rameumptom

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.

Well, LDS do think that when Paul calls God the "Father of our spirits", we should take that literally, and not just metaphorically. I do agree there is an adoption process, as well. While we spiritually are God's children, we still need, as physical/spiritual entities, to be adopted into the clan through Jesus Christ. This occurs with baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost. LDS place a strong emphasis on being members of the House of Israel, which is defined to us through our patriarchal blessings. A patriarch is called and set apart in most stakes, and pronounces inspired blessings which includes designating a person's adopted Israelite lineage (mine is Ephraim). This is why LDS can say that spiritually, Lucifer and Christ were brothers at one time, but no longer are. Satan rejected his birthright as a spirit child of God, and was tossed from the family.

Well, D&C 76 states that those from higher kingdoms will be able to go down to those in the lower kingdoms. So, perhaps while we're visiting less-valiant relatives in the lower kingdoms, we can stop for a bite to eat.... And I personally believe there is a heaven set aside especially for trial lawyers, though I've not found the scriptural connection, just yet.

Got it. It's just that was several pages ago, and the thread has gone elsewhere. I do agree that Rev 20:18-20 does not apply to the entire bible. A look at what was happening and why John would place a curse is this: Many apostate groups (including the Nicolaitans mentioned in chapters 1-3) were taking apostolic writings and changing them to fit their own teachings, and then publishing them as if from the apostle himself. One way to discourage that was to add a curse at the end of a book, to ensure no tampering occurred. Other early Christians did the same with their writings, as well. However, there is no way it could have included the Bible, since it would not be compiled for several centuries. second, the curse states that "no man" can add to or take away from the writing. It does not state that God cannot change it. given Joseph Smith's predilection for inspired insight from God, such a change (as in the JST) could be done with God's command.

Most Biblical scholars, including William Dever and Margaret Barker, have written on more than one occasion that God is shown in ancient Hebrew writings and art as having a consort, or wife. (You can buy Dever's book here at Amazon.com: Amazon.com: Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology And Folk Religion In Ancient Israel: Books: William G. Dever ) (Here is Judith Hadley's book: Amazon.com: The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, Vol. 57): Books: Judith M. Hadley ) The Bible was heavily edited by certain later consortiums of people, known as the Priest Group and the Deuteronomists, to remove God's wife out of the holy writ and create a true monotheism based solely around the temple. Margaret Barker writes that this Deuteronomic change was one of the key Josian Reforms that the prophet Jeremiah and others fought against, and is suggested in the Book of Mormon by Lehi and Nephi having a vision of the Tree of Life (symbol of God's wife - in this case, Mary the mother of Jesus) in a form of temple ritual. Proverbs references this Heavenly Mother by calling her Wisdom, and later she is known as Sophia/Sophos/Knowledge. Some early Christian writings suggest a strong tie between God and his wife, as well.

That's one of the problems with the definitions used for the Trinity. They are meant to not make any sense, because God is a mystery and not to be known. How a being can have 3 essences/persons does not make sense, and can only be described as a mystery. Most Trinitarians, in fact, use examples that do not reflect Trinitarianism, but modalism (which St Augustine condemned as heresy). You have heard the examples of 3 men in a car, three parts of one egg, etc. Each of these describes modalism, not Trinitarianism. To be accurate, one would have to express one person in three separate cars, or one yolk in three different eggs. That doesn't make any logical sense, hence God is unknowable in the Trinitarian creeds. Not to mention that most "Trinitarians" are actually heretics in how they view the Trinity! How can one be described not having passions, yet filled with love? Once again, we have the great mystery of the Trinity. God has no passion, yet God is love. For those who wish to worship an undefinable mystery, the Trinity is perfect. I believe what Jesus taught in John 17:3, that eternal life is to KNOW God the Father and Jesus Christ, whom God sent. Seems to me that if I must know him to have Eternal Life, then he must be knowable. Otherwise, God has placed us in a major and dismal Catch 22. The LDS view of the Godhead teaches that God is a glorified person, and that the Father and Son are separate beings, who are one in all relational and logical things. He has a body, similar to mine, but glorified. He has passions, as I do. He lives by the laws He commands me to follow. When I suffer, he feels compassion for me. When the scriptures tell me that "God is love" and "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...", I understand what it means - for I understand what it means to sacrifice for others, and to love one's own children. God, while not fully understood by our weak mortal minds, is not mysterious nor unknowable. So, since we are discussing your Trinitarian views, and they do not seem to equate exactly with the teachings in the creeds, would you explain how you view the Trinity, and perhaps we can continue this discussion based upon your own definition? It may be that many of your views fall just as close, if not closer, to the LDS beliefs in a Godhead as in the Trinity?

Rebky, I fully agree with your thoughts on this. Elder Oaks gave a great conference talk a few years ago on "Becoming." We don't just run down a checklist of things to accomplish. That's what the Jews tried to do in Jesus' day. We must become like Christ, in order to dwell with confidence in His presence someday. Otherwise, we will find ourselves like those who wished to have the rocks fall on them to escape His presence (Alma 12), or that would be more miserable in God's presence than with the miserable souls in hell (Mormon 9:1-4).

The concept that many LDS believe, is that God the Father grew up as a spirit child of his own Heavenly parents, were sent to a world to grow up and experience mortal life. He then became a God and had his own spirit children, created a world for us and sent us down to this planet for our own mortal experience. So, God the Father, if this concept is correctly understood (since Joseph spoke very little on it, and it is understood differently by different members), was on an earth like ours, prior to any of us or Jesus being formed. Once he had also become a God, Heavenly Father then created Jesus and us, and sent us to a new earth that was created for us. I hope that reduces the confusion.

I agree that God cares. But in the strict Trinitarian view that he is impassable, he cannot care for us. He is untouched by us, according to St Augustine. Little children that are not baptized, burn in hell, according to St Augustine. For God to remain pure essence, He cannot be touched by anything impure. Now, most Trinitarian Christians do not ascribe to a strict Trinitarian view. The Roman Catholics invented limbo in order to save unbaptized little children from Augustine's hell, for example. Trinitarian creeds establish that God does not have body, parts or passions. "God is love" and "God so loved the world..." make little sense for a God with no passion. Still, there are many conflicting issues between what the Bible teaches and strict Trinitarianism. Most of the Old and New Testament teaches that God is man-like (anthropomorphic). Moses talks to God face to face, like a friend. Moses sees God's back and body parts. God walks through the Garden of Eden. God becomes angry or jealous or loves. Isaiah sees God sitting on His throne. Jesus prays "not my will, but thine be done", suggesting that Father and Son have separate wills (which would not be possible if they were the same Being). The martyr Stephen sees God on his throne with Jesus on his right hand. I could go on with dozens of examples more. Yet Trinitarianism has adopted a Hellenistic view of God, where there is only one God and he is untouchable and impassable and incapable of anything human-like: whether it is body, parts or passions. Meanwhile, the LDS view does fit in well with the Biblical teachings of God's person and personality, as taught by the ancient apostles and prophets, though I admit that it does not fit in with the creeds that were established later.

And that is a difference that a Trinitarian would have from the LDS view of the Godhead. While the Trinitarian belief has God as impassable and untouched, the LDS Godhead is totally integrated emotionally and intellectually with their creations. When God destroyed the world by Flood, Enoch saw God weep. When the resurrected Jesus visits the Nephites, he weeps for the wicked in the world, and then weeps because the Nephites have exercised faith and repentance. He also wept at Nicodemus' tomb. If God is as the Trinitarians believe, without passions or parts, then God only has to be, because we are not an important item to Him. But, if He is fully in touch with His Creations and is passable, then we become His work and glory, and for Him to remain God requires Him to take an active role.

This references Melchizedek, or rather the Melchizedek priesthood, which the ancient king held, and which Jesus also was ordained to. In LDS teaching God always is, was and will be God, as concerning us. The key to it is the term Godhead. There has always been a Godhead, containing Gods that ensure the process for each of us is accomplished. Joseph Smith, in the King Follett discourse in 1842, stated that God was once man. He does not specify whether he referred to God the Son, or God the Father. Most members believe it applies to both. They believe that God the Father was once a spirit child of His Heavenly Parents, and was sent to an earth to learn to grow up to be like them. This, however, is not a doctrine, or at least not a core doctrine. There really is little taught on this topic, and therefore quickly devolves into speculation. Unfortunately, it is often the speculation that the anti-Mormons "quote" as to what we supposedly believe on the topic. We believe that Jesus also came to earth to obtain a body and perform a work prior to receiving full godhood. Had he failed in his earthly mission as Savior, he would have not become God in the eternities, because he would have given in to Satan, and in doing so would not have been the perfect sacrifice required to save us and himself from death. Christ and the Holy Ghost were/are members of the Godhead, even before receiving physical bodies and resurrection. Obviously, there is a level of Godhood that can be achieved in the spirit world. This is also suggested in Abraham 3, where Abraham sees many of the righteous and elect spirits standing around God, and the Lord tells him that Abraham was one of the chosen ones before birth. This suggests that many of the righteous may have achieved a form of "junior godhood" prior to coming to Earth. What does it mean to qualify for godhood? It means we grow up to be like Heavenly Father, that we are joint-heirs with Christ, that we can sit on His throne and assist to rule the Lord's creations, and receive "all that the Father hath." We do believe in a Heavenly Mother. If our understanding from the King Follett discourse is correct, then she would have also been a mortal at one time, following in the steps of her Heavenly parents. We know almost nothing about her, though Biblical scholars will tell you that ancient Hebrews did believe in God's consort anciently. This belief fell out of favor after 600 BC and the destruction of the First temple, as Judaism focused on one sole God, rather than the pantheon or divine council they believed in prior to that time. The earliest Semitic and Hebrew belief taught of a divine council. Elohim/El/El Elyon was the head of this divine council. He had 70 sons in the council that he divided the world to. We see this division among the sons of Noah as well, each given a national god from the divine council. Israel was given Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus, the preeminent son in the divine council, as their God. Why do I mention Jesus? Because scholar Margaret Barker explains in the "Great Angel" that the early Christians saw Yahweh and Jesus as the same Great Angel/Messiah. Over time, Yahweh takes over the rule from the incompetent gods on the council, and in the Bible we see him evolve from a tribal God, to a God that has influence and power in other nations, and finally over all the world. This council has members on it that are not necessarily nice gods. Some attempt to battle over sovereignty of other nations, challenging one another. We see this in Job 1, where Satan and other sons of the divine Council go up to challenge Yahweh for Israel. Isaiah 14 tells us that Lucifer, both the Babylonian king and Satan, sought power over God's (Yahweh's) throne, and was cast down for it. Where Yahweh states that he is the only god and there is no god before him - he is referring to the fall of one of the other gods in Canaan that was replaced by Baal. Yahweh always was and always will be the God of Israel - he wasn't a supplanter as Baal was, nor was he removed from power as other gods on the divine council were. Margaret Barker, a British Methodist preacher and Old Testament scholar has written extensively on the First Temple period and how a belief in Mother in Heaven was a part of the temple rite. In 2005 the Library of Congress had a Symposium on Joseph Smith and she was one of the featured speakers. When she wrote her first book, "The Great Angel", she knew nothing about Mormonism, but suddenly started receiving letters and emails from Mormon scholars that read her book. Her books since have also sparked a lot of interest in Mormon circles, as it shows that Mormonism does restore many plain and precious things that were lost anciently. Anyway, she discussed at the symposium the time period of 600 BC, when Lehi left Jerusalem. The First Temple had rites that were not included in the 2nd Temple, having been removed due to the Josian Reforms (635 BC). She noted that one of the ancient teachings was of Wisdom, the Goddess of Knowledge and Fertility was long attached as the consort of Elohim, and later Yahweh. She was often called Asherah, and was symbolized by the World Tree or Tree of Life. So, when Nephi sees the vision of the Tree of Life (1 Nephi 11-15), he sees the tree and immediately is shown the virgin Mary and her giving birth to Jesus. Clearly, this shows Mary as the mother of God/Tree of Life, and Jesus as the fruit of the tree, also explained as the "love of God" in Nephi's vision. Lots of information, but you can see from it how many ideas about God the Father, Heavenly Mother, and Jesus were lost over the centuries and needed to be restored.

Because that is part and parcel of being God. Other terms we give to him are Creator and Father, each denoting a specific responsibility or task that describes who and what He is. The LDS view of God requires that he creates spirit children to populate worlds and grow up to become like He is. It is HIS work and glory to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39). Without such, he would have neither work nor glory, and while he would have powers, they would be ineffective powers, since he would not be using them. If God were to cease to progress in his works, he would cease to be God, as the key point is he is God because of not only what he is able to do, but what he Actually does. Jesus is worshiped, not because he had the ability to atone and resurrect, but because he ACTUALLY atones and resurrects each of us. If the innate powers are not used, then they are wasted and do not lead to God's work and glory being accomplished.

Could you be more specific on which verse quoted is misintepreted? Unless you quote the previous message you allude to, there's no telling what you were thinking here.

Some of the articles aren't too bad. However, I have some friends at FAIR that really need to find a hobby outside FAIR. I've joked with some that a short article for them would have 10 pages of footnotes.

Rebky asked me about FAIR. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage is the site. They are a group that defends the Church. There are many scholarly papers available, and they have a wiki at Main Page - FAIRMormon Unofficially Tied to FAIR is the Mormon Apologetics site at www.mormonapologetics.org

Many scholars believe that Paul was probably a widower. As it is, there are several "interesting" early Christian sites that are very suggestive of temples. In Ephesus is a Pauline church that has two sides to it. Both has its own entrance, and both had benches and a baptismal font. It is maintained by Greek Orthodox priests, who will explain that one side is for all people to attend, the other solely for members. What is a font doing in a members-only room? It was used for baptisms for the dead, which is still a doctrine in the Greek Orthodox Church, but isn't practiced or discussed much. In the early Christian document, the Gospel of Phillip, Phillip discusses the temple and explains that within the Holy of Holies (the Holiest Place) is the marriage chamber. You can easily extrapolate modern LDS teaching from Phillip's emphasis (he says it several times in his epistle). As for Paul and others being sealed. Given we have 100 years of Christianity "detailed" in just a few hundred pages, and most of that is on Jesus' life or Paul's letters of counsel. So, there really isn't a historical basis to say that Paul was/wasn't married or sealed. There isn't enough information to strongly speculate it either way.

Apostasy has occurred many times in earth's history. We need to note that the LDS Church does not say that all the truth was lost or that there was an absolute apostasy from every vestige of truth. We teach that many of the plain and precious things were lost, including priesthood authority. LDS views and definitions on salvation and exaltation must be considered when discussing what has happened to those people living during the Dark/Middle Ages. Peter noted that the dead from the Great Flood were preached to in the spirit prison, an event that occurred 2000 years before him and included many that did not hear Noah's preaching. In Protestant vernacular, all those billions that have lived without hearing Jesus' name, would be condemned to hell, even though they didn't have a chance to accept him. LDS teachings give all those people who did not hear the fullness of the gospel, the chance to listen and consider accepting it. IMO the LDS teaching is more "Christ-like" in giving all the same opportunity to embrace Jesus. Claiming that one is saved if he accepts Jesus, is not comforting to the person rotting in hell simply because he was born in the wrong place and time. And then there are those Christians that would put extra delimiters on what it means to accept Jesus, as many claim Mormons will burn in hell alongside those who never had a chance to hear the gospel. The original church of Christ could have continued on, had it not been for a few historical problems. First, we see that Judas was replaced in the 12, when they gathered and prayerfully selected Matthias as his replacement. But once the 12 scattered over Europe and Asia, there was no way for them to call new apostles, or even know who had been killed. Secondly, the apostasy did not start immediately upon John's demise. Paul, Peter and John all write about apostates in their day trying to take over the Church. After the death of the apostles, there were huge schisms in the Church. Proto-orthodox, Gnostics, and other groups all vied for preeminence. Many changed sacred writings, or penned pseudepigrapha (false writings, or writings supposedly written by a prophet or apostle), in order to promote their version of the gospel. Until the Nag Hammadi library was discovered in Egypt in 1947, most of what we knew about the Gnostics was written by the proto-orthodox apologists (Origen was preeminent among them). Dozens of books were written supposedly by Paul, Peter, Thomas, Phillip, Melchizedek, Abraham, Seth, etc. New revelations were being claimed by the leaders of the various sects. The proto-orthodox Church came to a conclusion: the only way to fight these insurgents was to canonize the writings, toss out anything suspicious, and eliminate new revelation. St Jerome was foremost in putting together today's list of books. Hebrews and Revelation were almost tossed out, and only were kept in because the Western Church insisted on it. Many other books that were used extensively (Shepherd of Hermas, Enoch, etc.) were eliminated, because of questionable teachings or provenance. So, we ended up with a Church in stasis. There was no more revelation allowed. With a completed Bible, creeds came in to answer questions that were not answered in the Bible, and could not be answered by non-existent revelation: is baptism by immersion or sprinkling? what is the nature of God? do the bishops all share power equally, or does the bishop in Rome/Jerusalem/Constantinople hold preeminence? In 325 AD, bishops met in Nice to discuss the nature of God. Three major views were then extant. Athanasius promoted the Hellenistic Trinitarian position that was growing in influence since the 2nd century AD. Arius promoted the idea of three separate beings, but since there is only one God, Jesus is not God, but Lord. Some, like the historian Eusebius, promoted Origenism, which taught that all three are separate Gods, but Jesus was subordinate to the Father (also known as subordinationalism). The battle ended up being between the two extremes (Athanasius and Arius). Using political clout (Constantine was behind him), we had Athanasius winning out, with opponents being exiled and/or excommunicated. So, it wasn't a sudden apostasy. It grew slowly, spreading out over the many churches in Paul and Peter's day, and then spinning quicker out of control once the guidance of the apostles was gone. From there, revelation ended and the scriptures were placed in stasis. Finally, creeds were established to answer questions that could not be answered in the Bible, but were based on the philosophies of men (like St Jerome and St Augustine) and not on revelation. In each prior instance of apostasy, God has had to restore the truths through a prophet. Reformation was never sufficient, as we see in the Josian Reforms that occurred prior to the destruction of the First Temple and Jerusalem in 600 BC. It required new prophets, like Jeremiah and others to attempt to restore as much of the gospel as the people were ready for. And in our case, the Lord allowed the apostasy, because the people were no longer looking upward for revelation, but were philosophizing their way through the scriptures. A Restoration of all the precious and plain parts that had been lost was necessary to prepare the world for the 2nd Coming of Christ.

For me, the idea of how Intelligence works was taught by Orson Pratt and expounded upon more by Blake Ostler in "Exploring Mormon Thought, vol 1). All spirit is matter. Intelligence is light and truth. Abraham 3 tells us that God stood in the midst of the "organized intelligences." What is an "unorganized" intelligence? Think of it this way: particles of matter exist. God gathers particles together and forms them into a higher organization of intelligence. One has atoms that have intelligence: capabilities that are inherent to that atom. When certain atoms are put together, one gets a higher intelligence called a molecule. It retains the former while obtaining new abilities. For example, Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms have certain weights and capabilities. Combine them into water molecules, and a new capability or intelligence is created. Whether this lower level of intelligence is "self-aware" or not, I do not know. We do know that once we've been formed as spirits, we do have self-awareness, as the matter/intelligence organized to the level of spirit does denote self-awareness. Then, once we had matured as spirits, we were ready to be formed to a higher level of intelligence/organization: with a physical body. As far as we know, the final reorganization will be with the resurrection, when spirit and body elements are forged together eternally into one bond that cannot be separated.

Moses 1:39 teaches us that God's work AND GLORY are to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. God, to be God, does have requirements. God must be forever progressing in works, otherwise he would cease to be God. Unlike the Trinitarian view of God, LDS believe that God is fully integrated mentally and emotionally with his creations. Enoch witnessed God cry at the preparation of destroying the world by Flood. The resurrected Jesus wept before the Nephites several times, once due to the wickedness of the House of Israel. When a child cries, God is emotionally connected. When a child falls from grace, it weighs heavy on God's being. Otherwise, what would the Bible mean when it says, "God is love"? If God is disconnected from us, then how could he really love us? In the Book of Moses, we get a true feeling for God's concern and love for us, as he explains to Enoch that he weeps because these are his creation, his children, and it saddens him to have to chasten or destroy them. So, I am of the strong opinion that God cannot just be, he must do all things required to be God - creating universes and children and families.

Baptism at 8 years of age is done because that is when a child BEGINS to understand right from wrong and begins to be accountable. There is no magic door one enters that suddenly makes us responsible for all knowledge and understanding. Baptism at 8 is supposed to occur when the child has been taught the basic principles of the gospel. Often it is done without enough teaching, IMO. I'm a strong believer that we should not baptize people of any age into inactivity. Still, the baptism done at 8 actually becomes active when the person is ready to live the covenants made in baptism. We renew our covenants in the Sacrament, and when we become ready and worthy of the Lord's blessings, whether at 8 or 80, the promises made to us by God are fulfilled. He promises to send us the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion, when we are worthy to have His companionship. That can just as easily occur now as then. While rebaptism may not be in the cards for you, you can seek and enjoy the fruits of righteous living: the companionship of the Holy Ghost, at any time.

I highly recommend each of the above. I have many people in life who have inspired me, usually for different reasons and strengths. My mind often goes to Ether and Moroni, both of whom wandered for years observing and chronicling the destruction of their peoples. Either could have said, "Oh woe is me," but spent their efforts writing the things of most worth to us today. I am inspired by Lehi and Alma as parents, counseling and guiding their oft wayward children. Pope John Paul II inspired me in his efforts to reform the Catholic Church, moving the priests away from radical political action to refocusing on the spirituality of the flock. For info on this, I recommend Malachi Martin's book on the Jesuits. I'm inspired by the living prophets, from Joseph Smith to Gordon B Hinckley to Thomas S. Monson. I'm inspired from the many fathers and mothers out there who try with all their might to raise their children in righteousness, in a world that has turned its back on Christian principles. I'm inspired by the youth who say no to drugs, sex, and other evils. Mostly, I'm inspired by my greatest hero - Jesus Christ, who selflessly gave everything for me and you.

Paul also taught that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God, and that we should have in our thoughts what Jesus had in his thoughts. We are also told that we are the offspring of God, and if offspring then heirs - heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. If we are joint-heirs with Christ, how does that tie in with the Trinity? If Christ/Father/Holy Ghost are one being made of a different substance than everything in our universe (including us), then how can we be joint-heirs with Christ? Only if we actually are God's genus and Jesus is God's Only Begotten Son in the Flesh, can we truly understand this familial relationship. Many non-LDS Biblical scholars are starting to realize that it is actually a social Trinity that is taught in the Bible - exactly what the LDS Church teaches. Early Christians also taught this, including Origen, who taught that God the Father was the head God, and Jesus was subordinate. That wouldn't make sense in a strict Trinitarian view. While Origen was the Church's leading defender in his day, Athanasius and Augustine later called him a heretic for such teachings! While on Mars Hill, Paul taught that God is not made of metal or wood, as were the Greek Gods. He is Spirit. But what does that mean to be Spirit? Does it mean the nebulous view of strict Trinitarianism? Or is it the LDS view that God is a Spirit that is clothed in a glorified body? In studying the Bible and early Christian writings, one would have to conclude that God has a physical body. Otherwise, we have a problem with Luke 24, where the resurrected Jesus tells the apostles to feel his hands and feet, because a spirit does not have flesh and bone as he had. In LDS vernacular, a spirit is an unembodied or disembodied being: one that has not yet obtained a physical body, or one that has died but not yet resurrected. Jesus was saying that he was alive, but not JUST a spirit - that he indeed was a physical being. That being the case, what is more perfect: God without a physical body, or Jesus with a physical body? If the Greek belief that God is made of pure substance that is not found elsewhere in the universe is believed, then we have a major conflict between God without a physical body and God with a physical body. However, if we accept that man is made from God's spirit essence, THEN we can see how Jesus can physically resurrect and still be one with the Father's pure essence.

Pushka, Glad to be of service. There was a time when I was envious of those who had read everything. I'm now one of those that others envy, but don't really know why they do. I am in the same boat as Socrates: In comparison with all the knowledge out there, I know nothing.