WillowTheWhisp

On more than one occasion in Church we have been given this scripture as an illustration that we are gods rather than God's and children of the most High (God) ie actual offspring of Heavenly Father. The footnotes even refer to that. I think I'll stick with what I've been taught in Church and what is in the approved footnotes.

If it was not a doctrine of the church I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be allowed in the Hymn book. Those hymns aren't just written on a whim. They are specifically chosen. We don't have any details of our heavenly mother and knowing about her isn't pertinent to our salvation. The things which are concentrated on when new members and investigators are being taught are the things which are important to our salvation. It's like being fed milk first before we can digest the meat. The significant part in your quote is "as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance" - it is addressed to those who have already heard the Gospel, not just once but 'so many' times and they are being urged not to put off acting upon that. If they do not accept then they have made their choice. This is totally different to people who have never had the opportunity to hear.

I see it in the same way as a human earthly family. A boy grows up to be an adult but he is still his father's son and people still refer to their adult offspring as their children even though they may be equal to them in education and intelligence and occupation etc. The son can still look up to his father.

But in my experience the Church has not seperated those individuals, even those who have been excommunicated. They are not able to partake of Sacrament or participate in lessons or hold callings but they are encouraged to attend church and to fully repent and change their ways so that they can be rebaptised and receive their blessings once more.I have seen the sinners themselves react differently to this. One person I know accepted the discipline, kept coming to church and is now fully active and temple worthy once more. Another person took the 'ump and has only ever set foot in church once since being excommunicated then was never seen again. The Church has never washed its hands of people in my experience but has condemned the sin whilst still continuing to show love for the sinner.

And Latter-day Saints are spurred on to do more Temple work for those very same reasons. A just and loving God who makes provision for ALL to hear and choose whom they will follow.

When I use the name Lucifer I am using it to refer to him in the spirit world when he was 'son of the morning' before his rebellion and fall from Heavenly Father's presence. The fact that he has lost his birthright by his own actions doesn't change the fact that he was born the spirit son of the same Heavenly parents as you and me, and our brother Jehovah who was born on earth as Jesus of Nazareth. The Scriptures call him Lucifer then and so I will continue to refer to him as Lucifer then and Satan now. I do not believe this is in contradiction to what your General Authority trivia says. You know if I had a child who went off the rails and I disowned them and wrote them out of my will I still wouldn't be able to undo the fact that at one time I'd given birth to them. This is the same as what I am saying about Lucifer/Satan.

I'm sorry you have completely lost me there. False gods yet children of the most High? That doesn't make sense. Yes I too believe that there are three Gods, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three separate individual Gods. Isn't that what I have been saying? They are all divine and they are all separate. They are not three parts of one person. That is what I have always believed and what I have always been lead to believe is Church teaching on the subject.

Easy when you believe, as I do, that he is one of us. He is our older brother. We are all children of the same Heavenly Father. We're not a different species.

So you're saying that God expects people to believe in him even though they haven't been told anything about him because his creations can be clearly seen? How cruel that would be I was under the impression that Paul was writing to existing converts, people who had already been taught the Gospel but who might have been going astray when he wrote those words. Of course those people who read it would already have heard. Paul was writing to existing churches at the time.

I agree with you there but I cannot believe a loving Heavenly Father would simply say "You haven't had the Gospel preached to you during your lifetime so tough you can't come in." I believe he has provided a way for EVERYONE to have that opportunity because he loves us all.

When you consider that 18 years of Jesus' life from the age of 12 when he went to the temple in Jerusalem to the age of 30 when he began his ministry is simply not covered at all in the Bible there may well be an awful lot of things he did that we have not idea of - yet. I don't think he sat there twiddling his thumbs for 18 years, but that is just my personal opinion.

Yes of course the Church preaches to all nations but what about those nations which were not reached? Between Christ preaching to the spirits in Prison and today there have been countless numbers of people who have simply not had the opportunity to hear the gospel themselves. I'm puzzled that you can say it doesn't make sense that Prison would continue to exist. Where else would these people go? They have not had the opportunity to believe in something they have never heard of so they cannot go to Paradise. Just as Christ established the Church and commissioned his followers to preach on earth the spirits of the faithful deceased also preach to the spirits in Prison. When Christ said "It is finished." that was the Atonement, not the preaching. I may have misunderstood what you said on the subject of Lucifer and Jesus - the LDS teaching is that we are all spirit brothers and sister, including Lucifer and his followers. I was a little puzzled that you said you do not believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. Jesus was the only begotten in the flesh but not the only child of Heavenly Father in the spirit world. True Lucifer lost his chance of being part of the eternal family but he was born into that family.

We don't have food these days because there's not much travelling involved so it's no different to any other Sunday. Back in the olden days when we used to all travel to a hired hall in a university for Stake Conference the different wards used to hire buses and pick the members up en route. That was a good old day out with picnic hampers and hymn singing on the bus! It was great.

Our Ward used to have quite the reputation for food too. We don't need much of an excuse.

Very best of luck with the giving up smoking. :) You already sound determined to succeed.

Tiancum are you LDS?

It features in one of our hymns - "Oh My Father"

Jesus said "you shall be with me in Paradise" As Latter-day Saints we believe that when we die we go to the spirit world and that the spirit world is divided into prison and paradise. The former for those who died as unbelievers and the latter for deceased believers who died without baptism. Those in the 'prison' can progress to the 'paradise' by being taught and accepting th Gospel in the spirit world but when it comes to the final judgement and allocation of an eternal home then they cannot progress through to the Celestial Kingdom unless baptism is performed on their behalf. So, when Jesus told the thief he would be with him in Paradise he didn't mean getting to Heaven without baptism.

I'm not aware of it being a requirement for our salvation to believe that - it just logically follows in my opinion, in the same way that we cannot have a Heavenly Father without having a Heavenly Mother.

Before I got baptised my skirts were what I now consider too short. A few days before my baptism I bought some lengths of broderie anglais and lengthened the skirts by adding an imitation underskirt just under the hem in a matching colour. My daughter has some strappy tops but she wears them over matching t-shirts. There are many ways round the clothing problem.

The best thing about giving a talk or teaching a lesson in church is that you are amongst people who know how you feel and do not criticise that as many of them feel the same. We have a member of the High Council who is very nervous about giving talks and really struggles but he is greatly admired by members. We have some people who are natural speakers and very entertaining but they do not look down on the nervous ones, on the contrary they look up to them in admiration for overcoming their fears and getting up there and doing it.

But that was later, not during the lifetime of Christ.

Church punishment? I've always been led to believe that 'punishment' as such was not on the agenda but that evenexcommunication was regarded as a means of encouraging repentance and return to full fellowship and rrelationship with Heavenly Father. Isn't that what repentance is all about?

We do not know that Jesus hadn't made prior arrangements for his wife and possibly children. For all we know, fearing for their safety as his immediate family after his impending crucifixion he may well have made arrangements for them well before that last supper. He may not. He may have made arrangements for his mother prior to then too and simply have been confirming that to her and John at the time. He may also have spoken about his wife from the cross and any references to that may have been removed as they would not be in keeping with the idea that he was celibate and single. We know that things have been removed from the Bible. In fact the Bible as it stands today has been added to and taken from before the final collection was agreed upon. (Even now some Bibles contain books which others do not) So the fact that something isn't said does not imply to me the the opposite must therefore be true. That is a fallacy. It's like saying all peas are green vegetables therefore all green vegetables are peas. Are you suggesting that Jesus was a eunuch?

No, not at all. My understanding is still that they are three distinct and separate beings. I used the small 'g' because in the English language the capital letter is more often than not used when referring to a name of a person. I would say God the Father when I am using the word to refer to his name. Then again some people would put 'His Name' whereas I don't because I feel it confuses the grammar. Psalm 82 verse 6 says "Know ye not that ye are gods and children of the most High" It doesn't use a capital letter there because it is using the word 'gods' to describe 'godness' (for want of a better word) but it does use a capital letter for the word 'High' (where we all know that in any normal setting the adjective 'high' would not have a capital) because in this particular instance the word is being used to identify Heavenly Father. In other words it is a substitute name. So I can say that Jesus, Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost are gods but refer to them as God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Ghost. I don't know if I'm making sense. I know what I mean but it's difficult to put it into words. It doesn't change the fact that I believe they are 3 separate people and the LDS church teaches that they are 3 separate people. If we were having this discussion in German we wouldn't even be having this discussion because all nouns have capital letters.