rameumptom

While Joseph Smith did teach about the Father also having a Father, there is so little information on it, that we are not entirely certain what the exact teaching is on it. Some LDS do not believe that the Father was mortal, while most of us that study this stuff leave it until more revelation is given on it. The issue is, if it is okay for Jesus, as God, to come down to earth and be mortal, why should it be difficult to believe the Father did the same? We also believe that God is Spirit. As John Adams once wrote Thomas Jefferson, what exactly does that mean? Is it the Trinity view that classical Christianity believes in, or something else? The apostle John also states that "God is Love." Does that suddenly mean he is not a Spirit? Or does it mean that God has more than one attribute that is being described in these passages? Ancient Jewish and Christian belief shows that God was understood to be anthropomorphic, or man-like. God and Jehovah were two separate beings, Jehovah being the angel of God's presence; and understood by early Christians to be Jesus. The OT scholar and Methodist minister, Margaret Barker, explains this well in her book "The Great Angel." Many early Christians understood the Father and Son to be separate beings. For example, Origen explained that Christ was a subordinate God to the Father. And being separately physical beings helps explain Biblical passages that otherwise would make little sense: Stephen seeing Jesus on the right hand of God; Jesus praying to the Father and stating "not my will but thine, be done" suggesting two separate wills; etc. The key to this is Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. IF Joseph Smith really did see the Father and Son in the First Vision, and if the Book of Mormon truly is the word of God; then questions such as the Trinity are automatically answered.

Not sure what books are currently in print, but here are a few I've enjoyed: Isaiah in the Book of Mormon Ludlow's Companion to your BoM Studies Welch's Reexploring the Book of Mormon Largey's BoM Reference Companion

More about his being called to the apostleship. I've known Elder Christofferson for over a decade. He was the area president in the Southeast US for a few years, when I was in the Montgomery stake. He was over the family history program at the time, and encouraged us to use family history to share the Church with others. As a counselor in the stake mission presidency, we set up a family history booth at the state fair, two years in a row. We had a list people could fill out to have a family history consultant visit them in their home and help them with their family history work. We only turned it into a missionary experience if the person asked questions about the Church itself. We had several hundred people sign up and have a great experience in learning to do their family history research. Of it, we did have several investigate the Church and some baptisms. We're looking at doing this in our community this year in our ward in Indy. Our goal is to become more involved in our community, and offer a service they can enjoy. Only those who ask us more about the Church will be proselyted. I believe it was Elder Oaks last Conference that said that when people ask a question, sometimes they only want the question answered. We want to build some good will and promote the spirit of Elijah, and not seem like we're just out to baptize. Anyway, Elder Christofferson told us some wonderful experiences he had working with the Jewish community on the then issue of baptizing holocaust victims. He worked with some of the Jewish leaders that did not want baptisms even for those who had LDS descendants. He found out where these gentlemen were originally from in Europe, and was able to have the Family History Dept in SLC dig up records from those locations. For the first time in decades, they were able to view names and even signatures of friends and relatives that died in the German ovens. It was a very touching experience, because they relented on allowing LDS descendants to baptize their ancestors. I had a strong feeling that he would be a great candidate for the apostleship. Elder Christofferson truly is a man of God.

My bishop has a sign in his office stating: "Simplify." He and I both live by that counsel.

I was not referring to the individual members. I realize there are strong and weak members in all sects. What I was referencing was the teachings and doctrines of general Christian sects. While I agree some are very strict, many are extremely lax in their belief on salvation. Those which believe in salvation by grace alone, can often go to the level that lip service expression of belief is all that is needed for salvation. And many of the main Protestant sects do go to that extreme. Even Martin Luther admitted that an adulterer would be saved in heaven, if he had professed Christ's name. BTW, did your Church believe in original sin? Most beliefs in it establish that there is always a gulf between us and God that Christ cannot ever fully recover: partially because we are of a different substance than God.

I agree there are some very strict Christian sects. But in general, most are much more lenient than the LDS Church. And there are some that view God as a very stern and angry God, ready to toss lightening bolts down upon the sinner. Thankfully, Mormonism is about becoming like God - not an easy thing to do, but possible through the atonement of Christ - and developing a loving relationship with God.

We believe that the Holy Ghost speaks to the heart and mind. It was described by the men on the road to Emmaus as a burning in their hearts (Luke 24). This is the testimony we experience as well. But sometimes it can be more than that. Some of us have experienced angelic visitations and miracles that help witness these things to us, as well. It is not an easy thing to explain. It does involve an emotional experience, but it is greater than that. I never experienced anything like this until I first came across the LDS Church. And at the time, I was only interested in playing church basketball with an LDS friend, not to investigate or join it. But the first night I went to play, the bishop asked to meet with me a few minutes in his office. I did not know then what the invisible force was, but I now know that the Spirit filled the room and changed me. It witnessed to me that the things the bishop would tell me were true. Overnight, I totally changed my lifestyle, got a haircut, and began a fully committed life to Christ. BTW, there have been a few occasions that I have heard a voice, but it was inside my head. It has saved me from dangers and death. That too, is the Spirit.

Well, that IS one version. I believe that God started the LDS Church. After all, if the claim is true, then God and Jesus DID appear to Joseph Smith and restore their Church. I personally believe the First Vision and subsequent miracles and revelations occurred, just as I believe that Jesus healed the sick and was resurrected on the third day. Now, history shows us that the Trinity was established as traditional church belief by way of a council that did not receive that by revelation. It was a rather rambunctious crowd that varied in their belief on the Godhead at Nicea. But those that did not follow the Trinity were expelled and/or excommunicated. Even the historian Eusebius was exiled for his belief in Origenism (very similar to the LDS Godhead belief). So, the establishment of the Trinity belief was by man.

A-train, thanks for clarifying for me. Another thought, LDS belief is very different than classical Christianity, in that we believe we are of the same substance as God. We can become like Him and Christ. Literally. And therein lies a major difference in what we strive for. We don't keep the commandments in order to save ourselves. We keep the commandments and magnify callings in order to become like Christ, so that His grace can purify us to a greater extent. Christ taught his disciples (John 17) and the Nephites (3 Ne 11, 2 Ne 31) that our goal is to become one with Christ and the Father. LDS teachings have it that almost all His children will be saved in a kingdom of glory. That kingdom will depend upon how much of Christ's grace they are willing and able to receive. Since we are God's literal spirit children, he truly loves us enough to give us as much heaven as we want to have. But many have focused on worldly things, and so their spirit is not well in tune with Christ, and would actually shrink in God's direct and continual presence (Alma 12, Mormon 9). It is an issue of relationship. If we have sought through our lives to have a close relationship with God, we will have it in the next life. The more we become like Him, the more we will relate to Him. Since God is kind and benevolent, we would strive to be like him in being kind and benevolent. Since Jesus was baptized, we seek baptism also to follow in his footsteps. Since Jesus kept the commandments, we also seek to do so, in order to be like Him, so that when we see Him again, we will not stand in shame. Holly, you and I will each gain a salvation based upon the amount of truth and light we embrace, in seeking to become like Christ and Father. That is how merciful God truly is.

And this is probably from your belief in original sin? Blake Ostler has a very good discussion on original sin in his second volume of Exploring Mormon Thought. You may want to check it out, as it does bring up some very good reasons why original sin and free will cannot work together. Is God just and good if he imposes upon us the sin done by another person? And if you are one that believes in predestination, then the problem falls in how we can be responsible for something that God imposed upon us. I agree that hell is a real place. But I believe that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoso believeth in him should not perish." Is it a good and loving God that condemns most of the world, simply because they have not had the chance to hear about Jesus? Millions were born in areas that still have not heard of the New Testament. LDS teaching gives all an opportunity to embrace God in a loving relationship. To the level we develop that relationship determines our glory. Keeping commandments is part and parcel of showing our faith and love for God - but we are not saved by them. Christ's command was "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which art in heaven is perfect." How can that ever be, if we are covered in original sin? I haven't misrepresented other Christians. I do note that there are many varying beliefs in other Christian traditions, so that what I have said may not apply everywhere. Unfortunately, in speaking generally about a large group, there will be some inaccuracy in the generalizations. If I speak of blonde people, am I thinking platinum blondes, strawberry blondes, dishwater blondes, or bleached blondes? I may not accurately portray all blonde people with a generalized statement. Among other Christians, one gets those who believe in original sin, and others who view it differently. Some think like St Augustine, who believed even little children who are not baptized will burn in hell, while others believe there must be some escape for them. RCCs believe in keeping the commandments as part of the need for salvation. Others see complete grace. Then there are those who seek a balance. But righteousness DOES do us good, if it is based upon our faith. It opens us up to a greater portion of Jesus' grace and salvation. Otherwise, would you suggest we need to ignore or reject all of Jesus' teachings? That verse you mention is the following: Matthew 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work cniquity. 24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. Clearly, obedience and righteous works are important here. Jesus also told of dividing the sheep from the goats, telling them that he would bless those that did good works to those around them (I was hungry, and ye fed me....Inasmuch as ye have done this to the least of these, ye have done it unto me). Can these works save us? No. But they help us BECOME like God, so that we can then be capable of receiving his grace. As the Lord taught Joseph Smith, we go from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace (D&C 93). The two great commandments would be meaningless, if they weren't important enough for God to share them with us. The same with the other teachings of Jesus and his apostles that clearly explain the importance of becoming like God through obedience and faith. Otherwise, if all we have is faith, it is dead, having no works to back it up (James 2). As for something being a lie that Satan would have us believe, can you provide the scriptural source for that statement? Otherwise, I'll consider it your own opinion. I do agree that we cannot save ourselves. I disagree with original sin, and that we cannot become like Christ is. Jesus himself said, "ye are gods." And Paul agreed when he called us "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." This tells me that we are of the same substance as they are; otherwise we could not become as they are and inherit what Jesus has inherited.

Can you name the Christian churches wherein you can lose salvation by dancing? I know the Baptists used to frown on it, but it had nothing to do with losing salvation. Perhaps you aren't aware of how many churches in the USA there are today. Many of them ignore Biblical sins, embracing people and saying that God loves them too much to kick them out of heaven for Sin X. Others believe that all a person has to do is say they believe, or read a statement, and they are saved. In the USA, we have the Gospel of Wealth that is preached by many ministers, who focus on people getting wealthy, since they are already saved. And many of these occur in major Christian sects, not just the little ones in the backwoods. Yes, there are some very moral Christian churches. But even among the major strains of Protestantism, there is a major struggle over determining what is sin and what isn't. Homosexuality and abortion are just two issues that come to mind that have literally split churches in half (Episcopelians, for example). In the past, issues like slavery have divided churches (Baptist). Even for the conservative churches, many of them do not excommunicate people for adultery. It is always on the table for consideration in the LDS church for adultery. One can be in good standing in other Christian churches without teaching a Sunday School class, or becoming a Deacon or Elder. One is considered in good standing in the LDS Church if holding a temple recommend, fulfilling his callings, and doing his hometeaching regularly. My boss is an Elder in his non-denominational Christian church, and I also work with a couple Baptists preachers. None think twice about shopping on Sunday after meeting. If I were to shop on Sunday, I'd have a severe guilt complex until I had repented and turned myself around. Worse, if other members were to see me out shopping, I know I would be setting a bad example for them.

Annually, members of the Church see the bishop and state whether they have been full tithe payers or not. Paying a full tithe is one outward method in which we can judge if a person is ready to enter the temple, or receive certain callings. Obedience to certain commandments are not a sure-fire way of telling a person's righteousness, but it helps. For example, I would suggest that the person that daily reads their scriptures is probably more spiritual than the person who daily reads the porn sites. But that is an extreme example to show what I mean.

I agree that Luther didn't want to leave the RCC. However, it happened. He was, at the time, excommunicated. The Lutheran and later Reformation Churches were not recognized by the RCC, except as heretics that were often burned at the stake. So, my argument does hold. If the RCC claims sacerdotal power and authority, which it does, and others dispute that authority, then there is a clean break. I agree with you that God withdrew spiritual authority from the RCC. The question then comes, how does one regain that spiritual authority of God? Is a Reformation sufficient? Or must God restore the authority again? The point I'm making is that Protestants cannot claim a 2000 year tradition, because they have broken off of the RCC - removing themselves from that tradition. Another way to possibly look at it is that the tree is dead or dying, and so the branches are also dead or dying. I know you will not agree with such an assessment, but that is how a Catholic priest discussed it with me once on "IF" there had been an apostasy. He agreed there would have to be a restoration. Now, he did not believe an apostasy had occurred, and so no restoration or reformation was required.

And that is why I stated that we need to determine such things. Is a Reformation sufficient to restore the Church? Who, then is to reform it? I'd say several thousands of ministers have felt the need to reform the Christian church, so as we now have several thousand varieties of Christianity. As for Restorationist movements, I agree there are several. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young stated they accepted truth wherever it was found. The truths that Sidney Rigdon and others had were embraced. But the Rigdons and Pratts, et al., had to reject several concepts, as well. You'll note that Joseph Smith did not throw out the Bible, but used it as his key scripture throughout his life. The Bible, in fact, was often a catalyst for the revelations of Joseph Smith. Ideas and concepts from the Bible or other individuals often led to the revelations that established doctrines. The Word of Wisdom came about because Emma complained about tobacco stains and smoke damaging rooms in the house. The key idea on the term "restore" is it means something that is brought back to its original condition. Joseph brought back apostles and prophets, modern revelation and scripture, ancient concepts like: the divine council, the premortal existence, levels of heaven, and an anthropomorphic God. All of these concepts were ancient and preceded the creeds of Christianity. So, while we can disagree on whether Joseph actually restored the true Church, one must realize that he did bring back/restore ancient teachings.

I see this for the same reasons many join other churches, including the LDS Church. Usually, doctrine is a part of the reason, but not the initial or key reason. Let's face it, most Christian churches have a lower expectation of their congregates than do Mormons. There is no annual tithing reconciliation with the Bishop. There is no expectation to advance through the priesthood levels, accept and magnify callings, or be active in the temple. There is no requirement to find your ancestry all the way back to Adam. There is no problem with attending Church Sunday morning, and then going to the movies or store in the afternoon. I know many who have left the Church because they believe they must save themselves by doing all these things - right now. And they never feel they can measure up, so it is easier to accept the teachings of another Christian faith that does not require as much; I suppose so as not to feel guilt. I am not saying these are Holly's reasons, btw. Many join the LDS Church, but doctrine usually is not the main reason. As it is, the missionaries teach just a bare set of doctrines to our investigators, so it isn't like they have been taught the LDS teachings in depth prior to baptism. Most join the LDS Church because they have felt the Spirit witness to them, or they like the missionaries enough to do them a favor. Doctrinal understanding comes later, as they search the scriptures and study the teachings of the Church (that is, IF they study). As for your issues with gods and God, I can understand it. It is very different from classical Christian teachings. However, that does not make it wrong - rather it is an ancient belief that many non-LDS Biblical scholars have written about: such as Margaret Barker. Will Holly and all Christians be saved? I believe they will. Each will be saved to the level of truth and righteousness each one embraces for him/herself. Some embrace Christ much more than others - some serve, while others are Christian in name only. Each will be blessed for the level they accept to follow God. This concept was actually taught by the early Christian, Shepherd of Hermas, btw. He compared everyone to a branch, and according to the amount the branch grew and blossomed, determined that individual's glory in God's kingdom(s). Oh, and I do not necessarily consider you an anti-Mormon, simply because you disagree with LDS teachings. Anti-Mormons are those individuals that go out of their way trying to destroy the Church, even if it means they have to lie or twist the truth to do it.

BTW, the Catholic Church recently came out with a statement saying that the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox are the only "true" Churches out there. Protestant churches are all heretical apostates and are not recognized, unless they convert over to the RCC. If they are, indeed, the actual descended church of God, then the Protestants really do not have a leg to stand on, being heretics. If the RCC isn't completely descended from the original Church in its fullness, then there must have been key truths lost: an apostasy. If that is the case, then the issue is whether a Reformation or Restoration is required to bring the Church and gospel back to its fullness. Given that the Reformers made a compelling case for breaking off of the Roman Catholic Church, due to its falling away from the original intent of the gospel, I'd say they would have to agree there was a loss of truth and authority. So, this discussion about whether there was an apostasy is a silly one for Protestants to deny. Otherwise, they need to all march on up to the local cathedral and ask the priest for communion and baptism.

As with Prison Chaplain, I do not believe that the gospel ceased from the Earth. I do believe that many plain and precious things were lost, needing to be restored prior to the 2nd Coming in order to prepare us for that day. The atonement of Christ was and is available to all those who have or will live on earth. However, key points needed restoring to ensure not only salvation in a heaven of glory, but exaltation, as well. This restoration included priesthood authority, continuing revelation, prophets and apostles, temple ordinances, etc. D&C 1 tells us that the LDS Church is the only true and living Church with which the Lord is truly pleased. This does not mean there are no other true and living churches, but that there is one which fully pleases God - IOW, it contains a fullness of His gospel offerings. The apostasy was not a complete falling away. Otherwise, we would not have had the Bible or a knowledge of Christ continue through the ages. But there was a loss of precious things needing to be restored. Even Martin Luther and the other Reformers would have agreed with the concept that the Catholic Church had lost its way on several key issues.

I would have to disagree with you, Traveler. I believe that God loves all of his children, and seeks to have as great a personal relationship with each of us, as we are willing to have with him. In his first two volumes of Exploring Mormon Thought, Blake Ostler explains that the Godhead is all about a loving relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and that God wishes us to enter into that same loving relationship with him (John 17, 3 Ne 11, 27). In fact, this is what the two great commandments are all about. God has created three levels of HEAVEN, in order to provide all his children as great a relationship with the Godhead as they are ready and willing to enter into. I truly do believe other Christians and non-Christians, when they say they have a personal relationship with God. Now, what does that mean? Does the Christian, who is a crack addict and adulterer, have as close a relationship with God as the Prophet or Pope? Probably not. Part of developing a relationship with anyone is becoming like that individual. Our sins keep us from developing the closest of relationships with Christ and God, and therefore it may be a telestial or terrestrial relationship, at best. But it is still a heavenly relationship.

I have a grandson Jonathan that is your age! The Trinity is a belief that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being of substance, manifested in three persons. It was one of the early beliefs of what the Godhead was, and was made "official" at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Those who are proponents of the Trinity belief, believe it answers how God can be one God (monotheism), and still have the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Trinity is viewed as outside time, and is made of a divine substance that is unlike anything created. We are not of the same substance as the Trinity, but God offers to make us as much like him as possible, through Christ. The LDS view is that the Trinity is based upon a mixture of scripture and Greek philosophy. Some early Christians adopted Greek ideas, such as God is not human-like, they are not 3 separate beings, etc. The LDS belief in the Godhead is similar to another ancient belief, known as Origenism (named after the early Christian apologist, Origen). So, while both ideas are ancient, only the Trinity is traditional, as it is the one that has been passed down through the centuries. LDS belief is that the concept of Godhead had to be restored. This also restored our understanding of other key ideas: the premortal existence, knowing that we are literal spirit children of God, the concept that we are here to learn through our experiences in order to be more like God, the three levels of heaven, etc. Even though we disagree as to what makes up God, all Christians agree that Jesus has saved us from hell and promises us salvation if we follow him. I think that there's more we have in common than we have different in the Christian religions.

Unfortunately, the person who leaves the LDS Church over the concept of Trinity vs Godhead, really doesn't understand the history of the Christian Church. Those I've known who have left for this "reason" in the past, almost always had underlying reasons that were the real clinchers. Some decided that to be a Mormon is too difficult, and so it is easier to blame it on doctrinal issues. Others have had disagreements with Church members or leaders, and used this as a reason to leave. Then there are those entrenched in sin, who want to be good Christians and have their sins at the same time. Given that Holly hasn't held a temple recommend in some time, I would suppose there are other reasons for her falling out with the Church.

Actually, there are other reasons to call a solemn assembly - a temple dedication, for instance (D&C 109:6-10). And a solemn assembly can be held for a limited/smaller group of saints - it isn't necessarily just for a meeting of the general membership.

Solemn Assemblies are always done by groups. What is different this time, IIRC, is combining the Patriarchs, High Priests and Elders together for the vote (they've been separate in the past); and having the Relief Society and Young Women vote as groups. I thought it was wonderful to give the women of the Church the same level of respect and opportunity as those of us in the quorums of priesthood. I agree that Pres Monson's talks last night and this morning were very different for him. He spoke as THE prophet, with greater power and authority than I've heard him before. And I loved how he can wiggle his ears, as he did last night. You ladies will have to wait until the video is available to see what I mean.

I was thinking about this thread when a scripture was mentioned during Conference today. It was on Alma stating that he had "fasted and prayed many days" before receiving his witness. The speaker, Elder Oaks (IIRC) stated that testimony is a process. It starts with a desire to believe, but can't end there. Have we paid the price to receive or develop a testimony? It is one thing to desire or talk about it. It is another thing to get our lives in order, fast, pray, and do whatever else is necessary to gain one.

I believe they all may have received a confirmation of the Spirit. However, we all have to understand the Spirit through our 5 senses and understanding. They may have asked if you would be a true and righteous companion, and when they received an affirmative answer, misread it to mean you were meant to be their wife. I've seen it before, one guy and 4 girls convinced he was the one the Lord had personally hand-picked for them. The bishop had to let them down that, while he was definitely a righteous man that God would be pleased for them to marry, it is still an issue of free agency, and not God's command on whom we should marry. As ward mission leader several years ago, the elders and I taught a second discussion to a guy named, Alec. Alec said he had prayed, but did not receive an answer on Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. I asked him what he specifically had prayed about: "That God would show me the right way." So, I explained to him that the right way was being shown to him, as we were there with him, however that did not answer the questions of whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet or if the Book of Mormon was true. So we knelt down and prayed specifically about each, asking the Lord to reveal to us via the Holy Spirit if these were true. If they (JS and BoM) were true, to have the Spirit burn in our hearts a good feeling; but if not true, to give us a very negative feeling concerning this. After praying, he had his testimony of the gospel.

Why is it terrible to have a blessing similar to one's sibling? I believe the Lord can give similar blessings to different people. In fact, we have prophecies in the D&C given to brothers that are verbatim (D&C 15, 16). Does that make these revelations of no value, just because they are the same? Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 are extremely similar prophecies given by different individuals. Does that invalidate the prophecies, simply because they are alike? I don't think so. If the Lord wishes to use similar or exact wording for two revelations He has every right to do so. I think it interesting that you and your brother's PBs were done years apart, but somehow the patriarch was able to make portions of them the same! Either he uses certain phrases for all his blessings, or he was inspired to say the same things for both of you. I believe the latter is probably more likely.