rameumptom

Yes, that is true. However, the Gods create new worlds all the time. I can imagine God the Father placing his mother-in-law on her very own vacation home/world far far far far far away!

Parsnips, your logic lacks logic. Christ showing his body to his disciples proves that God has a body!!! It doesn't show that Christ pretended or manifested a pretend body. We either have a perfect Jesus-God with a body, or we have a perfect Trinity-God without a body. To claim both is to twist the scriptures until they no longer mean anything. If you are like most EVs, the Bible is God-Breathed. Well, if that is so, then you need to take it as it is written. God is anthropomorphic throughout the Bible, Jesus has a body forever, and Stephen saw God and Jesus as separate beings. Any other interpretation would mean: God pretended to all the prophets in the Bible, Jesus lied about his body (can God lie?), and Stephen must have been smoking mushrooms just prior to being stoned. In Trinitarian teaching, Jesus does NOT share a spirit with the Father. They are one essence. Nothing is shared, as they are both all and everything. Looks to me like you'd better talk with your preacher about your own creeds concerning the Trinity, before you attempt to defend it in a way that is incongruent with the Trinitarian creed itself. St Augustine would be ashamed at you, you heretic! ;-)

One place it is found is in the Anglican and Episcopelian Churches' Creed, from the common prayer book: I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power and eterntity; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Official creed of Anglican/Episcopal Church Kerry Shirts, a good friend of mine, has written an article on why God is a God with body, parts and passion: The God *With* Body, Parts & Passions The idea that God is without body, parts and passions is accepted by most (but not all) traditional Christian sects - though once again, many members of those sects do not believe the creed. This is why you'll see me speak out against creeds, and not against particular religions, as many within those faiths may not believe all the creeds. We've seen that here, where some have told me that their view of the Trinity is a certain way (which is fine for them), but it isn't what the creed their particular sect may actually uphold.

There are some things in the Athanasian Creed that I agree with. I do agree with #1. However, what then is claimed as the catholic/universal faith must be examined by what is in the Bible and perhaps the early Christian Fathers. In the Bible, there is only a requirement to believe and follow Jesus. Nowhere does it state that the Trinity must be believed in. And so while I do not mind if other wish to believe in the Trinity, I do mind when they impose a sanction on me if I do not believe in the exact thing. I do not see in the Bible where it says Father, Son and Holy Ghost are incomprehensible. I do read in John 17:3 that eternal life means knowing the Father and the Son. How can I know them if they are incomprehensible? Clearly there is a logic problem here, and I don't believe it is with me. If we must know them, yet they are unknowable, then we are all lost. Now, do most Christians believe that? No. But they haven't spent decades pondering what the Godhead/Trinity is all about, either. Most are too busy wondering who will be voted off the island next.

I work for a Christian minister, who used to be a Southern Baptist minister. He tells everyone, he "used to be a Southern baptist, now I'm a Christian." That is because of many of their creeds and requirements to be saved that are not Biblical. We have some very good discussions, where we respectfully consider each other's side. He brought up to me the fact that C.S. Lewis would rankle many of the key beliefs of "conservative" Christians, and mentioned these as example. I was already aware of a couple of them. I know that the average Christian believes that God is love. However, when the creeds insist on a God without "body, parts or passions", one can only consider that a strict reading of it (and I have known some Christian pastors that do), would insist that God does not love - at least not in the way we do, as it would be incomprehensible for us, as he isn't man-like and doesn't have human passions. Here, we have John imbuing passion on God, when if God is made of non-matter, it is a meaningless statement. Under the concept of TULIP, which many Christians believe, God chooses whom he will save and condemns the rest, and it is all predestinated. Other Christians would condemn babies that were not baptized to hell (a la St Augustine); while more would condemn the Amazonian who never has heard of Jesus to that same hell. And then there is the case for tossing all Mormons into hell, as well. Just where does "God so loved the world" fit into such a limited salvation? If he is so unfeeling as to condemn innocent peoples to hell, who did not have a chance to hear his message, then how can he be so loving in any context (human or non-human)? For this reason, the God of the creeds is impassable. He is not touched by anything, and whether one of us lives or dies, exalts or perishes, just IS because he is a God without body, parts or passions. Now, do most Christians believe this? Probably not. Yet the creeds are still there and refuse to budge.

God is NOT a man, is correct. He is a glorified God who used to be a man. Num 23:19 does not say anything about an exalted man, so you are reading into the scripture things that are not there. God is Spirit. I agree with that. But as John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson regarding this: what does that mean? Does it mean a great nebulous nothing that we cannot presume to comprehend? Or does it mean a being that can have other attributes, as well? Remember, Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman, and they worshiped many idols, as well as God. He was making a distinction between them for the woman - one is alive, the other is not. No wonder President Adams stated that "some may say I am no Christian", as he saw God in a very different way than others did - yet he was and is still considered a Christian! The God-man concept is a fun Athanasian creed ideal, but it is nowhere in the Bible. We do agree that he was divine, but fully human. And even after his resurrection he had a body of flesh, like we do. He told his apostles to feel the marks in his hands and see "that a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see I have" (Luke 24). Suddenly, we have a problem with Trinitarian thought - how can God both have a body and not have a body? It was Jesus himself that said he does nothing except what he has seen the Father do. Could that include becoming mortal and resurrecting into an exalted man, just as Jesus would then do? Biblical scholars will tell you that the Bible is very anthropomorphic. Taking one or two verses out of an anthropomorphic-God Bible and basing the full nature of God on those two verses is like trying to play a piano concerto with only two keys. Something's going to be left out! Father and Son are physically separate beings, as shown by the martyrdom of Stephen, where he looked into heaven and saw the Son standing on the right hand of the Father. Either this actually occurred, or the Bible is lying. It is because of his vision of two Gods that Stephen was stoned to death, so I'd say he was taken quite literally by those slaying him. The early Christian Fathers before the Nicene Creed were in agreement as to the separate beings of the Godhead, though unified in thought and deed. I've listed several articles over the last few days that reference both ECF and modern Biblical scholars that tell us what the people of the Bible really taught and believed.

The idea of the gates of hell not prevailing against Peter is only believed by Roman Catholics. Protestants believe it to mean the rock of faith; while LDS believe Christ meant the rock of revelation, as his statement was based upon Peter's confession "Thou art the Christ" that was based upon revelation from Heavenly Father. If it is based on Peter, that one fails, as he denied Christ three times. If it is based on the rock of faith, then my faith should save me just as much as yours will save you - but many traditional Christians won't give my faith the benefit of a doubt. I've actually been called a "child of hell", and one EV minister with millions of followers told his congregates that a vote for Mitt Romney was a vote for Satan! If we are referencing the rock of revelation, then we can see from history that the early church rejected revelation for a static set of scriptures, in order to stop other Christian rivals from ascending with claims of revelation. This did end, and required a restoration, just as there have been restorations in previous ages (as told to us in the Bible). Moses didn't just bring about a revision of Hebrew culture, but restored authority and power and revelation that was lost. Elijah also brought about a restoration of truth in his day. Oh, and I believe Jesus did the same, as he took the teachings of the Jews and did more than reform them - he fulfilled them and restored the fullness of his teachings. There is a pattern of apostasy and restoration that flows through the Bible. Why would there be so many examples of this in the Bible, and then 2000 years of supposed bliss? If you are Roman Catholic, then there is ample evidence of apostasy with early Gnostics and then the Reformation of the Protestants. If you are Protestant, then you are ignoring the non-Biblical errors of the Catholic Church that the Reformers sought to change by rejecting the things that supposedly would have been passed down by Peter. So, are you RC or Protestant, and which one of these problematic themes applies to our world?

Food storage has been taught in General Conference many times by many leaders. While it isn't a core doctrine, it is an important teaching that Pres Benson said it is as important as being on the ark in Noah's day in the day of the Flood. You will not see anything in conferences on Coca Cola or other drinks. We are taught to use wisdom and take care of our bodies and health, but the rest is left up to us on how we as individuals will deal with it. Remember, the Word of Wisdom was designed for the "weakest of saints", and adding anything to that would raise the bar on all members, many of which may not be ready for anything greater. Earrings would not fall under the realm of "doctrine," but under a doctrinal concept of modesty. While given that guidance by Pres Hinckley, I've yet to see anyone kept from being baptized or kept out of the temple for having an earring more than they should. It becomes an issue of another doctrine, as well: follow the prophet. Each of us has to deal with following the prophet, whether it is struggling with tattoos, piercings, sexual addictions, or anything else the prophets have warned us about.

The Church's website in the newsroom, under "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" tells us: * Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. * Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

I'm guessing it is the Norwegian form of "Nephites."

C.S. Lewis believed many things that would shock most traditional Christians. He believed that man would become as God is. He believed in the relational/social Trinity, and not in the Trinity as established in the creeds. He suggested in his writings that those of other faiths that do good things will be blessed and accepted of Jesus, as if those good deeds were done in His name. Let me quote the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted by all Trinitarians as their view on the Trinity:

Sorry, I'm in disagreement with your interpretation. Peter was explaining that scripture is not of an individual's private interpretation, because there were many in his day who were wresting the writings of Paul and others. It was only to be understood as interpreted as the scriptures had been interpreted anciently: by prophets through the Holy Spirit. Given that Peter was still alive while writing his letter, it would be foolish to think he was telling his audience to ignore his teachings, because each individual was to find their own interpretation via the Holy Ghost! Instead, the apostles wrote their letters to ensure the members correctly understood the doctrine, and did not fall to a wrong interpretation. Clearly, Peter and Paul saw the need for prophetic interpretation of the scriptures. Your view suggests Peter did not have the Holy Ghost ("not now, but then") or did things differently than the ancient prophets did, which is rather absurd! Peter was given the Holy Ghost, was changed by it on the day of Pentecost, and received revelations that were made scripture. These are things that did not occur to the average individual. Instead, Peter was showing the ancient pattern and why it should continue in the Church. Prophets and apostles are moved by the Holy Ghost and whatever they say while inspired, is scripture. Not all members considered Paul's writings as scripture. And of those that did, many wrested with what he wrote. Nowhere in the Bible does it show that we would not have prophets or apostles in latter days. Why would God change things? He continued prophets and apostles AFTER Jesus' resurrection, so obviously the pattern was expected to continue. And not just with the apostles, as Acts speaks of other prophets, such as Agabus; and Revelation mentions the two prophets in Jerusalem at the last days. Why twist the Bible around to fit something that just is not apparent in it? God established a pattern of prophets/apostles. Amos stated it was necessary to reveal God's secrets. Paul stated that they were needed UNTIL we all come to a unity of the faith. Given that there is no unity in the Christian faith, much less in the faiths of the world, I'd say and the Bible teaches that living prophets are still needed to keep people from twisting God's words around to meet their own views.

It states that "Jesus hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." Just how else can that be interpreted? Either God and HIS Father are separate beings, or John is being redundant in a very oblique way that doesn't make sense. Other translations state, "God, His Father", which does make sense in referencing God as Jesus' Father. But the KJV clearly refers to Jesus, God, and God's Father.

If god is god through procession (he is god because he served his god, who served his god, who….), then that implies that at some point there was a god who always was god or that found a way to become a god on his own. Which is it? Rameumptom: We have very little knowledge revealed about the progression (not procession) of gods. Whether there is an initial God or not is something that has not been revealed, and therefore falls into speculation. However, it is not any more difficult of a concept than imagining a God that always has been: how did he ever get started? If there was an original god would that mean that the god of this world is a lesser god and that since his power came from this original god that he is not all powerful? Rameumptom: No, because we are told that God shares all that he has with those that receive of His fullness. In a Godhead relationship, all things are shared equally and fully, so if one is all powerful, all of them share that power. If god is only the god of this world, where did the other worlds come from and why are they lifeless? Why have we not discovered life on other worlds yet? Rameumptom: We believe that God is the God of all his creations. Moses 1 tells us that God has many creations on-going, and could only allow Moses to see this earth, as to see all his creations would have placed Moses in all his glory,and he could not have withstood it. Life on other planets is difficult, because they are so very distant. Only in the last 10 years have we actually found evidence of planets in other solar systems/galaxies, and most of that evidence is indirect (gravitational pull on stars, etc). Chances are that the life on other planets is either too far away or is not developed enough to contact us. Or have they? (silly bow to the UFOlogists out there). In Genesis is says that God created the stars. If you believe there are other worlds with other gods then none of these had stars or suns. Rameumptom: The question is whether other Gods create things within our universe or in other universes. Or perhaps they create so far away in this universe that those stars were invisible to the early Biblical writers. We have to realize that the Biblical writers were writing from their world view - which is why we see statements like "4 corners of the earth", based upon their belief in a flat earth. Not everything written was based upon God's knowledge, but on knowledge given to the early prophets and then interpreted according to what they knew at that time. If the Bible claims that God is eternal, then how could he have become a god? Rameumptom: Define the term "eternal." As far as we are concerned, God has been around a lot longer than we have, and can seem like an eternity. For ancient people with a finite understanding of numbers, 1 billion could have been eternal. Therein lies the rub in trying to fit ancient beliefs into our modern vernacular - sometimes we read things differently than they did. (Also, see my comment on the 4 corners of the earth). If a Mormon can claim to be Christian can a Muslim claim the same? Islam believes in the Bible as Christians do. They believe in Jesus (in that he was a prophet). They say they believe in the same God as Christians. They say that they were given the continued and true gospel of God. They too believe in salvation through works. Rameumptom: Mormons claim Jesus as their savior and redeemer. Muslims do not. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, and nothing more. The key is how far does one extend the definition of Christian? Mormons believe in salvation by grace, and exaltation by faith and works combined. Those who make it into the lowest levels of heaven are saved by grace (including murderers and adulterers), not because they were good or obedient. We cannot resurrect nor save ourselves. What we can do is become like Jesus, and in so doing, become willing and able to receive a higher kingdom of glory. For those who are not like Jesus, they will find it is not comfortable for them to dwell in His presence, and will prefer a lesser kingdom of heaven to enjoy. Muslims believe one is saved entirely by obedience to the pillars of Islam. Jesus was not a Savior, but only a prophet. Given that the New Testament states we must believe on Jesus' name to be saved, we then have to decide just how much we must believe to receive that salvation. How can a Mormon say he is Christian by his own opinion when other Christian denominations do not agree because they do not share the same doctrine? I.E… God always was and always will be, there are no other gods, Jesus is God, and we are saved through Christ and not through works because we can never be good enough through ourselves…. Wouldn’t this be equivalent to me calling myself the President even though nobody else agrees with me? Rameumptom: How can Protestants say they are Christian, when they broke away as heretics from the Roman Catholic church? Whose job is it to determine who is and isn't a Christian? Either we are all saved by believing in the name of Jesus, or we aren't. Now, if you were to ask me if I were a traditional Trinitarian Christian, I'd agree that I am not. It isn't the same as calling yourself the President, because that position has requirements that you clearly have not met. To be a Christian requires faith on Jesus as Savior and Redeemer - Mormons meet that criteria. Do we make the requirements based on the Bible or on Christian creeds that are non-Biblical? If we go by the creeds, then whose creeds do we use? If we follow a strict Trinitarian creedal requirement, then most Christians would fail, as most believe in modalism, not Trinitarianism. Modalism was considered heretical by St Augustine, by the way. If we use the TULIP creed, then most Christians fail, because most do not believe in predestination, but rather free will. If we go by the Bible, then anyone believing in Christ's atonement IS a Christian. From there, we can then discuss how good/bad a Christian is. But that is a discussion of quality, not of inclusion/exclusion. I can consider a person to not be a great Christian for believing in slavery, abortion, homosexual acts, etc. But they are still a Christian. And as a Latter-day Saint, I am a Christian.

For me, the "Sure Word of Prophecy" is ongoing prophecy! Paul taught in Ephesians 4:11-14 that we continually need prophets and apostles so as not to be tossed to and fro by every wind of dogma/doctrine. And this was necessary until we all come to a unity of the faith. Amos taught that God reveals his secrets through his servants, the prophets. For me, having modern day prophets and apostles is as important as having the writings of ancient apostles and prophets, for Peter taught that the scriptures are not for private interpretation, but are to be interpreted as in days of old: by prophets. He warned of those who were wresting Paul's words unto their own destruction. Having living prophets enhances my understanding of ancient teachings, particularly those that have been lost. The Lord has definitely restored many plain and precious things through Joseph Smith and his successors that were lost anciently. Remember, the Christian church rejected continual revelation on any level, with the establishment of the Bible. There were so many Gnostic Christians and others claiming revelation that the proto-orthodox Church had no choice but to canonize the scriptures they felt were authentic, reject the rest, and then place the entire revelatory experience in stasis. How does the Reformation, which occurred a millennium after the Bible was formulated, suddenly bring about a revelatory change for the "sure word of prophecy?" Only a restoration, as has happened many times in Biblical times via a prophet can bring about such an event. Biblical scholars tell us of a divine council, where El Elyon was the head and Jehovah was one of the divine sons. Many scholars equate Jehovah, the Great Angel/Messiah, with Jesus (see Margaret Barker's the Great Angel). So, we have two separate beings, Elohim and Jehovah, and one of them becomes Jesus. This teaching was well accepted by both the early Hebrews and the early Christians, who also viewed Jesus as the Messiah/Jehovah. Now, can you show me in the Bible where it says that Jesus has "eternally existed in the Godhead AS God"? Second, can you define eternal? And what verse states that God said, "I will be AS a Father unto you?" In Hebrews, Paul says that God is the "father of our spirits", Jeremiah was called to be a prophet before he was in his mother's womb, and Job was asked about the day when the sons of god (bene elohim) shouted for joy.

Well my KJV Revelation 1:5-6 says that Heavenly Father has a Father, but does not say it in some other versions. Such a critical change is disconcerting and a challenge to how one follows the Bible. I personally agree with the KJV, but most traditional Christians will not. Psalms 82:6-9 says "what is man that you are mindful of him, for you have made him a little less than the angels (Greek)/gods (Hebrew)." Which is it? Are we less than the angels or the gods? Some of the versions that are written by Calvinists will be translated to emphasize their view of the TULIP, while the NIV is written as to enhance ideas of saved by grace. On the far side of things, we have the Jehovah's Witness Bible that actually drops out verses that were not in the Hebrew/Greek that was used in the translation. and the Dead Sea Scrolls shows varying translations among the copies even found in the one site. It also is dependent upon what copies are used to make the translation. Among the varying manuscripts and fragments of New Testament manuscripts that exist from the days of the apostles to the time of the Gutenberg Bible, we have more differences than there are words in the New Testament! Some early versions of the Gospel of Luke emphasize that Jesus did not become the Christ/Savior until his baptism. Other early New Testament documents taught that Jesus was a mortal man that was taken over by Christ-God at baptism ("Today thou art begotten/chosen"), and the two were together until the crucifixion when Christ left Jesus alone ("My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"). I don't know about you, but there have been some major upheavals over the centuries on just what the New Testament has taught! And if the Bible is God-Breathed now, then it must have been God-Breathed then, as well.

Mailis, Good to meet you, too. Spelling is an issue for me, but only in poking fun. I would much rather read a well-thought out paper with some spelling and grammatical errors, than read a perfectly punctuated paper that made no sense whatsoever....

Here is a scholarly view on the varying views of Trinitarians on the Trinity. The article is part of a rebuttal to a book written against the LDS Church. Mormonism 201: Chapter 3 It does discuss also how LDS views fit into a social trinity, where the focus is on one in nature, and not one in personality. It also discusses both the Trinitarian views of oneness of God and the three-essences/persons of God, and how different Biblical scholars and early Christians viewed what it meant.

While some scholars insisted for years it meant the judges, many scholars are now coming around to the latent fact that it referenced actual people as gods. More scholars are now looking at the Hebrew faith as a polytheism/monolatry that was politically converted into a monotheism during the Josian Reforms. The term used for gods is "elohim." Current scholars now look at it from the view point of the ancient Semitic divine council, where El Elyon (God most High) has his 70 divine sons that are each given a nation to reign over. Israel is given to Yahweh/Jehovah. With time, political struggles cause all the nations to fall to Yahweh's power. We see this political struggle going on in the Bible, in Job 1, where the sons of god (elohim) and Lucifer all go together to challenge Yahweh for his dominion of Israel. Psalms is teaching us that we also can become gods/elohim, just as the divine council has it. Isaiah 6 shows Isaiah joining the divine council in its plans, and being called to a special earthly mission (cf Abraham 3 and Jesus' mission). Clearly Isaiah was seen as a member of that divine council. We see the same thing with the apostle John, who appears before the throne of God and the book with 7 seals is brought forth. He is asked with the others if there are any that can open the sealed book - asking who should accomplish the task/mission at hand. This is another reference to the divine council, carrying over into Christian times! This same John expressed the idea several times of our divine nature: we are made kings and priests unto God and His Father (1:5-6), we shall sit down on his throne and reign over the earth, etc. I also recommend the following articles that discuss the divine nature and Psalms 82:6. "I Have Said, 'Ye are Gods'" Reconsidering Psalms 82:6

The idea that Psalms was referencing just the judges in stating, "ye are gods" is clearly wrong. Most Biblical scholars today agree that the original meaning was referencing the people, and not just the judges. And Jesus' interpretation of explaining to the Jews of his day that they were gods also shows that he understood it in the same sense. The scriptures talk about being heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, sitting on the throne of God and ruling the earth, Jesus making us kings and priests unto God and His Father, and we have a divine nature. In Psalms 8, we are told that man is made a little less than the gods (elohim). And the early Christian writers wrote often about the divine nature and how are goal is to become gods. The LDS are not parsing the language here. Once one begins to study what the ancients actually believed, without parsing their words, one sees that their belief is very similar to ours today.

The problem with your explanation is that C.S. Lewis was not a standard/traditional Trinitarian. He believed more in what is called a "social" trinity, rather than what is taught in the creeds. He saw the Trinity as a relationship between three persons, rather than one person with 3 essences. That becomes a major and key difference between the Trinitarian creed and how most traditional Christians actually view God. LDS also believe in a social trinity, wherein they are separate beings, but one in purpose and relationship. Now as to your confusion of LDS teachings, let me try and alleviate that problem. Jesus is the literal son of God in the spirit and flesh. In the premortal existence, he was invited by God the Father to enter into a special relationship, entitled Godhead. At that point, Jesus became one with God the Father, and inherited his abilities as Eternal God. Jesus emptied himself of his divinity and glory in order to come to earth for his ministry. It seems that there are levels of godhood, just as there are levels or kingdoms of glory in the heavens. Jesus was a junior God, prior to his resurrection. Upon receiving a fullness of glory, he became God in all fullness, equal with the Father in the Godhead. The Holy Ghost is also a "junior" God. There is not a lot of information on the Holy Ghost. There are two roads of speculation with the Holy Spirit. First, that he is one being that will eventually gain a body, just as Jesus did to receive full Godhood. The second is that the Holy Ghost is a title/position that is held by various spirit children (one at a time), wherein when it is time for one individual to go to earth, he is released from the position and another takes his place. If so, then the position could potentially be used for training and preparation for those who would be prophets on the earth. Jesus has gone through the stages of existence, and has achieved a fullness. D&C 93 explains that Jesus went from one level of grace to a higher level of grace, receiving grace for grace, until he received a fullness. In establishing the path, he showed us how we also can be exalted by going from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace. While the Holy Ghost is not yet married, why should we think that Jesus is not? Early Christian documents, including the Gospels of John and of Thomas tell of a special relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Mary was the first to see the resurrected Christ. Jesus kissed her on the lips on at least one occasion, and the apostles marveled at the Savior's special relationship with Mary. There is evidence to show he was married, which became the basis for several theories and even a fictional book, the Da Vinci Code. One of the problems is you are using the Bible as a complete history of Jesus and the apostles. It isn't. John stated that he didn't record even 100th of the sayings of Jesus. That leaves a lot out that we're missing. You assume that if it isn't clearly stated in the Bible that it didn't happen. LDS teaching is that plain and precious teachings were lost and had to be Restored. This thread shows several clear reasons why a restoration was needed: to understand the Godhead vs Trinity, eternal marriage, Jesus' role, Holy Ghost's role, etc. Do LDS have all the answers? Of course not. We do not teach that all the truth has been restored or given to us. We teach that many plain and precious things have been restored. And for those individuals who are ready to receive those plain and precious things, it is truly a marvelous work and a wonder.

Alma the younger's conversion story gives us perhaps the greatest insight into what Spirit Prison is like (Alma 36). Upon death, we go to the Spirit world to await the resurrection, to be taught the gospel fullness, and to improve our situation. All those who die without repenting, will pay for those sins, even as Jesus suffered pain (D&C 19). This aptly describes Alma circumstance, of experiencing a Near Death Experience in the Spirit World. He had sinned greatly, and upon reaching the Spirit World, entered Spirit Prison, where he described his pain as "exquisite." He continued in this pain, until he repented, when he was instantly rescued from the pain, brought into Spirit World Paradise, and experienced the "exquisite joy" of being redeemed. IMO, based upon the scriptures, each of us will probably spend time in Spirit Prison for our unrepented sins. D&C 132 states that even the righteous that have received their callings and elections made sure, but then sin, will suffer the "buffetings of Satan." We will remain in Spirit Prison until we totally and completely bend our will to God's. Insofar as we refuse to do so in this life, will determine our sufferings in the Spirit Prison. For Alma, it took him 3 days to humble himself enough to repent and embrace Christ's atonement completely. For others, it may take decades or millennia to be humbled enough to completely reject sin and completely embrace Jesus - so that the day will come when "every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." Now, after this saving from Spirit Prison, we still will be judged according to what we have become. When we come to the final judgment seat in front of God, those who have been wicked will shrink in his presence, seeking to have the rocks cover them up so they don't have to experience his great glory (Alma 12). The wicked, in fact, would prefer being in hell over standing in God's presence (Mormon 9:1-4). So the final judgment will basically determine what level of glory each of us is willing AND able to receive. It will be a relief and joy for a Telestial or Terrestrial person to receive the amount of glory they are able to endure. And it will be a relief for Cain and other sons of perdition to receive a kingdom of no glory (D&C 88, D&C 76).

That there is a Heavenly Mother IS doctrine. However, what that exactly means, we do not know. There just has not been anything of substance revealed or explained on the topic, beyond the idea that God the Father has a wife, who is our Heavenly Mother. Remember that most of the quotes on this topic are from decades ago, prior to the concepts of cloning or invitro-fertilization ever coming into play. For Brigham Young, the only way to fertilize a womb was by sex, and so he envisioned God and Mary having sex in order to bring the mortal Jesus to this world. However, with today's understanding of it all, it is just as easy for us to envision God performing invitro-fertilization on Mary, and achieving the same process, and keeping her a virgin maiden. On this same thought, do we really know how spirit children are formed? Are they formed in the exact same way we bring about mortal children today? If so, then how long does it take to incubate and bring about billions of spirit children? Does Heavenly Mother have one at a time, or a litter of thousands? Or are spirit children created in another matter, where Father and Mother use their special gifts and skills to form them from lower forms of intelligence, as in a science lab? Until we receive a specific revelation on it, we do not know who she is, or just what her specific tasks and purposes in conjunction with us may be.

I recommend that instead of finding various versions of English translations, learning ancient Hebrew and Greek, and then getting even earlier translations that you can translate yourselves. I prefer the KJV, but have used other translations. This is one of the stickiest issues on the claim of sola scriptura, IMO. If the Bible is so complete and explanatory, why the need for so many translations? While on my mission 25 years ago, in Bolivia, I ran across some missionaries from another Christian church. I had a nice chat with several of them, but then the last one grabbed me wanting to scripture bash. He had been a missionary for his Church in Bountiful, Utah for a few years. Anyway, he wanted to go into some of the more mundane LDS issues. He wanted to discuss, for example, God having a father. So (luckily I had my English scriptures), I opened my KJV to Revelation 1:5-6, which states that Jesus made us "kings and priests unto God and His Father...." This guy tried to say it was a bad translation, to which I replied, "do you believe in sola scriptura? Is the Bible God-breathed or not?" When he answered in the affirmative, I then told him he would have to then accept the KJV translation at its word, or would have to admit that the Bible is not perfect. He stuttered and stumbled, and as I continued on other points he had brought up, he quickly excused himself and left. I believe the Bible to be inspired. But I also have done enough studying for decades to know that it is not God-breathed, word for word perfect. And this is one key reason why I'm excited and thankful to have living prophets and apostles to give guidance and more inspired teachings.

Actually, the Jews had more than one temple. After the Diaspora, many Jews fled to Egypt, where the priests with them built a temple at Elephantium. There is evidence that Samaritan Jews also had a temple in Samaria. While Christians did meet in houses, they also had some early buildings, as well. One Pauline building in Ephesus that still stands and is curated by the Greek Orthodox, has two sections with an entrance on each end. These two halves are identical with seating and a baptismal font. The curators will tell you that one side was for all people, and the other side was only for members. Why have a baptismal font in a members-only chapel? It was for baptisms for the dead. Sorta reminiscent of LDS temples, eh? Many scholars believe that Jesus' night in Gethsemane was actually in the cave of Gethsemane, where the oil press was located. Events that occurred in Mark's book about that night are somewhat reminiscent of LDS temple rites. Remember, Paul continued to worship in the temple, as did the other apostles. If God was no longer in the temple after Jesus' crucifixion, then why continue to worship and serve there? Obviously, the apostles saw it as God's house - still. Paul wrote about the temple in Hebrews. Other early Christians also discussed the temple and its use in Christianity, such as the Gospel of Phillip, where he states that the Holy of Holies was the place for the marriage chamber. Once again, reminiscent of LDS temple rites. And Revelation tells us of the heavenly temple of God coming down to unite with the earthly temple. Jewish tradition is that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt prior to the Coming of Messiah. Even many Christians believe that Biblical prophecy. If that is the case, then how can physical temples no longer be of use to God, when he is planning to provide new ones in the future? Modern scholarship is beginning to reject the concept of one Jewish temple that was rejected at Jesus' death. The Biblical story and the archaeological record just does not agree with that concept.