Traveler

Recently I met a lady at the airport that fled Iraq during the Sadam era. Her father was tortured to death and her mother was harassed to death (both dying within a few months of each other). She was able to escape and come to America when she was 15. She is now a mother of two college age students and very much devout Moslem. I wonder why we have been so lucky and have not had near the opportunity to demonstrate our faith or to what extend we would stand by our convictions – if we really have any. I was going to add something here concerning some of the things I have seen of complaint but decided not to. Suffering, even a little should not be made fun of - so I apolize for the thought. The Traveler

I do not like this thread. And so I am not misunderstood I will state my opinion. I do not believe a person that is not willing to serve in the military during a time of combat should be granted the rights of citizenship. I do not think that we should think of the military as being anything other than the free citizens of a free country. When the military is thought of as anything other than free citizens – that country is not free and neither are its citizens. I would add one other thing – I do not believe that anyone should be required to live under the protection of a military comprised of free citizens. No one should be forced to be free. The Traveler

Of course they did...it was written for them, first of all. However, John promises blessings for those who read and who hear the Revelation. I spent three years teaching the book to an adult Sunday School class. We focused on Jesus, since it is a revelation of him--and we held on to what was revealed, rather than trying to force answers to questions the writing does not clearly answer. There are many scriptures about Christ that are not understood or even denied. Scriptures often are written around strong symbols but because certain interpretations of things are preferred over seeking understanding from G-d – even considerations of possibilities beyond the wisdom of man become heresy. Consider the symbolism of Christ in Chapter 19 or 20 of Revelation. (pardon me for forgetting and not having scriptures available or time to look it up on the internet). Here Christ utilizes the symbols of a sword and fire as he brings salvation to fallen man. Where else in scripture do we see such symbols used in such a manner? How about Genesis as Adam and Eve are driven from Eden – The Garden of G-d? Suggest that this is a symbolic Messiah prophesy that is fulfilled in the Book of Revelation and many varieties of Christians will burn you at the stake of heresy. And without any explanation of why Christ and some other (perhaps lesser being) are charged with the same symbols. (And I would add that the understanding of this prophetic relationship could bring together Christian, Jew and Islam - But since it would not be on the terms of the "wise" among any of them - it is not likely - until G-d intervenes and brings the wisdom of the wise to naught.) The Traveler

Searcher: It is my impression that you are not telling us but parts and pieces of truths. There are things that you know about that you are leaving out of your posts. If you would spend time with your thoughts (meditating on their source) you would be able to decipher that the thoughts of doubt that you experience are not originally your own thought (nor am I the first to tell you this). And you already know why these thoughts have power in your life. Just as the “Rich young man” that came unto Christ asking what he must do for eternal life you have kept all the commandments from your youth – but also as the “Rich young man” there is something you love to which you still hang on. I wish you well and dearly hope that you will not hang on as long as I have done. Do not, as the prodigal son and waist yourself till there is nothing left to waist. The Traveler

I am sorry to say this but I believe that theses scriptures concerning the end of time are the least understood and the most misquoted scriptures in Christianity. First a little explanation concerning a saying anciently among the Jews.On the first day of the year the Jews had a great celebration and feast. The first day of the year always came according to the “Signs”. On the first “Sunday” (first day of the week) marked the first day of the year that followed the first “New Moon” following the vernal equinox. This would be established when two witnesses (qualified) testified of the New Moon following the equinox, before a judge – then the sign would be given to all the Jews which was a fire lit on a hill side. The event was based on the appearance of the sign of the New Moon following the equinox. All these signs are “types and shadows” of Christ. If a stranger were to ask when the new year would begin or when the feast would take place the common saying was – “No man knows, Not until the sign is given.” This was the saying but anyone that knew the signs of the year could know when the equinox was near and could easily surmise the Sunday to begin the new year. However, if there were storms and clouds blocking the sky often they would say of the attempts to see the signs as not only does no man know but not even the angles of heaven know. My point is; any saint that studies the scriptures, as did the Magi of the East, will be able to see the signs of great wonder and know, quite accurately when our L-rd will return. For example, when two prophets are killed and lie dead in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 days (as the ancients counted 3 days) they will know the exact day from the moment the prophets are killed. The problem we have for now is that there are many prophesies concerning the times of the last days but few pay attention. Always concerning these things does the L-rd reveal his secrets with symbols and does not speak in the terms that speculators like to use to the detriment of those that listen. If someone is wondering if they should waist their time investing for retirement that may not occur because Jesus will come – my recommendation is that you will be better off considering long term investments for your family. The Traveler

I am not sure what you mean by your comments - but I cannot imagine heaven as a desirable place that would exclude anyone that knowingly understands of such a heaven and desires to be there.At the same time I am quite curious concerning those that claim to want to be in heaven and have no concept at all what it would be like to live in such a place. The Traveler

I suppose that it would be--based on LDS Scriptures. However, apart from those unique revelations, there is nothing in the Bible or in Christian history up until Joseph Smith, that would require, or even favor the view that all of God's creation is eternal (or that humanity is, for that matter). While you reference a biblical phrase, there is nothing outside of LDS revelation that says that all spirits are eternal. If God has to give us eternal life, it means that we previous to the gifting, did not have eternal life. Interesting that we both agree that the Bible is not clear and decisive on such an important topic. Please do not take this as personal criticism. Also I am glad to understand that the thought that G-d is infinite and that man in finite is not really a barrier that will differentiate redeemed man from G-d – With that understanding I concede the argument. The Traveler

I once asked Apostle Hugh B Brown if a bishop should be supported even if you know that he is wrong. His answer to me was especially if you know he is wrong - because he will need your support more then than at any other time. As a parent I have learned that it is better for parents to unitedly raise their children than it is for one parent to be right. Not budging because you know you are right is a short step away from the terrible sin of pride. The Traveler

I am always stunned when individuals attempt to come to scientific conclusions based on their interpretation of scripture. I am also equally stunned by my scientific colleagues that attempt to come to conclusions of religious doctrine based on current interpretation of scientific data. However, in general I have found the scientific community far more open to ideas and discussion than I have found in the religious landscape. As far as the creation, I find the event horizon of the scientific discussion of the Big Bang as bewildering as religious ignorance of pre-Creation social structures of heaven. It would appear that the Truth of creation is currently itself an evolutionary process that will continue to become more complete and fill in the gaps as we discover more scientific and religious pieces of the puzzle. I am most stunned by those that pronounce that they comprehend it all when they do not consider any of the discoveries that have occurred during the last 200 years – whether it is scientific or religious. The Traveler

Thank you for your interest in my post. I am not sure on what point in my post you were referencing in your quoting of D&C 121. I would point out that in that section; there are strong words to those that abuse the authority and power of the priesthood. BTW – abuse of priesthood power is often referenced in scripture, especially associated with “overseers” of the temple. Something Jesus addressed specifically during his 3 year ministry. My reference to the Book of Enoch was to put forth the possibility that there was, anciently, a civilization or civilizations technically more advanced than any civilization or civilizations of our era. For example, the possible advanced scientific ability to alter and control weather. I am not sure if you feel this possibility contradicts something given to us in our standard works scripture or not – since you made no specific or general reference, I am not sure what you intended. Feel free to be open in this matter – I may not agree but I will always consider any reference someone is interested enough to address me specifically. Please be a little more specific when you suggest I study LAW. Are you referencing US Constitutional Law? Are you referencing more general – Western Civilization Democratic Law? Would you be addressing even more general law as it relates to modern social structures of Eastern or Western regions or Social governments of Liberal thinking like Communism or other Socialist trends? Perhaps you may be referencing religious law of the Dark or Middle ages under Catholicism? Or perhaps you may have made reference to the Ancient Near Eastern (Mediterranean) law of Kingdoms and Suzerain, Servant Vassal relationships often referenced in ancient scripture used to construct the modern Bible. (Some scholars feel the LDS priesthood structure resembles somewhat the ancient structure of kingdoms and Servant Vassal stewardships). I would be glad to discuss this topic but I think it is a little off topic for this thread. I am bewildered why you felt my reference to the flood as a symbol of a covenant (similar to the symbol of baptism covenant) would not be based in faith or would dictate what literally did or did not take place. Thank you again for your consideration – I look forward to your thoughts (or others) directed to these topics. The Traveler

Lost in much of the shuffle of things are the ancient symbols of the temple of Israel and its predecessor, the Tabernacle. The symbols I reference for this post are the cherubim. As with so many symbols associated with temples – I will suggest that this symbol also references one that is “anointed” or messiah and not a reference to a level or order of angels. Also that in Genesis the symbol of cherubim is used to reference the one to “keep” the way to the “tree of life” or to leave the “fallen state” to return to heaven.But the symbol of cherubim always comes in pairs. The King James Version of the Bible at one point is translated as “And the two shall face each other”. A literal translation of the ancient Hebrew can be rendered to be “And the two brothers shall face each other”. On this point I will leave with one last thought; in all symbols referenced in scripture where two brothers dispute over a birth right – it is given to the younger and more righteous of the two. The Traveler

Just for fun I will pursue a slightly different course and different point of view. According to the Book of Enoch – all powers and knowledge that heaven had designated for man had been distributed to man prior to the flood. The miss use of such power and knowledge was part of the “covenant of destruction” upon which the flood was brought. Under that covenant certain powers and knowledge would be with held until the “end of times”. One of the ridicules of Noah concerning the flood is that since man had the knowledge and power to control weather there could not be rain to cause the prophetic flood. But then the Book of Enoch is not considered a reliable source. The Traveler

I still sense you are conflating God's role as creator with his existence as God. Does it surprise you that God slips in and out of roles? Must everything he does be eternal? You are clearly implying that God is deficient if he's not creating. Why? Further, it may well be that he was creating, before he created us. I honestly don't know if his creating "the world" means all material throughout all dimensions and all universes (could there be more than one?), or if it merely refers to the start of life on "the third rock from the sun." I obviously disagree with the last line. "The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord." (Romans 6:23, my paraphrase). Just a few ideas that come from my understanding of LDS doctrine: Eternal is a term that describes our Father in Heaven as much as G-d or Creator does. All of these are descriptions of Our Father in Heaven. The terms are not mutually exclusive – for example G-d is an eternal G-d and is an Eternal Creator. Saying that his creations are finite is, I believe, a sad but telling form of heresy. Jesus became the creator of what we understand in our universe as our heavens and earth and all things in them are. Jesus was made (created as) the creator by the "direction" of our Father in Heaven. Thus the creator of our universe is also a creation. That which is spiritual is not finite - and this includes the spirit of man. Even though man can die his spirit cannot die because the spirit is eternal. The resurrection will reconnect the physical with the spiritual in a manner in which the physical will no longer die. (What was corruptible will become incorruptible). And in conclusion for this post – The gift of G-d is eternal life – meaning that the argument that man is finite and G-d if infinite (therefore distinguished) is not a valid argument for differentiating redeemed and exalted man from G-d. The Traveler

Just for fun I thought I would give an ancient perspective from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is one document called the Angles of Mastermoth. These were the elete dark angles of Satan commissioned to tempt those that covenant with G-d. Their prime tool was said to be pride - in particular the temptation to believe that G-d loved them more than others. Along this line it is my personal belief that the more one knows of and covenants with G-d the greater is the sin. To me it is not the "wickedness" of the sin but the wickedness of the sinner that defines the higher ranked sin. The closer one is to G-d the more tragic and wicked is the sin that they commit for they turn from a brighter light to worship and follow Satan and deny a greater power than those that have no real light or relationship to G-d and turn to Satan in darkness. The Traveler The Traveler

God is God. Creator is a job title. When He creates, He is the Creator. Before creation God did not create. So? I'm not sure why it matters. Then you agree that according doctrine (not LDS) - there is no such thing as an "eternal" creator and that G-d did not have or derseve the title of Creator until the creation spoken of in Genesis began? And that man being finite cannot ever have "eternal" or "everlasting" life? The Traveler

I understood, but I do not agree. It does not follow that because creation is finite, the creator is finite. We believe that God is infinite and eternal, and that this world--and humanity in particular--are finite, having been created at a specific time, out of nothing. Why do you limit God to being a Creator, and nothing else? We see him in relation to ourselves, but God is infinite and eternal in himself. He is not dependent on us for his existence. This is absurd. Before I was a father, I was still a man. Before we were created, God was God. Adam and Eve were not birthed--at least there is no indication of such in Scripture. God created them. Our parents gave birth to us--yet God created us. Birthing has to do with propogation of the species. Creation need not. My five year old creates beautiful artwork. Those pieces are not human. God created us. He is not human, and we are not God. You have missed the point - The point is that G-d as creator is not eternal or his creation would have eternal occurance. I agree on one point - very much that prior to creation G-d existed but we are not talking about G-d exiting we are talking about the existance of a creator and when and if a creator was created. My point is that if there was no creation prior to the creation spoken of in the Bible then there was no creator. Now there may be a problem at the next step of logic if we assume that G-d was not completely G-d until he created or became (created) the creator. That is an issue you will have to deal with because I believe a creator can be and must be created for there to be a begining to creation. This issue you have not addressed yet but the point I keep trying to make - leaving me to think you have not understood what I was saying. G-d was not a creator until he created. You may have been a man before your were a father but before you were a father you were not a father. You were not a father until you "fathered" a child - Thus there was no creator until something was created. Therefore a creator is as finite as their creation or if you will if creation is finite then so is the creator. I am confused about your doctrine concerning birth and creation. Did G-d create man (you and me) or were we born? I have been holding to the notion that there is no difference - that birth and creation is the same thing when we are talking about living things. In other words all living things are created through the process of birth. I have also implied that this (birth creation) is a process man knows about. If you were created by any other process than was Adam - would you please provide the scripture reference for such doctrine? I believe the two (creation of life and birth) are the same. There is much more to this doctrine but if you do not believe that persons born are a "children of G-d" - only those created by some other process - you have lost me in the logic. The Traveler

I must be careful here that I am not misunderstood. A few years back I had taken my children Christmas shopping. On our way home we passed a small strip mall and I had a strong spiritual impression to turn into that mall parking lot. I passed by and the impression came upon me so storngly I pulled over the car and told my children that we must go back. They were all tired and hungry and cold and wanted to go home but I told them we must go back and I did not know why. Can you emagine telling teenagers that?After driving back and entering the parking lot my children complained that there were no stores or anywhere to shop and this was a great wast of time. We drove around a corner to a place out of view and suddenly we all saw why we were there. An elderly lady lay still on icey pavement not moving. She had slipped on the ice getting out of her car and had hit her head - there was blood. She was large, about twice my size but I picked her up and put her in our car. She was crying and said that she had been praying for a long time, perhaps an hour for help while she was freezing unable to get up. I had my son drive her car and we took her home. I called her daughter on my cell phone and waited at the home of the lady for the daughter before leaving to go home. Many times I have talked to my children about this religious activity. We all agree that this religious activity (called service) is our favorite. The Traveler

Keep in mind that those who believe in the Creator/Created chasm also believe that creation is ex nihilo, and that all humanity has a finite beginning. Therefore, on the surface of it, the chasm is unbreachable. Eternal vs. finite. Remember that we are not speaking here about "birthing," but about true creation--that which starts with thought. I sense here that we may be comparing art with cloning. Thank you PC for responding. You missed my first point. If we are to understand "the Creator" as eternal and not finite then his creations must be eternal and not finite - Other wise it cannot be said that the creator is eternal because if his creations have a finite beginning then that which creates must have a finite beginning. This logic is stright forward - if creation if finite then so is the creator. There cannot be a creator and no creation or nothing created - but that is the logic of an eternal creator and finite creation. Only if there is creation can it be said there is a creator. To say there is a creator and no creation is the essence of a lie. I am also a little confused about another point - how can there be a creation of life without birth? Were some men and women created different than others? If someone is born - does that mean that they were not created? Or if a person is created they are not born? I do not understand this concept. To me creation and birth are the same thing and neither can exist without the other. The creation of a human is one of the most understood and observed of the works of G-d by man - even the evil and perverted men know of this method of G-d. The Traveler

Hell as it is used in the Bible is another term for "Death". We are all going to die. But I would put forth my concept. G-d, first and formost is loving, compassionate, kind and full of grace. A couple of things that I also believe is that no man - regardless of what they have done or said is without some good in their soul. If nothing else we must know and understand that G-d loves us all. Both the righteous and wicked; he loves with complete love. I believe G-d will grant the desires of a man's heart - if a man desires good then G-d responds in kind. If a man's heart desires evil - G-d will not with hold that from him. I have said many times - I do not nor can I believe that any soul will be in hell that truly desires to be somewhere else. Do not blame G-d for where a soul ends up, for it is the choice of that man and not G-d. Clearly G-d desires all to live forever in heaven with him. If the choice was G-d's there would be no one in hell - no, not one soul. But G-d will not force his will, that is the difference between G-d and Satan. Satan will force what ever he can whenever he can - but G-d does not force anyone to heaven or hell. It is and always will be the choice of man. How can a person chose what they do not want? - that is not a choice. Only if a person wants something is that a choice. The Traveler

One of the concepts put forth concerning G-d and how man should understand him is the concept of creator. Often in discussions I have been told that man and G-d are eternally differentiated by G-d being the creator and man being the created – Thus it is argued that man cannot ever (in all of eternity) be like G-d. I find that there are two parts to this argument. The first is that that which is created can never be like that which created it. The created must always be inferior to the image and likeness of that that which created it, therefore there can be no real likenesses, images or similarities of true quality. This argument puts into clear perspective both the understanding and limitations of those that argue it – which I am certain was not a pondered conclusion but pre-fabricated from somewhere else (not the Bible) ready made and obtained conclusion. As this applies directly to living things I have difficulty seeing or experiencing how this concept is derived and the logic that drives such thinking. I would respond to this with a few observations and a little logic of my own seeking and thus cannot be found anywhere else. (I posted in another thread about being “aware” of the source of the ideas and thoughts that we take upon ourselves to call our own), 1. The spawn of life resembles and mirrors (in image and likeness of) the creating sire. The argument of evolution is that regeneration of life can equal the creator, prenatal predecessor with the possibility of adaptation to surroundings to exceed the parent creator. The argument of the created always being advanced of the created relies completely on devolution in all circumstances. Not only is this most difficult to prove but it is, in my mind, impossible to imagine even within mankind as we observe the advances of civilization. I submit that beneficial evolution is possible. 2. Genesis counters the heresy of devolution by telling us that by the very command of G-d all life must reproduce after its kind rather than devolving into a lesser kind. This proves that the scriptures are in strict opposition to the intellectual doctrine of devolution or the creation of something inferior to forever and always to come, from that which is greater. I submit that the scriptures support the notion that the child can be in the image and likeness of its parent. 3. In scripture G-d declares that his crowning achievement of creation – the very reason all other creations were brought about was for that creature of his creation that by his word and in his wisdom was in his image and likeness. I submit that this image and likeness spoken of in scripture was not an inferior image and likeness – or else G-d would not have pronounced it good. I submit that the inability to create a similar thing is the definite indication of a flawed creator – or if you will, an evil creator. The denial, that G-d can produce a creature of his image and likeness, is a denial of G-d, his abilities his power and even his divine goodness. The second argument is a little more subtle and carefully explorers, as much as we can in our circumstance, the great advanced nature of the divine. Thus is the danger of describing or defining G-d by creation or that G-d-ness is creation-ness. The equation of setting G-d equal to creator is most problematic because of the transient law associated with the meaning of equal. It means that prior to creation there was no G-d because there was no creator. In essence the argument that the G-d and man are differentiated by G-d being the creator and man being the created is a flawed logical statement that cannot possibility be true because before there could be a creation, the first creation, of necessity, must be the creation of a creator. And so there is a paradox. If there is no creator how can a creator be created? But since there is a creation, rhetorical logic demands that there must be a creator and if creation has not always been then there must be the creation of a creator. If G-d equals creator then by rhetorical logic G-d the creator must have been created and so not only is man created but G-d must also be a result of some kind of creation. This paradox of creating a creator is very similar and akin to the great paradox of the scientific Big Bang Theory and what took place beyond the event horizon of the Big Bang. I find it most interesting that many religionists use this argument against science to argue a creator but when this spot light is turned to shine on them they deny that it is a valid point of view. My argument is that if a creator is an eternal being then their creations must be co-eternal with them. Other wise there must of have been an advent in which there was no creation and since we now know that there is an advent in which there is creation – The notion is proven by rhetorical logic that a creator was created and that there is no other possibility. Thus the argument that G-d is the creator and man is the created and therefore forever differentiated is a flawed argument that cannot possibly be true. There is a possible perspective that G-d has creations which are co-eternal with him and are in the process of becoming G-d (an endless cycle that includes the creation of a creator) or the very definition of G-d and creator; is preciously the LDS point of view. I would also put forth that to deny G-d this ability or argue against the possibility that G-d is capable producing creations of his image and likeness is a limiting or damning notion of G-d’s divine power and abilities and not just a differentiation of man’s status. I would put forth one more idea. That is that the nature of G-d and understanding that nature is the essence of “eternal life” or as the scripture say “And this is life eternal to know thee the only true G-d and Jesus Christ who thou has sent”. And since this is a notion of such great importance it is most critical to our understanding to seek G-d’s assistance through the personal interface that we enjoy in prayer (if indeed it can be believed that we can seek his personal guidance and assistance in prayer). The Traveler

Interesting - I use to work at the Kent Space Center. I lived in Federal Way (now I'm based in Sandy Utah and working for a while in Phoenix - BTW Federal Way is having a 25 year anniversary since the Stake was organized. I plan to be at the festivities Friday the 16th. If any one can make it - I'll see you there. The Traveler

Matt 5:48 - Trust him. He knows what he is talking about. Not only is it possible it is inevitable to all those that follow the way (which is the way of covenant). Perhaps someday we will exchange our efforts and not just words to assist one another or another.The Traveler

Just for fun I thought I would focus on one thought given in your pots. I hope you will not think that I criticize. The term I wish to focus on is “perfected”. Mostly we think of becoming like G-d and that perfected is to mean without flaw (which is a backward looking approach). The problem is that being perfected or without flaw is only one dimension in understanding. There is another dimension that I think is more profitable in understanding. That is that perfected also means complete. This expands our understanding beyond avoiding mistakes to a more conclusive wholeness and turns our quest for perfection to a forward looking perspective.When we look towards covenants as a means of perfection or to become whole we are lead to new landscapes of understanding and outlook – the goal is seen by looking forward. We are not just taking a test and trying to pass but we are gathering light, truth, love, compassion and power. But in the sense that G-d would gather light, truth, love, compassion and power. This is most interesting and I would point out that there is not a single instance where the Father or the Son has used that which is gathered for themselves but all the divine treasures are offered to those willing to covenant for the same. This is backward for every principle of economy that we are taught. Thus the leap of faith – not to obtain a greater covenant for our self but to “sacrifice” through discipline of our self, through covenant for the eternal benefit of others. And thus both we and our covenants change and progress towards a completeness. The Traveler PS. Perfection is not about our past but about our future.

The first and greatest call of man is to family and parenthood – it is the type and shadow of G-d and his most kind and loving treasure. I am impressed that you chose correctly with great incentive to do otherwise. I stand forever in awe of those that leave Babylon and cleave unto Zion taking upon them the mantel and example of a saint of G-d. Welcome to that path garnered with a rod of iron. While our paths are joined – The Traveler

Good for the both of you - and I am pleased to understand that together you have decided to change the covenants you live by in your home. The Traveler