rameumptom

There are many things we have little information on, things we do not need to know right now. For example, we know we will all resurrect, but how does that get accomplished? Does the First Presidency even possess the keys of resurrection right now? I personally do not think so, as those are not needed at this time, and are held by Christ.

While we do not have a specific process, we are taught this in the Gospel Principles manual, chapter two: Here, we see that Jesus is also known as the "first spirit born to our heavenly parents", which means he could not have been the direct creator/parent of our spirits. The scriptures state that we must be "spiritually born of Christ", but that means we must be converted, and not that he engendered us as spirit children. Scriptures are often full of teachings that can be understood on more than one level. Here, we are engendered spiritually by Heavenly Parents. Then, we are figuratively born spiritually of Christ, reminiscent of that initial birth.

I suggest you carry along the First Presidency's Official Declaration on evolution from 1934(?). It states that the Church does not have an official policy, and that science and religion are separate entities. Then you express that members are allowed to have an opinion, for or against this idea, but that it is only an opinion - since the Church has no doctrinal basis for evolution/creationism/etc. The thing is, many members have been raised and spoon-fed entirely on the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. Both were very determined and strong against evolution. I think we need to help members understand that while Darwinism in its current form is probably wrong, there may be elements of it that are correct. In this same fashion, Elder McConkie stated that Eve coming from Adam's rib is purely symbolic. Well, if that's the case, what other parts are symbolic or mythological? All that's required is that Adam and Eve were historical people and that they fell from grace. Everything else can be symbolism used to enhance the story, just as symbolism is used in the temple rites to help us understand the deeper meanings of God's mysteries. Sadly, there will be some that will never loosen their death grip on their first edition Mormon Doctrine, even though hundreds of changes were made for the 2nd edition.

Last night on tv, I watched the old movie, Hawaii, with Max Von Sydow and Julie Andrews. Von Sydow is attempting to Christianize Hawaii. He comes from a strict order of Christianity, and the council of elders are quick to excommunicate anyone and everyone. The queen actually wished to be baptized, but Von Sydow refuses, as she is married to her brother, King Kamehameha. He tells her that they must be separated, or she will burn in hell. She finally does it on her death bed, but her son and many others fall away from Christianity, because Von Sydow preaches a jealous and vengeful God. At one point, a child born deformed is drowned by the Hawaiians. Julie Andrews accosts her husband, Von Sydow for not saving the child. He mourns that the child was not baptized before being drowned, and Andrews emphasizes that he could have saved the child's life. Instead, while the child was being drowned, he was preaching to the natives of how the deformed child was a sign from God that they were being evil. Over time, several events soften Von Sydow's heart, especially a measles epidemic, and the death of his own wife. He learns to love the people and teach Christ's forgiveness and grace. Still, the rest of the elders remain staunch in their angry God ideals, believing that God has allowed them to humble the natives by taking their lands for sugar crops, and working the people to death. Unfortunately, this is the background for much of Protestantism. While many of their churches now preach a gentler and kinder God, there still is a background of who fits and who doesn't fit the preacher's view of what makes a person a Christian.

The key is, we need to know the group we are with, first. Second, we need to review just what the purpose of a class is all about. While the intellegentsia in Cambridge may have enjoyed a rousing speculation class, the majority of the members are not. Most LDS were not raised in the Church. Most have been members of the Church for less than 20 years. They didn't have Primary and MIA and seminary and Institute. So, the gospel needs to be based strongly on the doctrinal issues, rather than on the speculative. Where do such deeper discussions belong? Invite a group of like-minded people to your home for weekly/monthly discussions, if you like. The reality is, we will not be saved by the "mysteries" of Adam-God, plural marriage, or where Kolob is located. We will be saved on the doctrines and principles of the Gospel. And isn't that the key purpose the Church should have - to save people? We do need to make sure we are not among those who are "ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." There is lots to know, but little of it is of true value to us in the long run.

LDS belief is God's emotions are akin to human's. However, he has perfected them. An interesting verse in Alma tells us to "bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love" (Alma 38:12). A perfectly bridled set of passions would equate to God-like agape/eros. In this way, we can actually learn to be like God, as we can understand that, while imperfect, our emotions and thoughts can actually reflect his on some levels. We do not know if God, whose body is perfected and glorified, needs to sleep, etc. We do know from Genesis that God rested after creating the Earth. We also know that the resurrected Jesus ate with his disciples. So God CAN do some of these things, though I'm not certain if they are necessary.

Why are Protestants Christian, when they've broken off from the Roman Catholics? There are differences in doctrine, but we all believe and profess in Christ as Savior. That should be sufficient to be considered a Christian. Now, we can discuss differences in doctrine. Are LDS members Trinitarians? No. Are they traditional Christians, no. Suddenly, we have used additional terms to limit who is/isn't a member. But the term "Christian" must apply to any and all that embrace Christ as Savior (that does not include Muslims, who only see him as a prophet and nothing more).

No. There's a major difference. Muslims do not view Jesus as their Savior, nor as God. They do not worship Jesus, but honor him as a prophet inferior to Mohammed. We believe Jesus is our God and Savior. We believe that salvation comes through the atonement of Christ, and that keeping the commandments is needed to determine the level of salvation we obtain. Those issues are very different than Islam teaches, where Jesus is not required for salvation - Mohammed and the Islamic rites (prayer, the Haj, etc) are required.

Well, given that the Bible only gives us a few examples, and we have hundreds of examples among Mormons, it's hard to say if any were successful. Abraham was married to several other wives after Sarah died, and we don't know if those turned out well or not, but they did bear him children. Jacob seemed to deal decently with his 4 wives, though Leah was jealous. Then again, that was due to Laban's cheating to marry off his daughters, and not because Jacob wasn't a good husband. Leah felt she was always going to have to prove herself, because Jacob was tricked into marrying her, but I think a lot of it was in her head.

I am not parsing the sentence. Do a review of what the Anglicans and others have written about it, and you'll see that God is without human-like passions, including human-like love.

Limited Atonement goes against many Biblical scriptures, IMO. Included is the well known and used John 3:16 - "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." I love the LDS teachings of near universal atonement, with levels of heaven provided by a loving God, and an opportunity for all his children to hear his word, either here or in the Spirit World. TULIP ignores the possibility of multiple levels of heaven, preaching of the word to the spirits in prison, etc. LDS teachings also ensure free will/agency. This means that we are not forced into hell. Predestination and Irresistible Grace mean that a person is forced into hell or heaven. If that's the case, then God could have saved everyone, making heaven irresistible to everyone. Instead, he chooses just a few and condemns the majority - not a very loving or forgiving God. I'd rather be an atheist than choose to worship and adore such a God, as He is incapable of matching my level of love and forgiveness. I can choose to love and forgive strangers and those who do evil to me, but he condemns those who have never known him.

I don't agree with all of Gee's conclusions. However, I believe Ritner uses sloppy research. He basically states that it is the sen-sen, and therefore can't be true. He has not done any research into the ancient lore that is found in the internal context. He has not considered Joseph's method of "translation", but only treated it as a wrong, normal translation. It's as if he was a blind man feeling an elephant's trunk and stating, "an elephant is like a snake or a rope", and then walking away feeling he's dealt entirely with the issue. He hasn't. He has taken a bit of knowledge and used it on a much larger subject, thus distorting or ignoring the major portions.

The papyri we currently have are known as the sen-sen manuscript from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. The papyri dates to the 2nd century AD. There are issues that anti-Mormons always seem to miss on their videos/articles concerning the BoA, however. First, there is strong evidence of missing papyri. Second, Joseph's method of "translation" is not like regular translations. When he "translated" the gold plates, the plates remained closed while he peered into the Urim and Thummim or seer stone. His "translation" of the Bible includes many passages that are not found directly in any ancient Biblical text (Book of Moses, Melchizedek, Joseph, etc). His translations, IOW, were more of a revelation that revealed lost truths and enhanced the texts available. In fact, D&C tells us of one fragment from the apostle John which was hidden under a rock and that Joseph "translated" even though he didn't have it available. These items (plates, Bible, papyri, etc) seem to have been a catalyst for revelation, whether they contained the original item or not is immaterial. Now, internally, we have some Abrahamic lore that was not available to Joseph Smith, but is strong evidence it is real. Abraham being sacrificed is actually an early Muslim tradition that was not available in the USA in Joseph's day. Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians is mentioned very briefly by Josephus, and is easy to miss (and where would Joseph get Josephus in the back woods?). I recommend Nibley's Abraham in Egypt for an indepth look. Abraham's description of celestial organization is amazing for his day (or Joseph Smith's), as it shows the structure we do have in the universe. Remember that galaxies were not discovered until 80 years after Joseph Smith's death, but it shows a celestial hierarchy that was not known in 1836. For several shorter scholarly articles, try the following: FAIR Topical Guide: Book of Abraham

There was a time in the Church when speculation ran rampant. Any little quote was used and usually out of context, which opened the door to contention. This is why the First Presidency recently stated that a person could be a Democrat and a worthy LDS, for example. In the last 25 years, the Church has made a concerted effort to get away from speculation and back to pure doctrine. President Packer has constantly told us to "teach the doctrine." He's well known to have a particular question when the 12 are teaching in their weekly meeting: "And therefore...?" IOW, what is the purpose and the doctrinal principle behind what is being taught? I am one that probably knows more of the speculation than anyone else in my stake, but pushes the doctrine only in Church meetings. Speculations are fine in private conversations, but not where our main purpose is to teach pure doctrine and establish a unity. Some members like driving their point to the point of contention, and perhaps we need to realize that unity is often more important than "being 100%" right on everything.

Plural marriage is not necessarily the ideal, except when commanded by God for whatever reason He may have. Monogamy has long been the standard we use, except when commanded otherwise. Even in the days of plural marriage, a man had to receive permission by the Brethren before entering into a new relationship. It wasn't an automatic thing, where one woke up and said, "I think I'll marry the first woman I bump into today." This is very different than the polygamy now practiced by many Arabs, for instance, where there is no guiding hand over the man's choice. Still, monogamy is the standard.

From LDS.ORG newsroom: Thomas S. Monson Named 16th Church President SALT LAKE CITY 4 February 2008 Thomas S. Monson is the new president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it was announced today at a news conference in the Church Office Building. President Monson, 80, succeeds President Gordon B. Hinckley, who died 27 January 2008. The new world leader of the Church has called to serve with him in the First Presidency, the top governing body of the 13-million-member faith, President Henry B. Eyring, 74, first counselor, and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, 67, second counselor.

Often times, it isn't an issue of whether it worked out well in this world, but whether the individual was faithful to God, throughout whatever trial was handed to him or her. As it is, many of those same problems occur in monogamy. Families are broken apart. Wives and children are kicked out. A continual fight over/among family members. Rape and incest, including by step-brothers and fathers. Family rebellions occur all the time. And spouses lead spouses away from Christ and the gospel continually.

Pushka got the Stephen martyrdom version above from a website that was also on the reply: St. Stephen It was a descriptive article by the Reverend Alban Butler on Stephen's martyrdom. Clearly, his description was flowery, but it was also illustrative of the two divine and separate beings, Jesus Christ and God the Father. It must be difficult to struggle getting scriptures like this to fit into a teaching that does not correspond with it. My Christian minister boss and I have discussed this, and he's open minded enough to agree that Stephen's martyrdom does throw a kink in the Trinity. He just states there is not enough info available, and so he'll keep an open mind on what/who God ends up being. Fair enough, and an honest approach to what the scriptures actually state.

Parsnips asked: >Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Eternal Progression? Rameumptom: No, but that does not mean it contradicts it. There is a major difference. The Book of Mormon's purpose is to teach the foundational doctrine of Jesus Christ's gospel, including the atonement, priesthood authority, continuing revelation, and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. >Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Celestial Marriage? Rameumptom: No, but once again it does not preach against it, either. >Does the Book of Mormon contain the Doctrine of Plural Marriage? Rameumptom: It does. And it states that the standard for the Nephites is monogamy, unless God commands otherwise (Book of Jacob). That is how we are living now, as well. >Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on the Baptism of the Dead? Rameumptom: No, but it does teach about continuing revelation and priesthood authority. Remember, Baptism for the Dead became an issue with early Christianity, and not before. The great majority of the Book of Mormon deals with time before Christ. 300 years of the time after Jesus is handled in just a few pages, and focuses on the apostasy of the Nephites, not on doctrinal issues. >Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on the priesthood? Rameumptom: Yes, it does. One of the best teachings on the priesthood is contained in Alma 9-13. >Does the Book of Mormon contain anything on Works+Ordinances+Grace, after all we can do? Rameumptom: Yes it does. Nephi says we are saved after all we can do (2 Ne 25). Jesus commanded the Nephites to follow the "Law of Christ" which is: Faith in Christ, Repentance, Baptism, Reception of the Holy Ghost, and Enduring to the end (2 Ne 31, 3 Ne 11-12). >(Hint: The answer to all of these questions is no) Rameumptom: Hint: you are wrong. >The Book of Mormon does nothing to answer these questions at hand. So now we must go to the Prophet, and the doctrines, because that is the only place where these questions are attempted to be answered. So it all comes down to a test of a prophet, and of a spirit. 1 John 4:1 says we should test every spirit, because there are many false prophets. How do we test a spirit? By consulting the word of God, and seeing if their messages are congruent. How do we test a prophet? By the veracity of his prophecies, they all must be true. There are several prophecies of Joseph Smith that simply were false. (Location of Zion, the Building of the Temple in Missouri being the key ones). Rameumptom: If your test is correct, then we'd have to reject Jesus for teaching other than the Law of Moses. We'd have to reject Peter for taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Should I go on? Whenever there is a prophet, the Lord can and does change the standard as needed. The building of the temple in Missouri was a commandment of God, not a prophecy, and I still believe that the location of Zion will be in Missouri. Joseph Smith prophecied of the Civil War, World Wars, the fall of the Soviet Empire, etc. He predicted the gathering of the Jews to Israel, and the Mormons becoming a great people in the mountains. Shall I go on? You seem to forget that the idea of a Restoration is just that - to RESTORE information. If it were all in the Book of Mormon, there would be no need for anymore revelation. You are treating the Book of Mormon as you do the Bible, a closed and static book. BTW, for the well-studied, the Book of Mormon has much to teach us about the LDS temple rites, as well as the ancient temple rites (so sayeth Margaret Barker). >Until you can answer those challenges, you cannot be glad for the Book of Mormon, or a Prophet, because they don't address the fundamental issues. Rameumptom: Hmmmm. I guess I CAN be glad for both! And they DO address the fundamental issues that God wishes to reveal. They just aren't the issues you insist upon.

I agree there were apostate groups in Peter and Paul's time, however most are not tied to the Gnostics. Gnosticism flourished after the death of the apostles, and continued even long after the Council of Nicea.

>Parsnips wrote: And not surprisingly, the apostles had to gently correct the gnostics in the same manner that I have to correct you. Rameumptom: Sorry, the Gnostics pretty much started up AFTER the apostles were gone. The proto-orthodox apologists were not gentle in their "correction" of those they considered "heretics." And what do you do with people like Origen, whose teachings were considered very orthodox by the Church in his day, but was later considered heretical later? >Or how about this: That Jesus's fleshly desire not to be in pain, could not override his Godly desire to save mankind from sin? Rameumptom: But that doesn't answer the question of two wills. If God does not wish to be in pain, and he is but one God, then they both would wish to avoid it but continue on. There would not be "not my will, but thine be done", but "this sucks, but I know I have to do it." >This is called appeal to authority. It is a form of logical fallacy. Not only that, your appeal to authority is wrong, as I've demonstrated by quoting the creeds themselves, and scripture. Please stop using logical fallacies. Rameumptom: There is nothing wrong with appealing to the scholars on what the creeds and Bible mean. It is not a logical fallacy IF those experts give ample evidence of their point, which they do. Appealing to authority is only a fallacy if someone says, "I have a PhD in this, you don't, therefore I win...." >You're arguing semantics again. To share the same substance is really saying they are of the same substance. Rameumptom: No, I'm not arguing semantics. If Stephen sees two people. If Jesus says that his disciples should be one, even as he and the Father are one. If Jesus says he has a separate will than the Father. If. If. If. I could go on with many other examples. Trinity and Modalism are two distinct beliefs, of which St Augustine thought they were different enough to state that modalism was heresy. That is not arguing semantics. That is clarifying the argument, according to Trinitarian scholars and creators. Otherwise, we could argue "semantics" that the LDS Godhead, which is a social Trinity, is as valid as the traditional Trinity is - but we're not given that right by the majority of Christianity, including the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists. >The Mormons are "excluded" from Christianity more because of their non-Christian beliefs in about what salvation is, how salvation is earned (Total Grace vs Works+Ordinances+Grace to make up for whatever is left), plural Gods, Eternal Progression, Celestial Marriage, Baptism for the Dead, and a whole host of other doctrines that are either refuted outright in the Bible and the Book of Mormon(!), or simply not mentioned in either book. Rameumptom: Yet I've shown how those beliefs were held by many ancient Christians. Many Christians, including Roman Catholics consider works+grace+ordinances a necessary part of salvation. Are you kicking them out of the Christian network, also? We believe in monolatry - a plurality of Gods, but we worship the Godhead, simply because that is what the ancients also did. Read William Dever, Margaret Barker and a dozen other key Biblical scholars and they will tell you this. I cannot help that 3d century Christianity corrupted the earlier belief, but they have no right to say I'm believing "non-Christian beliefs" as that is historically proven to be untrue. No LDS doctrine is refuted by the Book of Mormon - perhaps you should read it the way Mormons read it, and not from an elementary surface view. I would recommend a reading of Barry Bickmore's book, Restoring the Ancient Church. It is available for free online, and uses references from both early Christian Fathers and modern scholars: Restoring the Ancient Church, Table of Contents >Your doctrines is getting in the way of simple scripture, in John 17, he's asking his disciples to be of one spirit, like his (Jesus the man's) relationship to God is. God is knowable, you can have a personal relationship with him, be taught directly by him, all with the simple requirement of loving him and keeping his commandments. God is incomprehensible in terms of this: You cannot understand that which God does not reveal to you. There is a proverb that says something like "Mysteries are the Glory of God, and Discovering their answers is the Glory of Kings"... You cannot possibly know all of God's motivations, his thoughts, because he's too big to understand in entirety. These two principles are not in conflict, they describe different things. Rameumptom: They supposedly describe different things only at your word. The Godhead can tie them all together much easier, without having to explain why they are different. I agree it is a relationship issue: Father and Son in the Godhead. However, when we are talking one God with 3 essences/persons, we are not talking about a relationship, but we are talking about 3 persons in 1 and 1 in 3. There is no relationship in a being that is non-relational to anything but itself. I agree that God is knowable. But that is not what the creeds teach! If God is incomprehensible and unknowable, two terms the Athanasian creed uses, then he is incomprehensible and unknowable. Period. End of discussion. >How does the idea that God is One (as Jesus, the Prophets of Old, and Christians today believe and teach) make Christ's actions on Earth false? Do you even know why Christ was crucified? Jesus asked the Pharisee's if his actions merited death. They replied no, that it was his claim to be God that did. Rameumptom: If they are literally one being, then there was no ancient divine council, as taught by Isaiah, Job, and others in the Old Testament. It means that Stephen did not see the Son standing on the right hand of God, as God would not have a right hand to stand beside, nor would the Son be a separate entity from God. According to Biblical scholars, Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, or Messiah, not God himself. Jesus clearly differentiated between himself and his Father in telling us how to pray, etc. There would be no need for distinction if they are the same being (as many Christians today pray to either God or Jesus, believing it to be the exact same thing). Margaret Barker, a Methodist preacher and one of the top Old Testament scholars in England explains in "The Great Angel" that the early Christians saw Jesus as the Messiah, or Great Angel of the Presence/Most High God. They were separate entities, and the Messiah was clearly a being with human-like form. For Jesus to claim he was the Messiah was, in the Jewish view, blasphemy. >You sincerely believe these things because your questions and doubts come from doctrines which color the issues. The Bible is trusted, and I've shown you throughout the NT, in Jesus's own words his claims to Godhood, and his verification that there is only one God. I've shown how Old Testament Prophecy, confirms this relationship between Begotten Son and the Father. The anthropomorphic characteristics of God, that you refer to, are not physical characteristics, but come non-physical attributes (Logos, Pathos, Ethos), and is perfectly congruent with Trinitarian beliefs. This is because Trinitarian beliefs are revealed and confirmed (by the Holy Spirit, at the Council of Nicea, and through scripture) Rameumptom: I also believe in Jesus' Godhood from the Biblical writings. However, I disagree with your interpretation that the Father and Son are one entity. Your claim to a non-physical God/Trinity disagrees with the Bible's main teachings, the early Christian Fathers (Origen and Eusebius, for example), and that of the biblical scholars. Weave your ideas anyway you wish, but facts are hard things to budge. I seriously disbelieve in creeds that are based on the interpretation of a couple Bible verses and on Hellenistic changes in the early Christian church. I don't know how you can claim the Trinity to be confirmed by the Holy Spirit, as it has confirmed the Godhead to me. The Council of Nicea ran roughshod over 1/2 the bishops there, excommunicating or exiling them. And scripture vastly supports an anthropomorphic God and Son. Either Stephen saw two beings, or he didn't - there is no other alternatives, without making the Bible false and God a liar. >Because the creed isn't talking about not being able to know God period. It is talking about the nature of God's bigness, that you cannot possibly comprehend all of God. It's an essential truth, you can only understand what God reveals through his word. Rameumptom: While that is true that a mortal cannot understand God's "bigness", the scope of the creed is that we cannot understand how God can be one in three and three in one, without dividing the substance, etc. It is also true that Jesus told us that we can know God through him, and that it is eternal life to know God. Obviously, there's some disparity that the creed does not detail or answer. >And I will stick the scriptures, and the word of God, as this is the only way to know him. They teach that Jesus claimed to be God, that he is our savior, that he is knowable, that only he has seen God the father, that he is our only representative before God, that he is the only one with authority to forgive sin (since only God has that authority), that his judgment is perfect and in no need of council, and that in spite of you being wrong that his grace covers you for trying :-) Rameumptom: The scriptures do help us know him. I am glad you think his grace covers me, as I do believe myself to be saved in Christ. As I also believe you to be saved in Christ. I also believe that we can know God by listening to the Holy Spirit and living prophets of God. In that last part, we will ultimately disagree. But I can and will extend my hand out to you as a fellow Christian.

AnthonyB, The creed that states God has no body, parts or passions, means he has no emotions - at least not as we understand them. So, when John tells us that "God so loved the world", it really is meaningless according to this creed, as we do not know what love means to God. And then, when applied to Calvin's TULIP (another creed), we see that God cannot be as loving as the scriptures state, because he chooses whom he will save and condemn solely on a whim. Good works and faith are meaningless, because all is predestined, and if you are predestined by God to burn in hell, you can believe and repent and obey commandments all you wish, and it won't help you. Then is the issue of a God of love that condemns those who have never had a chance to hear His message. How is that loving? St Augustine took it to the level that even little children that are not baptized will burn in hell. Christians have sought formulae to get around that awful idea - Catholics chose limbo as a side option (until recently when it was rejected as non-Biblical, and are now seeking an alternative to save children from hell). Other Christians choose to believe that God will save them anyway, even if they didn't repent and choose faith in Christ. Many Christian groups have decided to toss the commandments, in order to save more people, whether it be on abortion, homosexuality or even murder (which Paul condemned). There are a lot of great Christian churches out there teaching people faith in Christ. I'm just concerned about creeds that are not based on actual Bible teachings that stand in place of the scriptural teachings.

Parsnips wrote: Well there is one of two possibilities: 1. God was demonstrating for us (that is for John the Baptist and his disciples) his pleasure at how Jesus was living his life. Rameumptom: Actually there are more than two possibilities. The Gnostics gave another proposal that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings. Their view of Luke 24 was that Jesus was resurrected and told them "behold that a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have", which for them meant that he was not the Christ/God, but was a mortal Jesus that was immortalized after the Christ left his body on the cross! They believed that it was at Jesus baptism that the Christ entered into the mortal Jesus, and not before. So, there are at least 3 possibilities. Oh, and then there's the LDS belief that there is more than one God in the Godhead. When Jesus was in Gethsemane in great pain, he prayed to have it lifted, but "not my will, but thine be done." Are we to say that the Trinitarian God has two wills? If he doesn't, then suddenly we have Luke lying to us or Jesus lying to us. And if such a major lie is made in the Bible, then the Bible must be false (or at least not God-breathed). We see the same issue with Stephen seeing God and Jesus as separate beings. Why would God lie to Stephen, and so lie to us? You may not agree with what I'm discussing about the Trinity, but it is because you need to rediscover what the creeds actually state. I've quoted them here for all to read. The scholars agree with what I've said about them. Now, if you wish to disagree with the Trinity creeds, that is your right. I said that Jesus does not "share" substance with the Father. They don't. In the Trinity they ARE the same substance. They are three persons in one and one in three. There is no sharing, as they are all the same being. To claim they share is to suggest modalism, which is not Trinitarian in scope, and St Augustine and others claimed was heresy. The creeds are not just a summation of the scriptures. Most Biblical scholars will tell you that an anthropomorphic God is found in the scriptures, not the Trinity. Secondly, the creeds are used by many Christians and Christian religions to exclude others from the Christian title, including Mormons. Remember that the first concept in the Athanasius Creed is that the Trinity must be accepted to be considered Christian and not heretic. It was because of that creed that many early Christians were excommunicated, exiled, or declared heretics, including Arius, Eusebius the historian, Tertullian and Origen. That God the Father communicated with Jesus means one of two things: 1) that they are separate beings, or 2) that God deceives mankind in what is written in the Bible. Either God is knowable, as required in John 17:3, or he is incomprehensible. We can't have it both ways, otherwise God puts us in an impossible catch-22. You claim that the Father and Son being in each other means a Trinity - I say that it is meant in the same way Jesus references it in John 17, where he wants the disciples to be one, even as he and the Father are one. If we take the Trinity in the context of John 17, we have to figure that the disciples are not going to resurrect, but become some giant nebulous blob! Either the New Testament is literal in the events that occurred, or they are figurative. And if they are figurative, then we really have a problem. How do we really believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, did miracles, resurrected, etc., if we can't believe that the Father was really speaking to him, that he and the Father have separate wills, or that the two of them are one, even as we are to be one? These are serious logic issues that I've yet to have answered by a Trinitarian. Either the Bible is to be trusted, or it isn't. Either God is anthropomorphic, as the vast majority of the Bible teaches, or the Bible is not to be trusted or believed. Either Stephen saw two individuals, or the Bible is lying to us. Either Jesus resurrected with an actual physical body, meaning that at least one member of the Godhead has a body covering his spirit, or the Bible is meaningless. The Trinity is incomprehensible. It is unknowable. If this is the case, then the Bible, which teaches us of them must also be incomprehensible and unknowable. And if that's the case, then we're wasting our time trying to know God and Jesus - but then knowing them is eternal life, so we're in a vast catch-22. How can a Trinitarian claim to know what God is about, when his own creed confesses that his God is incomprehensible? I will stick with the ancients and modern prophets that teach that God IS knowable, is an exalted anthropomorph with a divine council, and has a son Jesus Christ that is also knowable.

Always Good to see you, MorningStar. Didn't know you hung out here.

Paul (2 Cor 12:1-4) and Jesus on the cross taught that after death, we go to a place called "Paradise." Peter explained that included in this place is a spirit prison, where the gospel is preached to the dead (1 Pet 3:18, 4:6). Spirit Prison is where we go to suffer for our sins until we are ready to totally repent of them and give ourselves over to Christ's atonement. Only Jesus' atonement can save us from spirit prison. A good example is what happened to Alma (Alma 36), as well as to King Lamoni and his father. Later, we will resurrect to whatever level of righteousness we are ready and willing to live. D&C 88 tells us that those who live a celestial law shall receive a celestial glory. Those who cannot live the celestial law will receive a glory commensurate to what they have become: terrestrial, telestial, or without glory in Outer Darkness. Almost all mankind will be saved to a kingdom of heaven. Very few will become sons of perdition, as it requires a person to become intimately aware of Christ and his covenants, and then become Jesus' complete enemy, such as Cain. Most of us do not have a strong enough witness of Christ, nor have we sinned seriously enough, to merit Outer Darkness. Even most murderers, after suffering in spirit prison, will receive a kingdom of glory. Peoples of other religions will be preached the gospel in the Spirit World, to give them a chance to repent and have a greater glory, if they so choose it. In this way, all will get an equal chance to hear of Jesus and receive a greater glory from Him, if they repent and choose Him. Sadly, most will not accept a fullness of God's glory, but will choose a lesser glory because they have not become valiant enough to stand with confidence in Father's presence. Still, it will be a wonderful gift of glory they will receive, for the telestial kingdom is described as far better than anything upon this earth. Clearly the LDS teaching is all encompassing. It offers a near universal salvation, with peoples everywhere and in all time periods receiving a chance to hear and accept Jesus and his full gospel. All people will receive a kingdom that is equivalent to their level of faith and faithfulness. This teaching shows a merciful God that desires to give all people a fair chance of returning to His presence, and to give to most of those who fall short a wonderful place, anyway.