Traveler

My friend Snow: You should understand this better. The Chruch is run according to covenant. The covenant of the church is much like the marriage covenant. That is there is a line of authority as established by the organization specified in the D&C starting with the First Presidency which is presided over by the President. The line of authority is under covenant to obey the Lord through the priesthood line of authority. This line of authority is to obey and pass on revelation. If a link in the chain is not being obedient then there are options for those under that link of the line of authority. For example Eve was under covenant to "obey" Adam as Adam "obeyed" the L-rd. According to the covenant one must answer for their obedience to revelation and the line of authority. If however, one feel that there is a unrightious dominion they have a choice. 1. Be obediant anyway and according to the covenant they are not responsible but all responsibility lies in the line of authority. 2. Act according to their conscience or desire they take full responsibility for their actions and release all responsibilitiy from the line of authority. Some examples: Lets say that the line of authority suggest that the membership not get tatoos. Then a bishop tells home teachers to inform the familes. The home teacher brings a message and tells a yourg man or women that they have been advised to inform members not to get tatoos. But some young man decides on his onw to get a tatoo anyway. That man is responsible to the L-rd for that tatoo. If however the young man decides not to get a tatoo even though he would really like one and there is noting wrong with having a tatoo then whoever decided to make this an issue must answer to the L-rd. Hope this help you understand the structure of the covenant and oath of the Priesthood. The Traveler

Actually, there are several different variations (translations) of the BoM. The BoM that the LDS use now is vastly different from the one first printed in 1829. There are grammatical changes, changes in versification, changes in theology, etc. The one that most closely resembles the original one is the Restored Covenant Edition printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation in Independence, MO. They used the original manuscript as well as the printers manuscript to put the BoM back to it's original form. Here is the URL of the ZRF and an online copy of the BoM if you are interested. http://www.restoredcovenant.org/RCE.asp?CAT=RCE There could be a claim that the original was used to produce a current version of the first publication but the origional manuscript was hidden in Joseph Smith's grave. When the grave was moved to the current site in Nauvoo the there was very little of the origional manuscript left that could be used. A printer version was created because parts of the manuscript were being released for publication in news papers and othere such things while the printing plates for the Book of Mormon were being prepared for printing. The printer version was released to the printer in sections (just enough for setting the type) and then returned with a new section released to the printer. The biggest difference between RLDS and LDS versions have to do with foot notes (including cross references) and breakdown of verses. Until recently the two orginazations have not been willing to assist each other in reasearching the origional publications. Neither the RLDS or LDS have admitted having the origional "golden plates". P.S. I used RLDS as it was the historical refference; though they have decided of late to change their public title to "The Community of Christ" or something similar to that. They also concluded that it is not necessary to have a direct decendent of Joseph Smith involved in leading their organization. I am uncertain if their theology holds that the Book of Mormon is sacred scripture as important as the Bible scriptures. In the past when I have had discussions with our RLDS friends they indicated that some believe the B of M is sacred while other hold mostly to the Bible. The Traveler

The Book of Mormon is intended to testify of Christ. Read it as you would anything else that testifies of Christ and remember that to many LDS the Book of Mormon is as sacred an anything written of Christ including any of the Books of the Bible. This is because unlike any of the books in the Bible the Book of Mormon was brought forth through a prophet without any changes by Scribes.The Traveler

As we consider the history of Christian thinking over the past 2000 years we see an evolution of sorts. The experts in history call this "reform". To LDS reform means in essence changes brought about by man or men inspired to make things better. LDS do not believe man should "reform" the things of G-d. It is our basic belief that if the doctrines, orginaztion or practices have become corrupt that in essence G-d will start over with a restoration. This is because the things of G-d are to be kept "pure" and "clean". Sometimes the scriptures talk about being "unspoted" from the world. The idea is that G-d does not operate using a reform method but rather the method used by G-d is that of "rebirth". Sometimes called "borne again". I hope this helps.

Sorry again Cal: Your efforts to imply that the Mountain Meadow Massacre was about doctrine is once again complete nonsense. I am not saying that those involved did not break the law in fact they did break the law and they acted contrary to their own declared doctrine from our LDS prophets. The publishe doctrine that applies is that LDS believe in being subject to kings, presidents ... and honoring obeying and sustaining the law. Every where LDS have lived and established their society there have been people of different doctrine and religious notion living pecefully among them. Not so of Trinitarian societies prior to 1826.If there was a Trinitarian society trying to live the teachings of Jesus (ie. treating others of a different religion or doctrine ideas as you would like to be treated) prior to 1826 I find no evidence it. I will be glad to update my understanding on this if you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction. That some LDS do not live their declared and published religion is no more proof of false doctrine than Judas is proof Jesus was a false prophet. Why do you distort everyting about us so? It give me the impression you hate us. The Traveler The Traveler

Cal: I am so sorry but I have no idea where your are getting such palpably absurd ideas. First: This spiritual realm and physical realm is complete nonsense and not based on any creation doctrine taught in scripture. Man was created by G-d in the “Garden of G-d” and the “Garden of G-d” was completely in the realm in which G-d resides. Man as a “physical” creation was meant to reside with G-d, as a companion to G-d, in the realm that G-d resides. To live with G-d has always been the purpose of man’s creation – Why do you so vehemently deny this doctrine. This concept of physical creation of man in the realm of G-d is so prevalent in scripture I am left wondering where your contrary to scripture ideas are coming from. I do not for a moment believe that the physical creation of man took place in a realm contrary to the nature of G-d as you imply. I thought for a time your idea sprang from some liberal interpretation of scripture but your concept of man’s creation is without any correlation to any scripture I know about. You must provide a source for your realm concepts of creation. Second: Are you aware that man has a spirit? Do you not know that when spirit leaves the physical body that man is no longer considered a “living” soul? If the scriptures said that man’s spirit body is in the image of G-d’s spirit body your liberal ideas that man is in the image of G-d would have some credence. But you are trying to compare apples to oranges by saying apples are exactly like oranges and then say they are different because we are not really talking about the same things. The scriptures tell us that man is in the literal “physical” image of G-d. The ancient Hebrew is 100% clear on the notion that man was physically created to be just like G-d. There is no apples to oranges comparison of the creation in the scriptures as you are trying to pervert the sacred truth – the comparison is apples to apples and oranges to oranges or in the case of the creation of man, physical likeness and image to physical likeness and image. There is no other way that the ancient Hebrew words that are used can be understood on this point. The ancient Hebrew words have NEVER been used in the manner that you say is the only way to understand them. To imply such an outlandish understanding as you do, is to ignore the pure word of G-d as it was spoken by G-d to ancient prophets. The only question I have at this point is why do you hate truth spoken by G-d in purity to ancient prophets? Is it because it is too much like the pure truth he has spoken to modern prophets? The Traveler

With your attitude you will fit right in with the Trinitarians. Perhaps you have already become one with the worldest bloodiest group to ever commit genocide. Not only did the Trinitarians bring about the Dark Ages. They sacrificed more women and children in Europe to their Trinitarian G-d that died in the Black Death.When the Trinitarians came the the Americas their were 40 million native Americans now there are less than 4 million. No where in the world has bloody genocide been so effective. Prior to 1549 there was no Trinitarian society that would allow any one that disagreed to live. When that law was passed all it did was stop the blood flowing among Trinitarians. Talk about biggots and prejudice!!! Not until 1826 is there evidence of a Trinitarian not enslaving and murduring those that disagreed with their Trinitarian deffination of G-d. If there were Trinitarians willing to shair the love of Jesus prior to 1826 would you please provide the public declariation that demonstrates it? I would like to hear about just one Trinitarian prior to 1826 willing to die so someone could believe in a non Trinitarian G-d. I would like to believe that in 1800 years the teaching of Jesus would have some effect. The Traveler

We were modeled physically after God. ? ? What's the problem? The problem is that pesel and temuna require that something "Physical" exist inorder that a physical model be made. If man is pesel and temuna of G-d then G-d must be physical and that is the point of this thread and the holy scripture. In reference to the fact that Creation was physical, *again* I'm not claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 is not a reference to man's physical creation. I am saying that it doesn't mean that God therefore has a physical body. Why do you look right at this scripture and say there is no physical relationship. If you believe man is the spiritual example of G-d (not physical) then you have a lot of explaning to do about the history of man. The words "pesel" and "temuna" do not mean kind-a sort-a it means exact to every possible detail - and remember this is G-d doing the creating. Are we to believe man's spirit is what is like G-d? Are you serious or just attempting to avoid admitting the physical connection? The Father does not have a body. The Spirit does not have a body. Do you not see a contridiction here? If the Father does not have a body how can man's body be in the image and likeness (pesel and temuna) of it. Let me help you with some doctrine. Jesus was born and had a physical body. Prior to his birth he was spirit without a body. Jesus said to his apostles that saw his physical body, that to see him (his physical body) was like seeing the Father. Think about that. The reason he said that is because man at that time could not see the Father. Why? Because of the Fall of man, man was (and still is) cut off from the Father. After the Fall man could not be with the Father and was cast out from the Father. Jesus was apointed as the mediator (the one and only mediator) between the Father and man and was the only G-d that man could deal with. As mediator Jesus represented the Father by: 1. Taking upon him the name of the Father - The taking upon one self the name of someone greater to represent them is not uncommon in scripture. It is an indication that they are "one with them". Jesus said clearly that he does all in the name of the Father. This use of someone else's name is very common not only in scripture but all of ancient society. 2. Speaking in first person as the Father. It is common for one sent in the name of someone else in scripture (and ancient culture) to speak in the first person. This is why the Trinitarians are so confused - they will not accept scripture in its context. As mediator Jesus is the G-d of the Old Testament following the fall of man - note that Moses did not need a mediator at the burning bush. And Jesus said "No man cometh unto the Father but by me". If this is not true Jesus did not tell the truth. Next point When a spirit is removed from a physical body it is known as death. The same death that Jesus suffered on the cross. But Jesus took his phisical body following the resurrection and went to heaven where Stephen saw Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Father. This demonstrates that physical beings are in heaven. Also note that Jesus will return with the same "resurrected" physical body. And remember that scripture tells us a resurrected body is immortal and will not die - ever. G-d is not dead or a spirit of a dead person. One last point. Jesus said that when two or more are gathered in his name there is love. Prior to 1826 can you provide documentation where any Christian church that believed in the Trinity announced by public declaration that people that did not believe in the trinity should be loved and not put to death for their beliefs. The reason I bring this up is that the LDS publically declared that all people should be allowed to "worship how, where, or what they may". Has Christianity changed over the last 200 years? Are Christian churches today following the teachings of Jesus or were the previous Christian chruches of hundreds of years of traditions that gave us the Trinity Creed following the teachings of Jesus? The Traveler

The ancient Hebrew word that tells us that there is one G-d is "ehad". There is no way "ehad" can mean a 3-1 Trinity G-dhead. If you can show me any context where 3 different kinds can be discribed by "ehad" in any ancient Hebrew text - sacred or otherwise I would be very interested.As for love ther is no doube Jesus loves and his followers love their fellow man. But I see little historical evidence that Trinitarians love anybody. Since the declaration of the Trinitarian Creed the Trinitarians killed in the name of their trinitarian G-d anyone that would disagree with their 3-1 concept. The first law passed by any Trinitarian society I am aware of that would allow anyone to live that did not see eye to eye with their doctrine was 1549, but this law demanded that only other Trinitarians be allowed to live. Not until 1826 can I find any law on any Trinitarian societies books that did not attempt to stop killing in the name of their Trinitarian G-d anyone that disagreed with their 3-1 doctrine. And those laws did not stop the extermination of Mormons by Trinitarians in Missouri. No my misunformed friend Trinitarians have a very bad history of manifesting love that Jesus said was the number one method of identifing his followers or those that gather in his name. The Traveler

Will D: I am rather astonished with the extreme liberalistic licence you take when you claim certain doctoral notions are in complete accordance with scripture. In the first chapter of Genesis verse 26 the holy word of G-d tells us (KJV) “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” G-d spoke these things to Moses in the tongue of the ancient Hebrew. Two Hebrew terms of paramount interest to all that care of G-d’s sacred utterances are “pesel’ for image and “temuna” for likeness. These terms not only imply a physical modeling but demand it.If I were to say that I have a 1/60th scale model of the York aircraft carrier used in World War II at the battle of midway. Two thing would be understood. First that I have in my possession a PHYSICAL object. And second that it is a replica of the actual PHYSICAL aircraft carrier called the York. To imply that I make no physical reference could only be a blatant effort to distort my actual words. Maybe I am ignorant and stupid but I have found no reference in any ancient Hebrew text sacred or otherwise where “pesel” and “temuna” are ever used in any manner remotely similar to the interpretation you insist is the only logical way this passage should be interpreted. The LDS view is that these words be considered to mean exactly what is implied within the context of the language as it was spoken to Moses by G-d. Nothing more and nothing less. I see no justification for men to expand on the wisdom of G-d. I am most curious why you insist this passage be consider to reference something other than man as a physical model of a physical G-d. Can you give me any example in ancient Hebrew text where “pesel” and “temuna” are used to reference something non physical? Has G-d spoken to you or someone you know in the same manner as he spoke to Moses to explain that he did not really intend to use “pesel” and “temuna” but something else therefore justifying your wildly liberal interpretation of this sacred text? To all reading my post I would ask you to carefully consider the options of doctrine being presented. Is it possible that man was physically created and modeled after G-d and that beyond the physical model man has little to claim that he be considered a g-d or like G-d? I would also point out that the creation being spoken of in Genesis is in reference to all things of a physical creation. Most involved in religious thought agree that man is not just a physical being. Are we to imply that excluding the physical that man is in every other way just like G-d? Such a notion is laughable. As far as morals, love, kindness, compassion, mercy and ever other non physical aspect man is just like G-d? History proves this notion that you claim nothing but fantasy. One last consideration to pounder. When G-d manifested his physical body, as was done through Jesus Christ. That physical body was indistinguishable from that physical body of every other man according to all that witnessed and that is exactly what is being said and implied in Genesis 1:26. The Traveler

One other thing. Note that man's image is not after something singular. The reference is plural and is translated as “our”. This would imply that something in eternity other than G-d and man have this same image. Other than the LDS view on this matter I have not heard of any other religion that has made an attempt to indicate what other that G-d in the singular sense is enough like the physical ness of G-d to be identified with him to account for the plurality. The Traveler

You are on to a lot more than you think here. Sorry that I do not have the recourses of my library to give you the exact Hebrew words but in ancient Hebrew the words that are translated into modern English as "image" and "likeness" have more significance than you have provided. The Hebrew word used here for "image" specifically indicates a physical model of something physical. Therefore in order for the scripture to be correct the “image” must be a physical thing that is very much like another physical thing.Though the ancient scriptures are very clear on this matter there are many that claim to believe scripture – except when is runs contrary to their opinion. In that case their opinions are more important than the scriptures. None-the-less – keep up the good research and check out opinions. The Traveler