rameumptom

One more thought on Lucifer as a member of the divine council. Isaiah 14 refers to the King of Babylon as falling from his design to be king of the world, and then symbolically ties it to Lucifer. John the Revelator tells us that Lucifer caused a war in heaven and took one-third part of the host of heaven with him. What was his intent? According to Isaiah, it was to place his throne above God's throne! Sounds a lot like his intention in challenging Yahweh for Job, does it not? Yet, as with the other challengers in the divine council, Yahweh throws Lucifer down, casting him out of heaven for rebellion. The members of the divine council had two choices: fight Yahweh, or submit to his greater rule. Later, Yahweh asks Job if he was them when the "Sons of El shouted for joy" at the creation - clearly referring back to the divine council and those divine Sons of El! In the Book of Abraham, Abraham sees the Divine Council in vision. He sees the Great ones standing around God, and the Lord turns to Abraham and tells him he was a member of that Divine Council and was chosen before the world was created! So, how could Abraham be a divine being, and yet come to mortality? In the same way Jesus/Yahweh did - a Divine Son of God before mortality, and still a Divine Son of God after resurrection. Kind of all ties in, doesn't it? And there are lots of other points I could make on this, but hopefully this should give all an idea of the Divine Council was a group of Divine Beings, Sons of El. Margaret Barker, in fact, establishes the difference between Sons of El and sons of Yahweh. The former are divine beings and the second group are mortals that have chosen Yahweh as God.

You have to study the background of the Bible, to understand the Divine Council. It was a council of Gods, headed by El Elyon/Elohim, and his sons. El Elyon divided the nations of the earth to his sons in the Council, with Yahweh receiving the most coveted prize: Israel. These sons were Gods of the nations they were given. Some of the Sons of El (Sons of God), were incompetent and were replaced or overthrown by others of the Sons of God. In one Biblical passage, Yahweh states that there never was another God before him, and there won't be anymore after him. He was referencing the fall of the Canaanite God (I believe it was Yam, someone correct me?), who was replaced by Baal. Yahweh was stating that he always was God of Israel, and would never be replaced. Job tells of a challenge by the Sons of El to Yahweh, who were trying to obtain Israel for themselves. Yes, Lucifer was with the Sons of El, and it is suggestive that he makes the challenge, as if he is/was a member of the divine council! Yahweh defeats his challengers, as Job stays faithful regardless of what he is afflicted with. With time, the Israelites are carried off to other nations, where they are surprised to have prophets (Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.) who tell them that Yahweh has power in the other nations, as well. Essentially, Yahweh obtains the power over all the nations of the Earth over his competitors in the divine council. As for whether the Trinity is one God or three Gods, all I can say is the Bible and early Church Leaders are very certain of them being physically separate Beings. Origen stated that Christ was God, but subordinate to the Father, for instance. Jesus wants us to be one, even as he and the Father are one (John 17) - showing they are separate beings, or that we will all be one Spirit Being in the resurrection (are there any other options? I don't think so). Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which means he literally saw two beings, or God deceived him. Since God does not lie, there must be two separate beings that Stephen saw. And this agrees with Joseph Smith's First Vision - Father and Son as two physically separate beings that were united in all purposes and relational things. One can accept the great majority of the passages as to what they not only infer, but what they actually say, or one can parse the Bible according to his/her own beliefs.

Wrong. Over and over and over again, the Bible teaches us that there is a diversity of Gods (divine council), but only one God of Israel! Job (ch 1) tells of the sons of God (divine council) and Lucifer (also a part of that council) going to Yahweh and challenging him for supremacy of Israel. Isaiah 6 shows the divine council, and Isaiah's symbolic stance as Messiah, when he answers the call of "Whom shall I send?" Even John the Revelator sees the divine council, surrounding the throne of God prior to the trumpets and dispensations and destructions are begun in the Apocalypse. And that doesn't explain Stephen seeing Jesus standing on the right hand of God - either he did see this, or God deceived him in a vision. The Book of Mormon DOES say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God, but always in the context of the "Doctrine of Christ" (2 Ne 31, 3 Ne 11). That doctrine is for us to receive the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, and live them, until we become one, even as the Godhead is one. Here we get the same teaching as we get from Jesus in John 17. And when truly studied in context, it is the ONLY reasonable way to read it! Next, when the resurrected Christ came to the Nephites, it was clear that he was separate from the Father. Father introduced him. Jesus prayed to him. Jesus stated that the Nephites prayed to him and not the Father, only because he was in their presence. If they were the same being, such a distinction would not be necessary. As for Revelation 1:5-6, I realize that other translations say differently. But KJV clearly shows that Jesus "made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." I see that as you parsing scripture. However, if someone is going to insist on "sola scriptura", then I'm going to insist that they considered the KJV, which is the most common available English version, as God-breathed and completely correct. Now, if you do not believe in sola scriptura, then we are open on the debate of new revelation that transcends the Bible's incomplete teachings!

I know that Trinitarians do not believe in Patripassianism. I understand that the Trinity is a "mystery" that is not comprehensible, hence one being being in two places at once. However, for someone who studies logic and philosophy, it begs the question of where logic ends and faith in an incomprehensible mystery being begins....

When we consider how few archaeologists have dug in the Americas (North and South), compared to the many that have dug around the Levant (from Syria to Sinai), we see that Middle Eastern archaeology has been around much longer and many more diggers than in all the Americas. And for the most part, in the Middle East, they've known basically where to dig. Still, they are finding new tombs in the Egyptian Valley of the Kings. It is believed that King David's palace has just been discovered in the last couple years, and now must be uncovered to verify it. With such major sites still coming up with discoveries like these, how can one wonder how a small band of vagabonds can easily be found in an area the size of two continents. Yes, archaeological research has most scholars now looking primarily in Mesoamerica, but it is still hypothetical, based upon current research. A new discovery could change that tomorrow. Just a decade ago, archaeologists insisted that all Native Americans were Clovis people that came over the Ice Bridge. Now many are considering other groups that also came, including Pre-Clovis sites, Kennewick Man (who was Caucasian), etc. In the 1980s, one of the big Mesoamerican "finds" was that the Mayan language was decipherable after all, and boy was Professor John Thompson and other key Mayan scholars embarrassed for keeping it locked down for decades, so that no one else had a chance to determine if it was possible to decipher it. So, while archaeology is useful to show evidence of something, or a lack of evidence of something; it is nearly useless for actually proving most things.

We agree with Trinitarians that the Father and Jesus are both God(s). The point being made is that the Trinitarian creeds emphasize the Father and Son as one being, not two separate beings (though described as two persons of the same being). They are not separate, and so events such as Jesus praying to God, establishing they have separate wills, that God can forsake Jesus, that God can proclaim his acceptance of Jesus at his baptism, Jesus resurrected physical body, and that Stephen sees Jesus standing on God's right hand, ALL signify two physically separate beings. As for the verses that say there is only One God, there are easy answers for that. John 17, Jesus tells us to be one, even as he and the Father are one. I do not think any Christians read that as all of us becoming one single amorphous entity. Rather, we are to be united in will and thought and desire, as the Godhead is. Biblical scholars, like Margaret Barker and William G. Dever have taught that the original Hebrews in the First Temple and before, believed in a divine council of Gods. The concept of only one God came later with the changes made by the Priestly and Deuteronomic groups, and they edited the scriptures to try and eliminate much of the divine council. But they failed. Margaret Barker shows in "The Great Angel" that God and Jesus are separate beings, with Jesus being the Messianic Great Angel, Yahweh, and that early Christians understood that separation. As for God not always being God, we LDS admit we have little revelation regarding that concept. What we do know, is that God has always been God for us; and that there has always been a Godhead since the beginning (Big Bang or whatever?). My KJV Revelation 1:5-6 says that Jesus "hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father....", which pretty much describes Jesus' Father, God, having a Father, as well. Regardless of the concept, it is something that has been restored. What is more perfect, the Father never having been mortal, or Jesus that was mortal and resurrected with a physical body that somehow becomes a part of God, but can't become part of God, since it is of impure substance, of which God is always of pure substance? In such an instance, should not mortality and the resurrection have caused a literal separation of God from himself? Otherwise, how can he both be resurrected and pure Spirit at once? Historically, scholars show that God is anthropomorphic. Historically, scholars show there was a divine council of separate Gods, including El Elyon and Yahweh. Historically, scholars show that later temple priests sought to gain control of the religion by combining El and Yahweh into one God, and removing continuous revelation and angelic visitations from Jewish religion. Margaret Barker states that Jesus attempted to restore these concepts, which is one key reason the Sanhedrin sought his death. Scholars, like Bart Ehrman, show us that the exact same thing occurred in the early Christian church. Revelation was stopped and the Bible finished, so that the proto-orthodox church could gain control from the other churches that claimed revelation and authority of God. These are rather strong historical evidences showing that the Trinity of One God does not go back to the days of Christ, or through the Jews before King Josiah's reforms. While I believe that LDS and other traditional Christians basically believe in the same Jesus and God, I believe that the better we understand what and who God is, the better we can worship and follow Him.

I think we'll see Mitt Romney back in 4/8 years. He's well positioned as one of the key leaders of the future of the Republican party, having proved his worthiness to the party by taking a bullet for it this time (as Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts have noted). I do not think John McCain will win the presidency, and so we'll have 4 years of Democrats in the White House and Congress. We'll see if it ends up being a Kennedy-esque presidency (No, Bill, I do not mean you and Monica), or a Jimmy Carter-esque one. If it is the latter, then 2012 will be ripe for a Romney run.

Dale, There are many LDS that believe KFD and Snow's couplet were referencing Jesus as the God referred to. Pres Hinckley has stated we just don't really have much info on the topic to really say anything beyond what has been stated. IOW, Jesus was God that became man, and we can become as Jesus is now. Most early Christians believed this, such as Paul, who stated we are "co-heirs with Christ", and John who wrote that we would sit down in God's throne and reign with him. This is my view of what it means to become as God is. In reality, we know very little about the Father in that much of what is written is speculation based upon just a couple of teachings from Joseph Smith. Still, I do not believe those teachings are required at this time for our exaltation, otherwise God would have taught it more fully to us. I keep an open mind, in that I know Joseph was teaching something wonderful, but did not get the chance to expound much on it, whether it referred to both the Father and the Son, or just the Son.

And General Conference is coming up, the first weekend of April. There will be 5 sessions of Conference (3 on Saturday, 2 on Sunday). The first session, Saturday morning at 11:00 EST, will be interesting, as it will be there that we will be asked to sustain the new prophet and First Presidency in a solemn assembly. The times will be posted/announced in your ward, and is broadcast to all of our church buildings. It is also available for listening/viewing online at lds.org and byutv.org

I'm sure that you all handled it well. It sounds like you focused on the important issues. I just had two points that perhaps I wasn't getting fully across: First, there is ample room for deep discussions if it concerns doctrines of the gospel. Second, there are many not-so-smart members out there that think they are smart, that attempt to introduce what they believe is doctrinal, but is just speculation. Such "discussions" tend to lead us away from quality, spiritual discussions and into contention and lack of Spirit. As Jacob said of the Jews, they "looked beyond the mark." I just wanted to emphasize such points. Thirdly, we need to ensure that new members are fed the milk and that the meat which the older members need is really meat, and not speculation or spiritual twinkies.

Wanderer, Remember that we are all seeking to improve our lives, whether it is overcoming an addiction or bad habit, etc. The key is to always keep trying and have faith that Christ will consecrate our efforts for good.

I'd say that the jury is still out on whether the ore was solely used to make paint. While that is definitely a primary use, we need to await further evidence to see if there were other reasons for mining the iron. As it is, some items are used for a variety of things - wood is burned for fuel, and carved into weapons and idols and eating utensils. Just because we only find evidence of wood being burned for fuel (a firepit is found) doesn't mean it wasn't used for other items as well. As I said, the jury is still out.

If Alma the younger's coma was a Near Death Experience, as suggested by several LDS scholars, it seems that there is no recognition of the premortal existence while in spirit prison/hell. As it is, when Alma is delivered to paradise, he does not mention recalling his premortal existence, but only speaks of the experience of the moment. I would suggest, therefore, that the Spirit World deals with the here and now, and that the veil of forgetfulness is lifted later on - if not later in the Paradise experience, then at resurrection.

Elphaba, Brent was not involved in the Hofmann murders. I've said that several times now. He was, however, very closely tied with Hofmann's normal and not so normal work, including the use of automatic weapons. The only thing I wasn't sure about, was whether he was fined for those events, or not. You have clarified that he wasn't. I believe you. I wish you would quit taking my words and dicing them up to fit your astonished shock. You aren't the only technical writer - as if that means anything in the blogosphere. You are, however, a very good politician, in taking things out of context to create a straw man out of me and others on this thread.

He was involved with Mark Hofmann in using automatic weapons up in the woods. He was also believed by the police to have been making explosive devices in the woods, although Brent probably did not know they would be used by Hofmann for anything else than for fun in the woods. I did not insinuate anything. You were reading things into my statements. I stated that Brent was not involved with the forgeries or murders, but was possibly doing some shady, if not illegal things with Mark Hoffman, nonetheless. I had heard that he was fined for the use of the automatic weapons and possibly for creating explosive devices, but was not insinuating anything beyond my statement. If you must read between the lines in order to find your discourse, then please don't bother discussing your misinterpretations on my dime.

One more thing, while Brent was not an actual part of the scandal, ask him sometime just what he went through as the Feds investigated him. He was affected by the scandal, and that was what I meant. Hoffman's actions dragged him into the investigation, if for no other reason than the two of them spent a lot of time together - including target practice with automatic weapons (without a license), etc. Brent was scrutinized and watched very closely by the Feds for months, to see if he was involved. I wouldn't have wanted to have such a scandal to live through - especially one not of my own making!

Elphaba, First, if you would have actually read what I wrote, you would have read that I said "I believed" that he was fined for bomb making. I wasn't sure about that. Did he know what Hoffman was doing? No. But he was involved, from the studies I've done, with Hofmann's love of automatic weapons and explosives. I just wasn't sure if he was fined for it. I do know that Brent wasn't involved in the forgeries or the killings. He did believe Hofmann's "discoveries" were authentic, as did most people. Now, I'm astonished you read that much into what I wrote. I stated that he worked closely with Mark Hofmann, which no one involved denies. The point I was making was Brent can be a little too eager to grab onto stuff to "prove" the Church wrong. Is he an expert on the KEP? No. No one really is. We have very little information regarding them. Does he have a quality copy of the KEP that most LDS scholars do not have? Yes. That, perhaps, is and has been his only advantage. Has he been correct on some things? Perhaps, but the discussion is still being made (and a good discussion at that), which began at the last FAIR conference.

Moksha, you make a very good point. Just a few centuries ago, the Roman Catholics were burning Protestants to death at the stake, and Calvin and other Protestants were burning Roman Catholics at the stake. Even more recently, we've seen Irish Protestants and Catholics bombing one another in Northern Ireland. Not really a "Christian" thing to be doing, eh? Christ, after all, taught about "turning the other cheek." I'm just not convinced that we (humans) are ready to really be "Christians" in the sense that Jesus taught. He sought unity amongst his disciples. He taught them charity, Christ-like love, forgiveness, faith, hope, etc. It seems like most Christians (including many LDS Christians) are busier with condemning the other guy to hell, than expressing a Christian love and serving. The mortal Jesus' key sermons are the Sermon on the Mount and at the Sea - which teach us his key principles. They do not teach us to persecute, but rather "blessed is he that IS persecuted for my sake." Concepts such as mercy, poor in spirit, pure in heart, peacemaker, are all part and parcel of what we must become. We are to be a light on the hill and salt with savor. We are to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the poor and visit those in prison (when was the last time anyone visited a stranger in prison - I work in one, so I do it daily!) - and in so doing when we do it unto the least of these, we have done it unto Christ. How does telling a Mormon he is loved, but will burn in hell with Joseph Smith if he doesn't repent, complying with Jesus' teachings? What value does regular Christianity offer me, besides animosity and rancorous lies toward something I consider special and of good report, such as the Book of Mormon? I reviewed a book a couple years ago for a guy that asked me to do so. It purported to bridge traditional Christianity and Mormonism. It started nice, then told his conversion away from Mormonism to traditional Christianity. Then it tried to "nicely" tell the LDS reader they could become decent Christians if they just changed a few things: reject the Book of Mormon, reject Joseph Smith, and tell their Church leaders they wanted their name removed from the Church records! Sad thing is, he didn't really see that his whole book was an attack. Instead of saying, "these are wondrous things I have found and want to share them with you...", his book was "these are the things that are wrong with Mormonism, so come over here, instead." And yes, he finished his book hoping we would listen to his plea, so we wouldn't burn in hell. OTOH, I've known LDS who have felt that others would "burn in Telestial or Terrestrial hell." While we should offer the opportunity of exaltation to others, we must begin to realize that the Telestial and Terrestrial are HEAVENS and not hell. All individuals will go to the kingdom that is most like their character and being (D&C 88). In trying to save people from Terrestrial Hell, we have this affinity to insult them; just as we are insulted by those traditional Christians that try "loving us" into their version of heaven. Maybe if all Christians were to concentrate more on what Jesus taught, rather than looking down on those around us because they are "sinners", perhaps we would realize there is more to unite us than divide us.

One thing I CAN tell you that will save people: the Atonement of Christ and the core doctrines, ordinances and principles of the Gospel. All the rest of it is interesting and gives us greater understanding, but is not necessary for salvation. As I mentioned before, many in the world (and often including in the Church) are "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." And Pres Packer has warned us about false knowledge - things that may be true, but have little to do with actual doctrine or salvation. While I can enjoy a discussion on Adam-God, who the Holy Ghost is, etc., they do not compare intellectually nor spiritually with discussions on the doctrines of the Church. For me, to better understand the atonement and the principles of the Gospel on a deeper level are more important than anything else. To understand the ordinances is key, because they divulge "the mysteries of godliness" (D&C 84). More can be learned about the temple ordinances from studying the Book of Mormon and receiving inspiration than from practically anything else. Little is learned of the ordinances and exaltation by studying issues that are peripheral to the core doctrines. Rameumptom

Elphaba, What works in Cambridge does not necessarily work for the ordinary member. Not all are deep thinkers. I love a deep discussion, but do not do so in Church meetings. There is so much depth of doctrine that can be explored. For instance, I taught Gospel Doctrine this past week on 2 Nephi 1-2. I was able to discuss issues such as liberty vs security, opposition, the endowments/gifts of the Fall and the Atonement, how the trials and struggles of this life provide the opportunity for exaltation, etc. All of these are key issues that need to be discussed in a Gospel Doctrine class, to help the members understand salvation and core doctrines better. I do agree with the sentiment expressed by Elder Holland in his General Conference talk, "a Teacher called of God", wherein he warns us not to teach spiritual Twinkies (all fluff and no doctrine), or to be uninspiring in our lessons. In a stake conference once, Elder Holland made an interesting challenge: to the sisters, he told them not to take an entire week to prepare a lesson; and the brethren he challenged to take more than an hour to prepare!

while the entirety of God and his creations are beyond our comprehension at this time, we do believe we can comprehend many things right now. We also believe that the day will come when we will comprehend God perfectly. I'm not sure how that would apply in a Trinitarian belief, where God is unknowable and incomprehensible, primarily because he is of a different substance than we are or will be in the eternities. I can comprehend what it is to be a child or parent, though on a smaller scale than God does in LDS theology. It isn't a matter of different, but more of a matter of scale between the things I create and the things he creates, of the children I raise and the children he raises, of the challenges I face and the challenges he faces, of the truths I know and the truths he knows.

Emma was an amazing woman. Imagine all the trials, suffering and persecution she went through, beside Joseph. And then, when he died, she was left with over $250,000 in debt that Joseph had personally signed for, on behalf of the Church. I know she's an elect lady of God, and will be at Joseph's side in heaven.

I've known Brent Metcalfe for a lot of years. He and I were both on Professor William Hamblin's Morm-Ant email listserv almost 20 years ago. Brent can be a nice guy, but he does seek to discredit the Church. His desires to attack the Church began a long time ago, when he found out that some of his ancestors were married into polygamous marriages after the initial 1890 manifesto, and then were caught up (IIRC) in the second Manifesto. Still, most of us LDS do not require perfect prophets, only inspired ones, and so such events do not phase us much. Brent was caught up in quite a scandal himself. He worked for a few years for Mark Hofmann, who was famous for finding early LDS documents, many of which cast a strange light on the Church (including the Salamander letter, and a blessing from Joseph Smith to JSIII promising he would be the next prophet). These letters were forged by Hofmann, in order to make a buck and to discredit the Church. When some were getting suspicious, he made bombs and killed a few people before getting caught. I believe that Brent (who at the time worked for Wordperfect) was fined for using/making explosive devices, but was not fully aware of the deceit of Hofmann. I just think that if he could make a mistake on a very close friend like Hofmann, he can just as easily be mistaken about his view on Mormonism. Still, in many ways he has mellowed some over the years, and can be quite friendly and engaging. He does hold one of the rare high quality photos of the KEP, which is what he's supposedly writing on right now. I'm hoping he'll make it a useful scholarly book, and not just another attack LDS book, as some of his other books have been.

I'm aware of Ritner's qualifications, and I respect him for such. But being an Egyptologist, and being a Book of Abraham expert are two separate issues, though somewhat related. It is on the same level as a purported archaeologist using DNA research to claim the Book of Mormon is false. While archaeologists can use DNA effectively for some issues, when not used properly, one gets skewed results. Ritner was correct in some of his statements regarding the Book of Abraham. But instead of doing a critical analysis, based upon all the facts available, or from an attempt at non-biased research, he was intent from the beginning to "prove" it false. Sadly, with his experience, he could have done a balanced approach, looking at more than just the quick glance at the extant papyri as he did. He ignored other issues that are always and conveniently ignored by most critics of the Book of Abraham: such as the internal text and how it compares to Egyptian thought, or how it ties/doesn't tie into ancient traditions. His intent was to quickly throw a rock at the Book of Abraham, rather than give it its due course and consideration. Ritner isn't known for sloppy results elsewhere, because there are too many other experts out there that would eat his lunch. Still, there are few areas so controversial as that of archaeological interpretation, whether in Egypt, Israel, or elsewhere. You can read such controversies in almost any of the professional journals, or in lay magazines, such as BAR. "Experts" in archaeology are continually arguing over interpretation, not just in the Mormon realm. The Mayan language was once thought to be perfectly pictorial, and never would be translated, and it took decades for the younger crowd to change the status quo established by Thompson and others in the establishment. Experts argue over whether the Messiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions a "pierced Messiah" or whether the Messiah is piercing others. Experts argue over whether King David was historical or not. Experts have incessantly argued over whether Clovis man was the earliest (and sometimes argued as the only) ancestor of Native Americans. These are just a few examples of what goes on in archaeology. Ritner should be aware of this, and how interpretation of evidence is very dependent upon many factors in archaeology. Instead, he decided to narrowly describe one point, which conveniently ignored several factors regarding the Book of Abraham. THAT'S why I say he was sloppy in his research paper. Now, have others been sloppy? Of course. This includes LDS "experts" as well. Which is why we need to look at overall facts, and not just a narrowly defined set that skews the results.

For an easy read: Truth Restored by Gordon B. Hinckley. For a historical and balanced view: Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Bushman I would also recommend the Journals of Wilford Woodruff and Parley P. Pratt, which cover much of the Church's early history (and includes the July 4th escape from prison, as mentioned above).