Traveler

I have no idea where where you get the idea that the fall of man was sprung unknowing on anybody or that all covenants were in effect befor the fall. If all covenants were in effect what purpose is there in mortality? If you reference Alma chapter 13 you will clearly see that those that kept their first estate were "added" upon in their second or mortal estate and those that keep their second estate will be added upon in the resurrection. There is a direct relationship to the covenants kept in one estate to the covenants that are added upon in a following estate. For example there are two kinds of covenants introduced during temple worship. The first kind is the covenants that apply directly to the estate in which one currently lives. The second kind are covenants that will not have effect until some later time. I am sorry but on this forum this is all that can be said.It is important to note that covenants do change. As you stated Baptisism is a covenant of this estate and cannot be made before or after mortality. When the fall took place (just like death) the time of certain covenants has ended and the time for other covenants based on our choices is now available. The Traveler

Bold above is mine..... Traveler, I have followed your discussion with Madhatter closely and must admit that it leaves me in confusion also. My understanding parallels what Madhatter has posted, although in some areas I think he has made some conclusions by extrapolation (which, neverless, may be true) instead of hard doctrine. I think that you are saying above that if there were no change (or changes) in the covenants made during their premortal existence between the Father and his spirit children, then Adam could not have set the stage (via the "fall") for their entrance into the fallen mortal world by taking on bodies composed of mortal elements. If I have this right, would you point out which covenants made in the pre-fall period had to be changed before the fall could take place? We are all trying to understand the point you are attempting to make. Thanks, Old Tex Thank you for your interest: There are several covenant changes that took place and had immediate effect upon all mankind and the structure of heaven: First: The divine relationship, status and rights man (as spirit children) had with the Father were made null and void. Second: The Son became our covenant Sovereign, Third: Our right to and heir-ness to divine priesthood of the Father was lost (in reality this is a more detailed explanation of the First item). These covenant changes were necessary in order that man have a mortal (blood) experience. This is why blood was required by covenant in order to have a just covenant with the Mediator G-d, Jesus Christ – the G-d of the Old Testament (or Old covenant). Prior to Jesus the blood covenant was a type and shadow that was completed (or fulfilled – also called “made perfect”) by a divine and eternal blood sacrifice. This change was not just the choice of Adam but of all the children of Adam that enjoyed the divine presents and protections of the Father. Those that refused this covenant change established their covenants and priesthoods through Lucifer and established a kingdom in which Lucifer was Sovereign. Those that accepted the plan of a change in covenants and priesthoods established The Son as their covenant Sovereign. In essence, all the covenant children of the Father and heirs to him were set on courses that removed them as citizens of the Kingdom of the Father (which is represented in the Eden Epoch as the Tree of Life). It is interesting to note that the symbolism of “Cherubim” is a plural reverence and not a singular reference and many seem to think. Although this has important repercussions to covenants and the eternal scheme of things few seem to understand or care about this symbolism. The Fall of Man is a gateway concept to all the covenants, doctrines, commandments and ordinances included in the Gospel of Jesus Christ – yet it is one of the most miss-understood principles of religion addressed in our modern times. The Traveler

I do not have time to address all your answers. In #2 you referenced the fall caused a separation of man concerning "relationship". Please define relationship. In #8 you speak of Cherubium as created beings - I will add that "creator" is also a created being - else creation would be co-eternal with the creator. Since your are quite confused let me ask - who is the "keeper" of the way to the tree of Life that is in Eden? You referenced (incorrectly saying Revelations but the name of the Book is singular Revelation) when is scripture was Jesus given charge concerning the way from the Cherubium that was given charge in Genesis? Good luck The Traveler

A covenant is between two parties. Prior to the fall the covenants of heaven were established with G-d and man. After the fall the covenants of heaven are still established with man but my point is that if there is no change then there was no fall. But alas I cannot speak to that which a person cannot see or understand. How someone can teach man has fallen into that which has not changed leaves me wondering what we are talking about. The Traveler

The Fall was a foreordained event. It was not some "unforeseen mishap" The prophet Joseph Smith states that "the great Jehovah contemplate the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence.... He knew of the Fall of Adam.... He comprehended the Fall of man, and [also] his redemption" The Apostle Peter taught the saints of his day that Jesus Christ "was foreordained before the foundation of the world" to be the redeemer. 1 Pet. 1:20 There would have been no reason for this fore ordination unless it was known in premortal times that mankind would need to be rescued from a fallen state.The Book of Mormon teaches that everything was done in the Wisdom of God. The plan of salvation could not have gone forward without the Fall. 2 Ne. 2: In other words, there would have been no progression. Elder Orson F. Whitney said: Elder John A. Widrose likewise sates - President Brigham Young remarked that it was his fullest belief that the Lord's design for Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit in the garden. Your quotes are interesting - but you seem to avoid my question. So I will ask again in another way - Isaiah tells us - "line upon line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept upon precept. Is this a type and a shadow to teach us of making covenant with G-d? Do we start or begin to covenant with Baptism and then in time make greater covenant that pertain to greater laws and commandments? And so I ask - did the covenants of heaven change according to the line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept - was this just added in for the fun of it or was this never really a true concept in that nothing has ever changed? The Traveler

IMHO, God is pleased with his church for going to such lengths to translate his Word for the world. John's warning was clearly not to alter the message God had given him--not even a little bit. Shielding the message from non-Greek readers hardly seems to be what John (God) meant. How is this known? Was G-d pleased with his church for allowing a non-authorized individual to support the Ark of the Covenant from falling? Matt 7:23 reads in the KJV as follows: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. This is a most interesting scripture and has a variant reading. I have been informed by experts that the interpertation of the above to use the word "knew" can also be understood to mean "authorized" so one way of understanding could be - "And then will I profess unto them, I never authorized you: depart from me, ye that do the work of providing mis-direction". I am not sure the world is ready for the Book of Revelation - I wonder if Christians are ready for such things. It does not appear to me that the Christians - even of the period when John wrote the Revelation understood it any better than the experts of today. I do not pretend to understand the Book of Revelation but I am quite sure that I understand it as good or better than those that claim that G-d has made the truth of this scripture known to them. I storngly suspect that in due cource that G-d will make his wisdom of this scripture known at a time that will shame and prove the wisdom of man no more than foolishness. The Traveler

The fall of man did not bring to pass a New covenant in heaven. Only on this earth for those of us on this earth. the fall of man had no effect on heaven aside from allowing those spirit children to obtain bodies. the covenant was already made. the Fall of Man was neccicary and planned, because also redemtion was planned, Salvation through the great mediator Jesus Christ. it was all part of the plan. "Creation, Fall, and Atonement." Are you sure there were no new covenants in heaven because of the fall? - how was it that the fall came upon all men - only upon their birth? And another question about symbolism - What do we learn in the temple - After the fall did the Father speak to any of the angles or was that left only to Jesus? In the book of Job - When Satan addressed the L-rd of heaven that was sitting as the king of heaven on his thrown – to who did he address his remarks – the Father or the Son? Had not Satan been excommunicated from the Kingdom and the thrown of the Father? Do you understand the ancient law of Kingdoms and the law of Suzerain and servant vassal relationships as it relates to the covenants of the citizens of the kingdom? For example does the apointing of a servant vassal as a mediator change any previous covenants? When do such covenant changes take effect? One last question - the term Messiah means anointed - what is the purpose of an anointing in regards to covenants? Is the Messiah the Messiah only on earth or the Messiah of heaven and earth? The Traveler

I have stood in the grave yard at Winter Quorters where 1 of 5 died that firs year there. I read the names and their births and deaths - most were young mothers and their new born. And who will be turned away in our generation> The Traveler

I understand this problem and have asked the question in the past - Where does the authorization come from to translate or provide commentary to the Book of Revelation?I understand that the wisdom of the world can help but is not such thinking heresy? If G-d would have any understand - is his spirit sufficient or not? The LDS view is that the scriptures of the Bible are the word of G-d only when translated correctly. This is the only view of the Book of Revelation that I can in all honesty support. The Traveler

It allowed those spirits who were wating to recieve mortal bodies and experience mortaility. The reason I posted this thread is because I believe many plain and precious truths are glossed over and missed because the saints have lost the art of pondering the scriptures and other spiritual guides given in these Last Days. I will add some thinking for pondering. I would submit that there was a great change in heaven and even in the very foundations of that wonderful kingdom over which the Father resides. I submit that the law which governs that great and wonderful kingdom was radically altered and a new and everlasting covenant was established. A covenant that placed G-d the Son, even Jesus The Christ as the governing G-d of the new order to which all men (and women) are governed. I submit that even before mortality the laws and covenants of the kingdom of heaven established Jesus as our Mediator with the Father. And in mortality Jesus was established by law and covenant as the light to the “world” by which all things of eternity and righteousness are discovered, learned practiced and sealed upon those that prepare to receive the same. The Traveler When the world was created all things were put into place and the "Godhead" was formed, each member has vital roles to play and would have the ability to choose. Christ's Gospel is God's gospel, God's Gospel has existed EONS before the world was even conceived of. The everlasting covenant of marriage has been in place before God existed, otherwise he would not be God, he would have been a Ministering angel had he not abide the everlasting covenant of marriage. Covenants were formed as part of the creation, which Abraham saw in a vision when God showed unto him the Intelligences that were formed before the world was. Those covenants would be given in mortality if people did what they were commanded to do. There is a Law irrevocably decreed in heaven in which all blessings are predicated on, it is by obedience to the commandments in which we are given blessings. this is the nature of a covenant. I am not sure you thought this out real carefully: Point. The world (it conception and creation is a very intergral part of G-d's gospel. Neither the world nor G-d's plan can exist without the other. Perhaps you are in part correct - but the Father was the only one that was parpared for, understood and participated in the marriage covenant - Beyond the Father this covenant did not exist nor could it exist in the pre-fall heaven. Not exactly - the creation spoken of in scripture was itself the result of a covenant. One of the interpertations of first of Genesis is not "In the Beginning" but "When G-d first established his covenant G-d created the heavens and the earth" I think your use is a little out of context - Did not Jesus testify that the sun is made to sign on the wicked as well as the righteous? I keep attempting to make the point that no one seems to understand - that is that the fall of man brought to pass a new order (covenant) in heaven that prior to the fall did not nor could not exist. The Traveler

It allowed those spirits who were wating to recieve mortal bodies and experience mortaility. The reason I posted this thread is because I believe many plain and precious truths are glossed over and missed because the saints have lost the art of pondering the scriptures and other spiritual guides given in these Last Days. I will add some thinking for pondering. I would submit that there was a great change in heaven and even in the very foundations of that wonderful kingdom over which the Father resides. I submit that the law which governs that great and wonderful kingdom was radically altered and a new and everlasting covenant was established. A covenant that placed G-d the Son, even Jesus The Christ as the governing G-d of the new order to which all men (and women) are governed. I submit that even before mortality the laws and covenants of the kingdom of heaven established Jesus as our Mediator with the Father. And in mortality Jesus was established by law and covenant as the light to the “world” by which all things of eternity and righteousness are discovered, learned practiced and sealed upon those that prepare to receive the same. The Traveler

I thought I would put forth this question. Many times I get the impression that many do not understand the fall of Adam as it relates to man. So I put to the forum the following: 1. What effect did the fall have in heaven? 2. What was the effect of the fall on man? 3. When did the fall take place and who did it effect? 4. Are the effects of the fall only experienced on earth? 5. Was the fall something that needed to happen? Did G-d alter Satan's plan or did Satan alter G-d's plan because of the fall? 6. Beyond overcoming the fall is there any thing else that Jesus did for all mankind that is part of the free gift? 7. Can man be glorified beyond his glory in eden? 8. What is a Cherubum and where in the teachings of Christ (New Testament) will man encounter a cherub and the religious symbols given to the cherubum when man became fallen. Where does man encounter a cherub in their quest to end the fall and reach eternal life (the tree of life)? The Traveler

I second that motion..... :) It is not the big of a list. I got started doing a little cooking as a gift for my wife. Many years ago I started a tradition of cooking the Sunday meal to give my wife a day of rest. It took a while to get even a simple meat loaf right - but once I got the basic down the engineer in me had to figure out a way to improve it a little. PC. When you come to Utah - let me know. If I am in town we will have your family over for a sample. What do you think you would like best - Stake or salmon. BTW my forum friends - The stuff on the list is best fresh -- warmed over just is not the way it should be eaten. How about this - any body interested in a pot luck when PC comes to Utah? The Traveler

A list of things I cook very well: 1. BBQ Stakes (Rib eye cut) 2. Meat Loaf (my special recipe) 3. Pot Roast – with mushrooms. 4. Mash Potatoes (Mix with cream cheese) 5. Whole Wheat waffles (my special recipe) 6. French Toast (my special recipe) 7. BBQ Lemon chicken 8. BBQ Salmon – several varieties. 9 Toasted cheese sandwich with tomatoes and jalapeños The Traveler

I am grateful that we agree on many things - the fact that there are some points upon which we disagree may not be as important as the points upon which we agree but for what ever the reason when there is agreement there is very little to discuss and not as much interest. So, on the points upon which it appears we disagree: .Yes. Your answer seems to be "the gods are one God of purpose." The Trinitarian answer is that "God is three persons." This is exactly the problem. The scriptures identify G-d the Father - Therefore it appears to me that the Trinitarian reference to "person" is incorrect and a vain reference - to which we are commanded not to do. It is exactly the same as confusing the definition of the integer number or reference of one with the rational number or reference of one. The ancient meaning in the singularity of "ehad" is that there are no definable fractions or parts. If there is one and only one G-d then the scripture reference to G-d the Father is heresy or else the singular interpretation of "ehad" is heresy. If we understand that G-d or G-d head is corporate then that corporate is a corporate of G-ds not persons. Objection! Jesus is co-equal with the Father. Yes, God is his Father, and so has that role of authority "over" Jesus. Yet, just as human fathers are essentially the same as their sons, so the Father and the Son are essentially the same. Using the understanding of Jesus as G-d - there is no other G-d that man can contact without the mediator. This includes the OTHER G-ds such as G-d the Father and G-d the Holy Ghost and G-d the corporate G-d or what ever else does not matter --- our only access to any G-d is Jesus (regardless of what name he uses) unless Jesus meadiates for that Other - if there is no other then medator is meaningless. Objection! Jesus is co-equal with the Father. Yes, God is his Father, and so has that role of authority "over" Jesus. Yet, just as human fathers are essentially the same as their sons, so the Father and the Son are essentially the same. Jesus clearly states - as recorded in scripture he was sent (a subbordinate term) by the Father - not the corporate G-d and that he was not as great as the Father (not the corporate G-d) Amen. The created is indeed "less than" the Creator. This reference to “created always less than Creator” has a rhetorical problem that I will someday address by starting another thread. I'm not sure what's being implied here, but I agree with the basic statement. The term Mediator implies someone in the middle. If man is on one side and Jesus (the Mediator) is in the middle -- What then is separate from the mediator on the other side that is seperate from the mediator in the same way we are separate from the mediator. If the answer is nothing then the logic is broken, wrong, stupid and foolish. The Traveler

As a funny side note: My son, now married, was very rebelious in his teenage years and is now a loving kind parent himself. I was talking with him a while back telling him I was getting old and perhaps someday I would come and live with him in his home. He smiled real big (like he had been waiting a long time for this subject to come up) and said, "If you are going to live in my home you will have to live by my rules."Well at least he knows who his dad is. The Traveler

Just in case no one has noticed - the spell check here does not work - My posts for today have spelling errors that I can blame on the spell checker. And yes, I am a returned missionary - of long ago - the ancient era of the Last Days. The Traveler

Yes - Ben gave a good answer - but I would add something. G-d is a great example. Often as parents we want to abandon our children for their deeds. My very special wife taught me that we as parents can never abandon our children but always extend our love. This does not mean that we are stupid and lie for them or get them druggs or give into their wants but that we always act out of love and forgiveness realizing that we cannot force them every minute for what they must do - and always letting them make the choice to join with us or abandon the family that loves them.I have have a child abandon our home and covenants - and I have welcomed them on their return - glad in my heart for my wife that kept me from abandoning them. Envite your friend to come with you to church. The Traveler

One time when I was traveling I walked down to the car rental at a small airport. At the car rental a man was very upset because the exact car he ordered from the rental was not available. The young girl behind the counter was in tears trying to help the man and all the time he screamed obsenities at her. I took all I could of the encounter and turned to the person behind me and said aloud enough for all to hear - "You have to wonder about the intelligence of someone in need that gets angry at the onlly person that can help them." The man calmed down and took keys to a car and left. When I got to the counter I asked if they had a car for me - the same young lady looked up at me and said she had a special car for me. My cheep little compact car turned out to be a 5.0 Mustang convertable. Sweet! Point 1. Never put off being kind and accepting of those that work hard to help you. Point 2. Having a helpful and accepting attitude has rewards beyond your expectations. The Traveler

This is asked by someone that does not understand the very love and nature of G-d. Many times in the scriptures the people that should be living by covenant before G-d abandon him. Sometimes for Baal, sometimes for power and sometimes for other selfish desires. The point is that Christianity turned as did the Scribes and Pharasses from feeding the flock to feasting themselves upon the flock. America would not have been setteled by various remnents of Christianity if Christians of history were to show any kindness to each other.The Traveler

Agreed. -a-train Really? - what should it be mistaken for? Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost or is it g-d the Father, g-d the Son and g-d the Holy Ghost or person the Father, person the Son and person the Holy Ghost? What do the scriptures say? The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d? What I do understand: 1. There is only one mediator G-d 2. Man is fallen and requires a mediator for salvation. 3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with anyother G-d without the mediator. 4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father) 5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus) 6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish. The Traveler Traveler, Was Jesus subordinate eternally or was he subordinate only during his incarnation? Your choice of words is interesting - perhaps some kind of game. The concept used by most concerning eternal is strangly based in temporal relationships and ideas. I believe that some of the ancient ideas of a non-temporal eternity is a better understanding of G-d. Which means that what you imply in the incarnation of Jesus pushes the limits of heresy and the divine presents that walked among men. I am somewhat in wonder that you would imply that the relationship of Jesus Christ the very Son of G-d to that G-d that sent him was in any way a temporary non-binding relationship. The Traveler I object 1. The 3 G-d persons are not alone in their corporation oneness. 2. THey are not the same essence. One is the essence of Father, One the essence of Son and one the essence of Holy Spirit. Why do you think the scriptures tell us of this difference if we are not to believe it. The Traveler

Agreed. -a-train Really? - what should it be mistaken for? Is the proper term G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost or is it g-d the Father, g-d the Son and g-d the Holy Ghost or person the Father, person the Son and person the Holy Ghost? What do the scriptures say? The question that is ill treated is this - Why do the scriptures differenciate G-d if there is only one singular G-d? What I do understand: 1. There is only one mediator G-d 2. Man is fallen and requires a mediator for salvation. 3. Man is fallen and cannot have contact with anyother G-d without the mediator. 4. Jesus is subbordinate to the Father (less than his Father) 5. We are subbordinate to Jesus (less than Jesus) 6. Jesus is a true mediator - he does not meadiate for us with nothing. - That would be very stupid and foolish. The Traveler

Trinitarians do not believe in three gods. And, we do argue that there is only one true God in existence. Since there is only one God, and since Jesus receives worship, Trinitarians have no difficulty worshiping the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since trinitarians actually only believe that one God exists, there is no difference for us. There are godlike beings (powerful, awesome-in-appearance), but we believe there is only one God in existence. I am always confused by Trinitarians and their definitions and interpretation of scripture. For example the ancient concept and definition of “ehad” to mean one in counting singularity meant something different than one does in our modern time. In math the word “one” has specific meaning if we are talking about the counting or integer number “one” as opposed to the rational or complex number one. In ancient times if we intend the word “ehad” to mean the singular one, then this means that such a particular “one” cannot be divided or differentiated into parts. Since the scriptures clearly give differentiation of The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost it is very misleading and creates much confusion to imply singularity in one breath and to embrace differentiation in the next. One of my many objections to the concept of the Trinity is the President Bill Clinton approach to adultery. It appears to me that Trinitarians use one definition when it comes to blaming others and then another very different definition to justify themselves. Saying the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one G-d of singularity does nothing but convince me that somebody really does not understand what they are saying and defining. If there is one G-d of singularity then the scriptures are false and misleading to imply any kind of differentiation. The fact that the scriptures give a recognizable differentiation is clear indication that the ancient singular concept of “yhead” as applied to G-d is both false and never used in scripture. The oneness of G-d is united in the oneness of the king in a kingdom. Let me give a simple example of the utter stupidity of the Trinity. Remember at the trial of Jesus when the question of Jesus being the king of the Jews came up and the Jews responded that they have no king but Cesar? Then who is Herod? The Trinity answer seems to be. Well, Cesar and Herod are one King. When the King is in Rome or doing Rome stuff we refer to him as Cesar. When in Jerusalem or doing Jerusalem stuff we call that same King Herod. They are not two kings but one king. Beside the one true king there is no other true king. Please – I am not stupid. There are two kings – one acting under the authority of the other, thus the authority of king is the authority of one king but there are two kings. And there are 3 G-ds, two of which act under the authority of the Father. Jesus went tried so hard to make this point, that he did not act on his own authority but the authority of his Father. And that is why we should differentiate the 3 G-ds that are united by covenant (like marriage) in one purpose The Traveler

I have read some of the answers and some are very good. However, I would take a different approach. I would say that this is a most interesting question but that I am not interested is wasting anybody's time. Therefore if I can give a good sound answer to this question would they come to church with me and consider reading and praying about the Book of Mormon. If they asked for some concession from me concerning this question I would very politely remind them that I did not ask any any questions concerning this subject. Then I would again ask if they were serious about an answer or just pretending something else with their question. The Traveler

Patriarchal Blessings are spiritual in nature - I have found that many on the forum do not understand their spiritual nature and even fear it. Because of the fear of our spirital nature, it is hard to draw conclusions related to physical experience from the blessing.Fasting, by the way, is also a spiritual exercise - I am sorry to hear that your efforts at fasting have produced only thought of food - which again relates only to the physical. I really do not know what to tell you in concern that you are so drawn to physical experiences. The Traveler I would encourage you to think less about worthiness (which tends to look backwards) and think more about being prepared (which tends to look forward). If you have not already, start now and prepare yourself in every way you can for your blessing - preparing will make a difference.The Traveler