rameumptom

Jesus Christ is a God, and a member of the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). He was called into the Godhead in the premortal existence, where he was also chosen to be our Savior (Abraham 3). In the Old Testament period, he was known as Yahweh or Jehovah, the Messiah and the Great Angel of the Presence (of God).

We are not sure how spirit children are formed. It is possible they are formed by Heavenly parents in the same way we are created. Then again, it is possible that they are created in a test tube. We just do not know. We do know that spirit is "organized intelligence" (Abraham 3), and that Intelligence is "Light and Truth" (D&C 93). Just what that entails, is speculative. Some believe that Intelligence has individuality, while others do not. Blake Ostler, in his book Exploring Mormon Thought vol I, suggests that Intelligence is the ability of any element to live certain laws. For example, God organizes lower intelligence into an Hydrogen atom, which holds certain innate capabilities. Then, he can organize Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms into water, which holds the previous abilities, but has a new level of ability as well - a higher intelligence. Once organized to a certain level, Intelligence becomes organized enough to have individuality as spirit children, and later organized again into a spirit with a physical body. I personally hold to this understanding. I know Brigham Young and others taught that spirit children were formed like mortal children are, however I also recognize that Brigham Young lived in the days before cloning and test tubes, which suggest that God has other methods he could choose to use to create/form spirit children. BTW, we also do not know how Adam was created.

While I suppose I could learn things from the Satanic Bible, I choose to focus on books and writings that are more reliable. I have read Nemelka's version of Lehi's writings, and while they aren't terrible; they also have some serious errors in them. And some of the teachings could and can lead people away from greater truths. As it is, I have a friend whose mother and brother have joined Nemelka's group and are convinced that he's the new prophet of God. It isn't that these are bad people, but they are not well-educated in doctrinal issues, either. Swaying people away from the greater truth (IMO, anyway), is not a good thing. The Book of Mormon had witnesses to its translation and to the gold plates. Nemelka has only his own testimony, which includes an admission to a newspaper that he was a fraud! No good can come out of this, especially when he has already stated he made the whole thing up.

Moral agency (as Pres Packer likes to call it) is available to us, precisely because Satan tempts us. 2 Nephi 2 teaches that without opposition, there is no choice, there is no existence. Until Satan arrived in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had only one set of rules and nothing to compare it with. It was necessary for a choice to be introduced in the Garden, otherwise Adam and Eve would not have had the ability to make such a choice. Remember that Satan's temptations are only a part of the equation. All people are born with the Light of Christ (Moroni 7), which teaches us to do good and follow Christ. So we're equally encouraged by both the light and darkness. Do addictions make the decisions more difficult? Of course. We can, through our choices, or the choices of others, lose some of our decision-making ability. But I think God will take that into consideration when he does the final judgment. The child that is raised on drugs by his parents has less to be judged over than the adult who decides to forsake his spiritual training and delve into the world of drugs.

And I am glad for PC and those non-LDS Christians that wish to have a decent dialogue with us. Sometimes I think we forget that we are all mortal, humans; all in search for the truth the best we can find it. I've learned many wonderful truths from people of other faiths before, and I hope to continue learning from them. And I hope they can learn from the LDS point of view, as well. Hopefully, the day will soon come when we will all come to a unity of the faith in Christ. Until that day, perhaps we can attempt to extend a little charity to those that do not agree with us. The Church teaches that in the last days, the physical government of God will be run by a variety of people from a variety of religions - not just LDS. Joseph Smith created a Council of 50 as the beginnings of the kingdom of God on earth, and not all its members were LDS, but all were eager to establish a righteous democracy that would allow a righteous people to dwell peacefully with each other. Perhaps sharing the moderator's power at such sites as this is a good beginning to creating that Christian government of the future.

While I understand the Trinity is viewed as a mystery, that does not necessarily make it exactly correct. John 17:3 tells us that eternal life is to know God and Jesus. If they are a mystery, then there is no way we can ever get to know them, and so eternal life is an impossibility. The analogy given of the stake presidency doesn't work for the Trinity. While there would be three presidents/persons, they are all of the same substance - which you do not get with a stake presidency (maybe a high council, though). There is no analogy that explains the mystery. The analogies all fall short, usually into a version of modalism, which is considered heresy to true Trinitarians. The Bible does separate out the Godhead. In John 17, the Lord prays that his disciples may be one even as the Father and Son are one. If we view this from a LDS Godhead point of view, the unity in purpose and relation is understandable and doable- we can actually come to know the Father and the Son to obtain eternal life. However, to understand this chapter in light of the Trinity, we would have to determine that all Christ's disciples will one day be as the Trinity are: separate persons, but one substance. And such a concept disagrees with the resurrection and teachings in the New Testament (although it does agree with Hinduism and some forms of Gnosticism). Christ's prayer, in light of the Trinity, does not make any sense. According to the creeds, we are not of the same substance as they are, and there is no way we can become as they are, or begin to understand/know them enough to receive eternal life. Everywhere the Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God", it is describing the "Doctrine of Christ." The Doctrine of Christ is that the Godhead are united in one in an extremely close relationship. We must seek and obtain this same level of unity and relationship with the Saints, in order to become like God and Christ. The key to this is 1) Faith in Christ, 2) Repentance, 3) Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins (and other ordinances), 4) Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, 5) Enduring to the end. These become a process in our lives that as we follow them, we follow in Christ's footsteps until we become one with Christ and the Father and with the saints. Finally, I always find it amusing how people insist that we find proof of the Godhead in the Bible and Book of Mormon, ignoring the other LDS writings. Was the Book of Mormon okay, but suddenly the other revelations given to Joseph Smith not inspired or acceptable? Doctrine and Covenants 130 tells us that the Godhead are three separate beings. That should be very clear. But it finds support in the Bible and Book of Mormon: Stephen gazed up into the heavens and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Either there are two separate beings that Stephen saw, or Stephen didn't really see them. And if he didn't really see them, then God lied to him and the Bible is wrong. I'll let you take your pick on how to read such events, but it can't be logical and illogical at the same time - either Stephen saw two individuals, or he didn't. And if he didn't, then God lied to him. And if God lied to him, then he can't be God, for God cannot lie.

Actually, Science does not "prove" anything. It can disprove a theory. It can also show consistency in theories, that make those theories reliable. Once they are considered reliable enough, they are considered a law of nature (law of gravity, for instance). But there's always the chance that something could come along and disprove even gravity. Chances that would happen are very slim, but they still are there.

Heather, if you get the chance to read Blake Ostler's Exploring Mormon Theology vol I, he has a great description of the relational experience in the Godhead. I think the term "purpose" doesn't quite begin to describe their relationship. But I agree that logic cannot explain the Trinity, which is why it is understood as a mystery.

I see that Patriarchal Blessing as being standard. If we stay faithful to God and strive to overcome, then the day will come that through Christ's atonement we will overcome the adversary. Our spiritual strength will be such that Satan (definition: adversary) will be bound so as not to be able to tempt us. Later, the day will come when he will have no impact on us, whatsoever. But for now, he's used to give us temptations and trials, so we can build our spiritual muscles, and learn to rely on Christ.

God's work is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). His goal is to train his children up in the ways of life everlasting. What better way to train them, than to give them experience by doing? While the Father delegates, he still keeps close tabs on what is happening. The temple rite shows the Creation occurring as God the Father directs Jesus to create certain parts of the earth. Jesus does so, with the assistance of others, and then reports back. While much of the work is delegated, God still keeps track of the plan and how it is implemented. IOW, like a great boss today, he tries to empower us. He delegates out his power and authority, in order to have us learn how to grow up to be like Him. This is also why we have trials and struggles in this life: because the experiences are for our eternal good, we can't be saved without them (D&C 123:7-8). IOW, all of our experiences are delegated to us for our good and growth. But God keeps tabs on all things, and stays in control of the entire plan. He is the architect, and delegates out to the builders where every beam is placed, and every socket installed. This in hopes that someday some of the builders may learn to also become architects, themselves.

What???? When did they make that a law? No wonder I've lately been having trouble making huge leaps of faith....

In the Apocrypha are the books of Esdras. Esdras describes those that were carried off to Assyria (ca 721 BC). These Israelites gathered together and determined to go where no one would bother them in their worship. Esdras tracked them for about a year and then lost them. Their trek included a miracle, as a river dried up so they could cross over. Today, these are known as the Lost Tribes of Israel. Others are believed to have migrated away at other times, or carried off. Not all the Israelites returned from Babylon or Egypt after they were carried off by the Babylonians, for example. With the exception of knowing many had departed, and that there are prophecies of the return of the lost tribes, no one knows for certain where they all are. The Book of Mormon shares one small branch of Joseph and Judah that escaped around 600BC and came to a small area in the Americas, probably Mesoamerica. Jesus told the Jews "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring." Later, to the Nephites, Jesus told him that they were among the other sheep, which the Lord had taught to the Jews. They did not understand that Jesus was referring to the Lost of Israel, thinking instead of the Gentiles. But Jesus explained that while the Gentiles would hear his voice, he would not go directly to them as a people, as he did the Jews and Nephites.

When the Spirit spoke with Nephi during his vision of the Tree of Life, he was asked if he understood the condescension of God. Nephi did not understand, and so the Spirit showed him two visions of condescension: First of the Father condescending to send Jesus to earth at birth, and Second of the Lord's ministry upon the earth. Each had an important part to give, coming down to earth to do His part to bring about the atonement of mankind. And I can imagine the crucified Christ calling out, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Knowing that God the Father had to leave Jesus to deal with the last pangs of death alone, Melvin J. Ballard stated that he could see Father rushing off to the farthest edges of the universe, in order to not see Jesus suffer. IOW, while he physically wasn't tortured and suffering, God the Father also went through the ordeal of condescension.

Actually, Nemelka claimed that while working as a security guard in the SLC temple, the Lord handed him the original plates, and commanded him to transcribe the Lost 116 pages. Nemelka was later interviewed and claimed it was a scam (newspaper has him on tape making this admission), which he later claimed he never said. He was a big part of the polygamous cults for a while, and they jumped on his 116 pages, until they found him to be a scam artist, as well. He's been in jail for fraud before. Chappell's stuff is not considered the actual 116 pages by FARMS (and by extension, the Church). Clearly, if it was the actual writings, the Church would have investigated it and obtained it for Church use.

I was watching a program on the History Channel the other night, where they were studying Mayan ruins and talking about Xibalba, the underworld. One place they went to was a site that was only found recently, named Lamanai. This is the ancient name it gives itself in some of the site stelae. So, it is possible that we have city named after Laman, or perhaps Lamoni?

D&C 84 teaches us that the purpose of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to prepare the saints to know the mysteries of godliness. These mysteries are revealed through the ordinances of the high priesthood. The section explains that this was Moses' great plan at Sinai: to have the Israelites climb the mount and see the face of God for themselves. (D&C 84:19-26) Even as early Israel refused to climb the mount and see God, so do many saints today refuse to receive the rites that make them eligible to see God's face. And of those that do attend the temple, many do not get it. They do not realize that they are literally practicing returning to God's presence. Of all things, this is the key to the mystery of godliness: to know God personally. To be endowed with power from on high suggests that we receive something special in the temple. The Second Comforter would be the pinnacle of our temple experience. What the Brethren received under Joseph's hands was the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the keys to the mystery of godliness - so that Christ could be revealed to each of them as individuals.

So, Mobius, what are some of your concerns we can discuss. LDS Scholar Terryl Givens gave a great talk at the Joseph Smith Symposium at the Library of Congress in 2005. He explained that while most religions are based upon creeds which bind them, the LDS religion is relatively open. We have a small list of core doctrines, upon which principles and teachings are based. But we also believe in continual revelation, so that our current understand can be expanded or corrected on any issue in the future. While some Church leaders have been strong supporters of Creationism of some sort, others have had an open mind concerning evolution. Even Joseph Smith accepted the Jewish concept that the earth was 3.555 billion years old, although Elder Bruce R. McConkie tried to make it sound like the entire universe was that age, and no more. The key is, there is an open discussion. Yes, there are some members that are adamant about a 6000 year old earth. But there are many that understand that the Bible was written by people that presumed certain things. The benefit of Joseph Smith's writings, is we can peer into the mind of a recent prophet, and find that assumptions actually occur on occasions. Translating the BoM, Joseph once paused and said, "I didn't know Jerusalem was a walled city." Even prophets learn and try to have the scriptures understandable from their world view. From the standpoint of Adam, he WAS the only person on the earth, where he was. So, there are ways to combine Adam as first man and evolution of some form together. Given we don't have all the answers on this, even the Church has officially proclaimed that there is no official stand on evolution.

I think it is one thing for the scriptures and the Lord to state this. I think it would be another thing if we walked around bragging about it. Unfortunately, there are members that do brag about belonging to the only true and living church. Such bragging has hurt the Church in the past. It led to ill feelings in Missouri and Illinois, as members bragged about building Zion and kicking out the Gentiles, or that Joseph Smith was the modern Solomon to build the temple that Masons had spoken about for centuries. Clearly, such hubris on our part did not engender good feelings. We should approach those around us with a little more humility. We aren't special because we belong the the true Church. We have been blessed with a gift that we should humbly cherish and share.

I have no problem with some Trinitarian concepts. Others I have a problem with. But you know what? I know many Trinitarians that also have issues with some key Trinitarian concepts. Shadow, your example of the egg to describe the Trinity is a perfect example of this. The egg metaphor does not describe the Trinity, but modalism. I've found that the vast majority of traditional Christians that are not scholars in the Trinity, view it in the same way you do. But for the Trinitarian creeds, modalism is a heresy, as much so as the LDS belief in the Godhead. I don't know how a person can be saved believing in a heresy, unless such heretical views aren't important enough to matter to the Lord. Either most Christians will be damned for their heretical views of modalism, or they won't be. And if they aren't condemned for not believing in the actual Trinity, then why should Mormons be condemned for not believing the Trinity? As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that all Trinitarians and modalists will be saved in a kingdom of heaven. Would it be better for us to have a greater understanding of God and His truths? Of course. But I believe that Christians have enough truth to be saved from Outer Darkness/hell.

LDS scholar Kevin Barney, wrote an article on the DH a few years back. You can read it here: B A very good book on the topic is "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Friedman. He explains the different variations and how they were combined later. Key points of interest on the DH, which I accept as basically correct, is that our earliest versions of the bible as we have it were written by E and J, probably in the period after Solomon's death. E's version was written in the northern Kingdom and supported the priests of Moses (versus the priests of Aaron that were supported by J, P, and D). The Bible, for instance has Moses going twice to the same place to get water from a rock. In the J version, God is angry with Moses and takes away his blessing to go into Canaan. In the E version, an angel stands above the rock to show Moses where to strike the rock. Interestingly, the Brass Plates of Laban supported the E tradition very well, including the positive experience Moses had in getting water from a rock. It has been suggested that the Brass Plates of Laban may have been the E version of the scriptures that were used to combine the scriptures into one - something that occurred prior to the destruction of Judah. We see many northern kingdom-type events coming into the Book of Mormon/Nephite tradition: altars in the wilderness, a priesthood separate from the Aaronic Priesthood involved in the temple, angelic ministrations, Tree of Life (Deuteronomists had removed angelic visitations and the Tree of Life from the temple), pro-Moses, little or no mention of Aaron, strong Messianic movement, quoting prophets that prophesied to the Northern Kingdom (Isaiah, Nahom/Neum) and prophets unknown in today's Bible with an E-type message. So, the DH may actually be indirect evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Brass Plates of Laban, since the Book of Mormon supports E, and shows additional version of scripture being guarded by the descendants of Joseph and the Northern Kingdom.

Rameumptom: Most of us have done just that. We are very aware of who Joseph Smith is, including his flaws. In fact, Joseph was aware of his own flaws, and was chewed out by God on several occasions in the D&C. And I'm sure if Moses or Jesus lived in an age of documents, we would have thousands of articles critical of them, as well. The issue is that only God can reveal to the individual if He called Joseph Smith as a prophet or not. I have received a spiritual witness of him and of the teachings and revelations Christ has given us through Joseph Smith and his modern prophets. RAM: No, neither did I. But who should be the one to choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are symbolic? The scriptures primarily show God as anthropomorphic. Whose responsibility is it to tell us that the Bible was using metaphors, rather than being literal? RAM: Prior to mortality, our spirits were literal created children of God the Father. We grew up as spirits in his presence, until the time came for us to be tested and to grow in greater knowledge. This required physical bodies to learn, and to be taken out of his presence in order to learn to "walk by faith" as Paul put it. In Hebrews, Paul calls God the "father of our spirits." God told Jeremiah that he knew him before he was formed in the womb. And we are told that our spirits return to Him who made us. This is one of the key things restored in the last days through prophets - the knowledge of our pre-mortal spiritual relationship with God. RAM: the Bible is an awesome guide for all of us in our lives. However, it is missing plain and precious teachings, or the teachings are not all that clear. The issue of pre-mortal existence is one example. To know that we lived with God before this life, is a wonderful thing that helps me feel closer to God and my spiritual roots. The concept of deification is also mentioned in the Bible, but not well spelled out, so that many Christians do not understand the concept - that we can co-heirs with Christ and reign with God on his throne. Finally, I've mentioned the divine council of Gods on a few occasions, and that is not well known from reading the bits and pieces left in the Bible, but are well known from the revelations of Joseph Smith RAM: Just because it sounds like a Greek myth does not make it wrong. The Hebrew Bible obtained many of its teachings and beliefs from other cultures, including Greece. Did Paul not mention that the "Unknown God" was the God he worshiped among the deities of Greece? And while the Bible makes mention of the divine council, one must go to other ancient sources to pull it out of the Bible so that it makes sense. Job mentioned the sons of God and Satan going to challenge Yahweh. Isaiah 6 tells us about Isaiah before the divine council. Then we have God in Genesis saying, "let US make man in OUR image." Many non-LDS Bible scholars have written about the divine council, including Margaret Barker. RAM: The Aaronic Priesthood was given to many individuals. Same with the Melchizedek Priesthood. Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, but not necessarily the only priest. Priesthood is an eternal concept. Revelation 1:6 tells us that Christ hath made us "kings and priests unto God and his Father." The promises of being kings and priests extend into the next life, and we obtain the same inheritance Jesus has, being heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. Being the case, then if Christ obtained the Melch Priesthood, so should we expect to also inherit it. Yes, this is true. The thing is that you are not understanding what I beleive to be the Trinity, the best example that I was taught with and many other too, is the Trinity is like an egg, you have the yolk, egg white and shell. All three are different, but one being. RAM: Sadly, the example you give is NOT the Trinity as taught by the creeds. It is modalism, which was condemned by St Augustine as being a heretical teaching. To explain the Trinity correctly, you would have to state there is one specific yolk in three eggs at the same time. Yes, it doesn't make sense, but that's the mystery of the Trinity. The Trinity has 3 persons, not 3 substances, which is what your egg analogy suggests, and is condemned as modalism.

KFD = King Follet Discourse. At King Follett's funeral, Joseph Smith was asked to speak. Instead of talking about King Follett, he discussed the nature of God. You can read it here: King Follett Discourse In the talk, Joseph Smith explained concepts such as, where does one have a father that was not first a son. And he discusses how God once was mortal and came to earth as we do, in order to obtain full godhood. Here are some key points he made at the beginning of the discourse:

The term Elohim can be used both for gods, and God. It is used in the Bible for idols/gods as well as those actual gods that belonged to the divine council. Often it is a contextual thing with ancient Hebrew words, and this often makes it more difficult to pull the intent and nuances out of the scriptures. But it usually can be done with proper research. Hemidakota, The groves are associated with paganism because the groves represented the Goddess Asherah/Astarte/Isis/Ishtar/Aphrodite/et al. Asherah was the consort of Yahweh, but also was known as the consort of Baal. Isis was the sister/wife of the Egyptian God Osiris. Astarte was northwest Semitic goddess. Ishtar was in Mesopotamia, and Aphrodite was the Greek version of Astarte. So, while there is a true and correct form, there were adaptations that went throughout the world. These greatly influenced Israel's kings and people and later caused the Deuteronomists to reject the queen of heaven, because in much of the rites of other gods, she was involved in fertility rites in the groves, and her priestesses often were equivalent to religious prostitutes. Now, for Joseph Smith, it was a matter not of a grove of trees representing Asherah, but a grove of trees representing sacred space. Anciently, sacred space was found in high places and groves. Later, with rising populations, many temples were built to set aside a sacred space for worship. The Jewish temple is just one example of a building representing sacred space. Even then, Jesus began his atonement in a sacred grove at Gethsemane, as it set him aside away from the world while sacred events occurred.

Hemidakota, The Savior said he was doing the work he had seen the Father does. What does that mean? Did he see the Father on another earth being a Savior? Did he see the Father as a regular mortal on another earth being faithful in receiving godhood? Did he see the Father actively busy in heaven preparing mankind for salvation? While I keep an open mind, there are many LDS scholars that view the KFD as meaning that Jesus-God came down to an earth, and not necessarily God the Father. Yes, it is the minority view, but even President Hinckley when asked on television said he did not know what it means that God was once a mortal. Clearly there are fewer answers than there are questions that KFD brought up. Yellows23, Yes, we are imperfect, but are made perfect in Christ. Peter states that we can be partakers in the divine nature. While other Christians see a huge gap between mortals and God, LDS see that we are gods in embryo. As the acorn does not appear like a tree, the potential is there for it to become a mighty oak. Jesus used the metaphor of a mustard seed being very small, but can grow to be a large tree that birds nest in. At the same time, he gave the parable of the sower, suggesting that not all seeds meet their proper end, but many fail to achieve and bring forth fruit. Having now mixed not only metaphors, but parables also, let me say that for LDS all of this is an open book. Terryl Givens, LDS scholar, explained that most religions are built on creeds that delimit their search for God. LDS believe in an open canon, where new revelations and inspiration can lead us to interesting concepts of God - some of which are canonized, while others remain conceptual and even speculative. But we aren't boxed in by something St Augustine or the Nice Council wrote centuries ago. They rejected concepts taught by many early Christians, and even concepts that are taught in the scriptures (Godhead being separate beings, divine council of Gods, etc.). Their creeds prohibit them from reviewing the ancient data and considering the different teachings that were available, in hopes of perhaps knowing God better. Meanwhile, we see LDS considering the Trinity, for example. Rather than rejecting it outright, many LDS try to see the truths within it and how it connects with LDS teachings. Personally, I have no problem with describing the Godhead as a form of social trinity, for example. But this becomes a major difference between being boxed in by creeds, and being open to all knowledge available and considering all of the teachings ancient and modern. Article of Faith 13 explains a key LDS belief on this:

I think that parents need to first arm themselves with knowledge and spiritual preparation, and then they will be able to assist their children. Too many kids, including in the LDS Church, are given a litany of teachings that may or may not be the "gospel truth." I know LDS that teach that the earth is only 6000 years old - what are their kids going to do when they go off to a college and the professors show them positive proof of the world being 4 billion years old? Suddenly, the gospel seems like a nice fairy tale or myth, and they lose faith in it. I had the opportunity last spring to sit with my 12 year old son and see two different videos on succeeding days. The first video was the Testaments, by the Church. I asked him to think about the thoughts and emotions he would feel during the movie. The next day, we watched the anti-Mormon video Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ. I asked him which one felt more correct and brought the Spirit more into his heart. Because I wasn't hiding anti-Mormon things away from him, but giving him a chance to compare, he saw the difference between the two videos. We then discussed the things that I felt were wrong in the second video, and how facts and the "truth" can be distorted or manipulated to make something else seem wrong.