ's Church. It promotes silence. John 5:19 – Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son doeth nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son also. The Son doeth what he hath seen the Father do; then the Father hath some day laid down his life and taken it again. History of the Church, J Smith, V5:426 The book of John was originally written in Greek. The key to this verse is the word “seeth”. “What he seeth the Father do”. In Greek, John used the verb “plebo”. The most common use of plebo is “to see with one’s own eyes”. The most accurate definition is “to observe accurately”. The emphasis is on the person doing the perceiving. Essentially, it means “to witness”. If Jesus witnessed an atonement performed by Heavenly Father, what form would Jesus have had at that time. Since Heavenly Father was not yet a celestial man, then Jesus could not yet have been born as a spirit body. Therefore, if Jesus observed the atonement performed by Heavenly Father, he would have been an intelligence. Joseph Smith said concerning John 5:19: If Jesus was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. History of the church, J Smith, V6:476 In the Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball said the following While opening a meeting in prayer: I pray that I may have the spirit of my Father and my God, and the spirit of Jesus, my elder brother, who is like unto his Father; and a pray that I may partake of the spirit of the Holy Ghost, which is in the same family and lineage. (V4:362) The phrase “in the same lineage” is interesting. Why not just stop the sentence with “in the same family”. Why was “in the same lineage” added? If you assume that Holy Ghost is a spirit brother to Jesus, the term “same lineage” is redundant to “same family”. There is more if you want it, but it brings in many other issues that will sidetrack the topic. So I will end this entry with this comment - you state "then why would you say these things here?" What is so special about this website that one cannot discuss this topic. DIscussion is not speculation. If I put in all these quotes at the start, would you have read it, or passed over it as being too lengthy. When I was a new convert at BYU, I taught a Sunday School lesson on the Plan of Salvation. I made a side comment like "and if Jesus had not atoned for us, we would all become angels to the devil". You should have seen the reaction I got. People got HOT real fast. They demanded a citation of validation of that teaching. Here it is: 2 NE 9:8-9. It states that teaching very clearly. When I told them the cite, the russling of pages all over the room was something I will never forget. I was a new convert, and had read the BOM only once. Most of the people in the room were born in the Church, yet the did not know this. As you read this, did you know that teaching? If not, why not? I submit that you did not know it because members do not study the doctrine enough - they just repeat what they hear - and what we hear are the simple truths that are appropriate for public meetings because investigators are present. Do you see now why I am speaking out? You are doctrinally bigoted - which promotes silence and lack of learning. Understanding our wonderful doctrine is not done through dictation - it is done through study. For example - I was challenged earlier to provide a reference for the term "Ahman". It was very easy to find - how come you didn't do that first before challenging me for a citation? Bruce R McKonkie once said that he regretted having written "Mormon Doctrine". When asked wy, he said that members go to his writings first before the scriptures. I think there is more to that than meets the eye. The reason they go to Mormon Doctrine is that there is comfort in being dictated to. It is easier to recieve than to dig. It is easier to challenge than to look it up.

I was of the same opinion as HiJolly for a long time, but find that stance to be too conservative now. There is scriptural evidence to support this. But most of the support comes from uncannonized scripture. That is why I choose a forum like this to expose these ideas. This topic is certainly inappropriate for the pulpit or Sunday School. But is it inappropriate to speak about at all. You will note that I did not bare testimony to it - and will not. It is not even my place to ask in prayer if such things are true. I know there is a danger to delving into these topics, but that is the case with all LDS scholarship. Skousen's 1000 year books caused lots of discussion, but also lots of confusion. When I went on my mission, they tested us in the Mission Training Center to see if we could recall the name of the 12 Apostles from memory. There were 50 new Elders in the class who began suggesting names. More than 12 names were given - many more. Cleon Skousen was one of them, as well as a few BYU Professors. I have heard leaders in the Church criticise Gerald B Lund (before he was called) for authoring "The Work and The Glory" series. The reason for the critique is that there will be those who will read those books and think they are historical fact, and not a novel based on historical facts. This is why Lund was so careful in producing that series - publishing all his sources of hard data along with the fiction. Although I do look forward to hearing someone say they are descended from Benjamin Steed. ;-} There are reasons that I broke silence after 25 years. People ar asking questions that can be answered to some degree within the bounds of revealed scripture, and no one is answering them. The General Authorities don't because people jump on their statements and read too much into them. When I was at BYU, our Bishop had Paul H Dunn come speak to our ward. Our Bishop was a close childhood friend to Dunn. WHen it came time for Q & A and the end of his talk, the first question asked was: "Were Adam and Eve made out of adobe?". LOL. The answer does exist in uncanonized scripture (from Brigham Young). Elder Dunn encouraged the young man to study it out, and did not answer the question nor give a hint. Later in the session, another student asked if he had seen the Savior in person. Dunn responded that the question was too personal for him to answer (which I totally agree with). I have heard of old men standing up in Testimony Meetings and ranting that women should not work, and using the "Proclamation on the Family" as evidence to back it up. That is a mis-use of the statement from Church Leaders. But what troubles me more is that the presiding authority in that meeting did not stand up afterwards and correct the man. There is clearly stated guidelines in the handbook of instructions to do so. If a non-member stood up in a Testimony meeting and taught falsehood, the presiding authority has a responsibility to correct the statement before the close of the meeting. So now I believe there is some room for discussion on these topics. Larsumms, "Uncanonized scripture" is a contradiction in terms. We are here to discuss Latter-day Saint beliefs, not entertain unfounded speculation. If you cannot back up your assertions from canonical Scriptures and cogent thought, you will not be allowed to derail this thread. Your own post admits the dangers in unfounded personal opinion and speculation. Please give us citation and scriptural support for your positions and allow the members to decide for themselves. You stated: Then why do you wish to discuss it here? You will find no answers, except those that must be confirmed through prayer. Please limit this discussion to things that can be confirmed through the teachings of the Church, through the statements of its leaders, and confirmed through revelatory prayer. We do not have a problem with questions which challenge the orthodoxy of Mormon beliefs, but we do prefer that they are at least in the same neighborhood. If you offer a statement, you are expected to be able to either support it by citation or withdraw it. Honos

Brigham Young said: Mankind are here because because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet. (JD, BY, V7:285) Mormons beleive in Terraformation - planet building. This is quite different than mainstream Christianity, who believe in life generation from raw materials. We believe that also, in a sense. This is how the resurrection will be done. But birth is different. Brigham Young said that nothing comes into existance except by birth. Evolutionists have stopped adding to the fossil record because they feel that they have found enough evidence to refute the "Life Generation" believers. This leaves us in a weird position. Comparing similarities in anatomy or genome between species, Phylum and Kingdom could only show that evolution happened, but it can never prove that it happened HERE. This can only be done with the fossil record. We have had over 100 years to find the missing links. There are about 10 million species on earth. So there should be 5 to 10 million evolutionary links to be found. After a hundred years, you would think we would have found a million evoltuionary lniks in the fossil record. But we haven't. The number of fossils that are considered plausible links is very very low. You will not find a count or inventory on the web. It has been buried because it is embarrasingly low - less than 1000. This is why they make such fanfare in the media when someone finds a fossil which may be an evolutionary link - because it is so rare. The Terraformation Model of Origin is the best model to explain the current data (or lack of it). We should promote it. People need to be made aware of it. It is interesting to note that Brigham Young made his comments about planet building around the same time that Charles Darwin published his "Origin of the Species".

The scriptures state that God has created innumerable worlds, and have placed his children on them. When that statement is made, was the term God refering to the "Father", or to Godkind. Godkind is a term I made up - the race of all celestial beings. I think that Abraham's statement applies to Godkind. IMO, all of our Heavenly Father's children are born here on earth. But that is just my opinion.

I have a lot to say about this - I hope I don't blow you away. In the Lectures on Faith, Lecture 4 (I believe) it states that God the Father and Jesus Christ have a common mind. I take this to be the definition of being a God. If a spirit or coporeal being surrenders their own will completely, while still having a separate awareness, and this is a permanent surrender, then they become "a" God. This is how the Holy Ghost became a God. Jesus was a God in the spirit world before he became mortal. This is how we will become Gods. The Goodhead is like a Bishopric. There was a time when this current Godhead didn't exist. I will refer to God the Father as Ahman (That's his name). If Jesus did everything and only things he saw his Father do, then Ahman also performed an atonement for hsi spirit brothers and sisters. When he did that, he was in a different Godhead, playing the role of the Redeemer in that Godhead. IMO, there is a progression of Godheads. There will come a day when Jesus will be called into a new Godhead, where he will play the role of the Father, and the spirit we now name the Holy Ghost will be called to be the Redeemer in that Godhead, having witnessed all the things which Jesus did as a Redeemer for us. There is a lot more I can say about this, but I'll stop now to see how you react to htis. Please provide references for your statements such as God the Father's name being Ahman. To find this reference, go to the index of the a BOM-D&C-POGP trilogy, and look up Ahman. Reference is D&C 78:20, 95:17. The name "Son Ahman" is explained in uncanonized scripture to mean "Son of Ahman". Also, the term "Adam-ondi-Ahman", which is a name/phrase in the Adamic language. It is my opinion that "ondi" is a verb that means something like "to give an accounting to". Orson Pratt aluded to this in JD 2:342, and he states that in the language of Adam, Ahman means "Man of Holiness". There are many references that the phrase "Man of Holiness" refers to Heavenly Father. "

She came to him about the lack of wine because the supply of the wine at a wedding is the responsibility of the groom

I didn't know this kind of thing existed in the WWW. pretty cool.