Where is it written that God obeys laws?

[Guest ceeboo]

No confusion at all.

We LDS tend to portray ourselves as being in complete and perfect agreement with everything Joseph Smith, Jr., et. al., have declared as "revelations".

This is not the case. Many LDS are silent on these issues, preferring to not cause a stir. Others leave the faith and become immersed in the foulness of "anti-mormon" rhetoric.

Actually, I feel a bit blessed on this matter. I've no problem maintaining that Joseph Smith, Jr., was the Prophet of the Restoration, despite any errors in teaching he may have espoused. It doesn't trouble me at all.

What is troubling is the inability or unwillingness of some LDS to consider the arguments against some of the things he taught (such as his teaching of the co-eternal nature of man).

For me, revelation builds upon revelation. Where there is clear, unambiguous teaching, subsequent "revelation" cannot violate or attempt to change that teaching.

Such is the case with the nature of the Eternal GOD, and man, his creation. There's no "wiggle-room" on this issue. It was established thousands of years before Joseph Smith was even born.

GOD is eternal and self-existent. Everything else was created by him.

Hi JBS, :)

Thanks for the reply.

As to not " stir things up ", I will simply say that to accept SOME of what JS taught and NOT ALL ( Or to pick and choose ) seems rather odd ( IMHO :)).

I do appreciate your contributions.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[JohnBirchSociety]

"We LDS" ???

If you claim to be LDS, you do not understand your own religion.

We are co-eternal with God:

You say "read the scriptures" -- well, I have. Our D&C says:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

We were not created or made, neither indeed can it be!!

Same goes for God! He has always existed!

Consider the following from the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell, an apostle of the Lord:

"God has no distracting hobbies off somewhere in the universe. We are at the very center of His concerns and purposes. What a sharp contrast to those who believe that man lives in an “unconscious universe” (Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” in Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays [1917], 50), a “universe … without a master” (Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, trans. Justin O’Brien [1955], 123).

Revelations likewise came about our longevity as God’s spirit children, since “man was also in the beginning with God”—a declaration accompanied by even further glimmers about man’s eternal nature (see D&C 93:29). These enunciations with their profound implications are major, challenging, for instance, the teaching that man was created in an instant “out of nothing.”

A further reality of our being with God “in the beginning” means that you have been you for a long time. Hence the Apostle John correctly wrote that “[God] first loved us” (see 1 Jn. 4:19). Likewise, amid the mortal turbulence, we learn who other mortals really are—our spiritual brothers and sisters, not functions, rivals, or enemies. Moreover, we should have a special sanctity and regard for human life.

“Stunners” all, these three revelations and translations are especially responsive to the deepest human yearnings and puzzlements. They restructure our understanding of the nature of God, of the universe, and likewise of our personal identity and of life’s meaning! What could be more personal than these brief but encompassing declarations?"

taken from:

LDS.org - Liahona Article - How Choice a Seer!

Tom

Ah, context. Gotta love it.

But first, an aside. I'm LDS, you're LDS. Let's not engage in "I know better than you know 'bout LDS doctrine". You very well may know a great deal more than me, and the opposite may be true. The only real means of determining that (which is not why I'm here, by the way), is through a demonstration of fact (scripture in this case).

Yes, as the scriptures attest, we were present before the creation of our Earth in the "beginning". Taking the entire context of scripture we see that GOD created all things (besides himself), including time.

I excuse Elder Maxwell for what he says because he is building upon what was taught before him by those he looked to as being infallible on such matters (Joseph Smith, Jr., in particular). That being said, I still stand upon the established scripture that existed before Joseph Smith was even born. That scripture (Biblical) has stood clear and unambiguous for thousands of years. It says exactly what I've paraphased here (to save time).

GOD is the creator of all things, he is self-existent and eternal. He is the only eternal being. All else was created by him.

[bytor2112]

No confusion at all.

We LDS tend to portray ourselves as being in complete and perfect agreement with everything Joseph Smith, Jr., et. al., have declared as "revelations".

This is not the case. Many LDS are silent on these issues, preferring to not cause a stir. Others leave the faith and become immersed in the foulness of "anti-mormon" rhetoric.

Actually, I feel a bit blessed on this matter. I've no problem maintaining that Joseph Smith, Jr., was the Prophet of the Restoration, despite any errors in teaching he may have espoused. It doesn't trouble me at all.

What is troubling is the inability or unwillingness of some LDS to consider the arguments against some of the things he taught (such as his teaching of the co-eternal nature of man).

For me, revelation builds upon revelation. Where there is clear, unambiguous teaching, subsequent "revelation" cannot violate or attempt to change that teaching.

Such is the case with the nature of the Eternal GOD, and man, his creation. There's no "wiggle-room" on this issue. It was established thousands of years before Joseph Smith was even born.

GOD is eternal and self-existent. Everything else was created by him.

JBS......I am a bit confused. In a recent post on a thread about Excommunication or Having your name removed, you posted that you were in the process of having your name removed?

You still refer to yourself as LDS.....change of heart? JBS quote: "I'm in the process of having my name removed from the records of the Church. Legally, as soon as notice is received of my intent, I am no longer a Church member. The process by which the Church administratively removes a name from its' roster is of no importance. Once the Church receives notice, then that person is no longer a member and that person is not subject to any Church discipline. If the Church attempts discipline after receipt of a letter of resignation then they can easily be sued.

Church Headquarters should receive my letter (with delivery confirmation) sometime this week. I can't wait!"

Edited February 12, 2009 by bytor2112

[Guest tomk]

Ah, context. Gotta love it.

But first, an aside. I'm LDS, you're LDS. Let's not engage in "I know better than you know 'bout LDS doctrine". You very well may know a great deal more than me, and the opposite may be true. The only real means of determining that (which is not why I'm here, by the way), is through a demonstration of fact (scripture in this case).

Yes, as the scriptures attest, we were present before the creation of our Earth in the "beginning". Taking the entire context of scripture we see that GOD created all things (besides himself), including time.

I excuse Elder Maxwell for what he says because he is building upon what was taught before him by those he looked to as being infallible on such matters (Joseph Smith, Jr., in particular). That being said, I still stand upon the established scripture that existed before Joseph Smith was even born. That scripture (Biblical) has stood clear and unambiguous for thousands of years. It says exactly what I've paraphased here (to save time).

GOD is the creator of all things, he is self-existent and eternal. He is the only eternal being. All else was created by him.

I've stated, and restated, my position as clearly as I can.

You can't pick and choose which doctrines you will believe and which ones you won't.

To continue on from here is pointless.

I wish you well.

Tom

[JohnBirchSociety]

Hi JBS, :)

Thanks for the reply.

As to not " stir things up ", I will simply say that to accept SOME of what JS taught and NOT ALL ( Or to pick and choose ) seems rather odd ( IMHO :)).

I do appreciate your contributions.

Peace,

Ceeboo

And thank you.

I don't mean to seem to be "picking and choosing" what I agree with. Rather, what I've done my whole adult life is compare what is taught by our leaders with previously established, clear, unambiguous scripture. In my opinion the only logical way to proceed is to grant the clear, unambiguous scripture that came first, primary consideration. In other words, if a more recent declaration contradicts previously revealed truth, I'll put my word behind the previously declared truth, rather than the more recent declaration (regardless of the source of that declaration). This is the only logical means to have any sense of foundational truth, or even a use for written scripture. I mean, if it can be changed in fundamental ways, then there are no fundamental truths. How can I be certain the teachings of today that are portrayed as "fundamental" won't be changed in a generation or two (as was the case with polygamy / people of color and the priesthood)?

But I ramble. Thanks again for your input.

[JohnBirchSociety]

JBS......I am a bit confused. In a recent post on a thread about Excommunication or Having your name removed, you posted that you were in the process of having your name removed?

You still refer to yourself as LDS.....change of heart? JBS quote: "I'm in the process of having my name removed from the records of the Church. Legally, as soon as notice is received of my intent, I am no longer a Church member. The process by which the Church administratively removes a name from its' roster is of no importance. Once the Church receives notice, then that person is no longer a member and that person is not subject to any Church discipline. If the Church attempts discipline after receipt of a letter of resignation then they can easily be sued.

Church Headquarters should receive my letter (with delivery confirmation) sometime this week. I can't wait!"

Good question. I've not received confirmation, so I remain LDS (if only by name).

[JohnBirchSociety]

I've stated, and restated, my position as clearly as I can.

You can't pick and choose which doctrines you will believe and which ones you won't.

To continue on from here is pointless.

I wish you well.

Tom

Thank you for the well-wishing, I've the same sentiment for you.

It is distressing to think that I'm appearing to "pick-n-choose" doctrine.

I'm not.

Perhaps an overly-silly example would suffice?

Suppose GOD said in scripture "There is one GOD" (no exceptions, no "loop-holes", completely unambiguous).

Now suppose Prophet X came along and said "GOD has a GOD".

I'd go with the "There is one GOD" and reject the "GOD has a GOD" premise.

This is what I'm doing here. In essence, the total context of scripture is saying something clearly different than what some of the LDS leaders have taught. Thus, I'm left with no choice, I must go with the previous, clear, unambiguous scripture rather than more recent "revelations", regardless of how uncomfortable that position makes me. After all, I do believe that Joseph Smith, Jr., was / is a Prophet of GOD.

[Guest tomk]

JBS:

I guess where I don't follow you is the suggestion that "modern" scripture is unclear and ambiguous. "Modern" scripture (that which the prophet Joseph Smith brought to light) brings MORE LIGHT and GREATER UNDERSTANDING to "ancient" scripture, not less!!!!!!

One of the functions of modern-day prophets and apostles is to clarify doctrines and false traditions that others have about the Gospel. For example, the common (and unfounded) belief in a closed scriptural canon or a Trinitarian view of the Godhood.

It is not my job to convince you or even talk to you about this. I can witness my own testimony, but only God can reveal it to your heart and mind. Until he does, there is very little good my words will do, except to confuse or frustrate you.

The Bible has passed through many more hands than the Book of Mormon. Although I believe the Bible to be the word of God, I do not find it to be "clear and unambiguous" -- quite the opposite -- particularaly when compared to the Book of Mormon, D&C or Pearl of Great Price!

In all of this, the Holy Ghost serves as my guide.

Tom

[Justice]

It was God's will that his Son suffer and die, so that Man might be saved. He did NOT suffer eternally. Perhaps you chose your wording poorly, and do not really believe that Christ is suffering eternally, but if you do, I would advise you to read the accounts of His resurrection, and ascension to Heaven.

I'm not sure what to think about the rest of your post, but I'll answer this one.

The terms infinite and endless are synonyms to me. If God is to redeem man from infinite or endless punishment, then the suffering or sacrifice that redeem's man must be equally infinite and endless.

Alma 34:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

• • •

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

Sadly, I can't quote the Bible here because it's not as clear on this topic. But, even this Book of Mormon quote, whether you believe it or not, should help you understand my view.

[Justice]

And, it was not God's will because He wanted His Son to suffer infinitely...

It was His will because that's what law required. It was the ONLY way to save man. If there was another way I'm sure God would have chosen it.

And, if God set the rule on what was required He would have chosen something different.

It's as plain as day to me.

[Maxel]

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, ordained of God, and his translation of the golden plates came from an angel of the Lord, and he claimed that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church of JC of LDS, Vol. 4, p. 461), then one would tend to think that it is a pretty solid book. Why, then, have there been 4,000 changes between the original 1830 version, and the version we have today? Why is revision necessary, if it was translated directly by the voice of God, in 1830, and the King James Bible, which LDS tend to believe is the most accurate, or most correctly translated, was published in 1611?

I will not go into the many contradictions between the BoM and the Bible; that is something for another thread. I only humbly ask what the reasons are for the numerous revisions to the original version translated directly from the golden plates.

See your new thread for the answer, Dymmesdale.

[Dymmesdale]

I'm not sure what to think about the rest of your post, but I'll answer this one.

The terms infinite and endless are synonyms to me. If God is to redeem man from infinite or endless punishment, then the suffering or sacrifice that redeem's man must be equally infinite and endless.

Alma 34:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

• • •

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

Sadly, I can't quote the Bible here because it's not as clear on this topic. But, even this Book of Mormon quote, whether you believe it or not, should help you understand my view.

I do not have time to respond to this right away, but in the meantime, I would like to know, am I to understand that while the sacrifice and the effects thereof are indeed eternal, the pain and suffering endured by Christ were equally as eternal? If that is your belief, is it also the belief of your church at large (i.e., is that official LDS doctrine)?

[Maxel]

I do not have time to respond to this right away, but in the meantime, I would like to know, am I to understand that while the sacrifice and the effects thereof are indeed eternal, the pain and suffering endured by Christ were equally as eternal? If that is your belief, is it also the belief of your church at large (i.e., is that official LDS doctrine)?

I can't speak for Justice, but I can weigh in on my opinion of the subject. To me, 'infinite' and 'eternal' are synonymous but not always containing the same nuances- that is, sometimes 'eternal' is speaking of an infinite duration of time, and sometimes 'infinite' is referring to an infinite quantity (or quality) of something, but not an endless duration of time.

In this case, I see 'infinite' as meaning just that- in-finite, or not finite (or measurable). That is to say, the pain that Christ bore while fulfilling the requirements of the Atonement are immeasurable to finite beings, but measurable to Him and His Father- that is, that pain had an end, although we cannot comprehend the sheer amount of suffering He endured before that end was reached. Otherwise, Christ could not have declared 'it is finished' before 'giving up the ghost' at His crucifixion. To my knowledge, a belief like I have just stated is in line with what the LDS church 'at large' believes; though I do not claim to know 100%.

[Justice]

I do not have time to respond to this right away, but in the meantime, I would like to know, am I to understand that while the sacrifice and the effects thereof are indeed eternal, the pain and suffering endured by Christ were equally as eternal? If that is your belief, is it also the belief of your church at large (i.e., is that official LDS doctrine)?

Eternal as in infinite in nature, yes. There will never be a sacrifice or suffering as complete as Jesus Christ's. The reason being only Jesus Christ had everything to lose.

The suffering of Christ was much more than a whip or nails, or hanging on a cross. It was an internal suffering that caused Him to bleed from every pore.

Matthew 26:

36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.

37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.

38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I dwill, but as thou wilt.

40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

The Bible doesn't do the suffering Christ endured in Gethsemane justice.

Doctrine & Covenants 19:

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

I believe it is Church doctrine that Christ suffered an eternal and infinte suffering, just as Lehi said in the Book of Mormon scripture I quoted.

[Justice]

I didn't see Maxel's post until after I posted...

but, yea, what he said.

[Just_A_Guy]

I would like to know, am I to understand that while the sacrifice and the effects thereof are indeed eternal, the pain and suffering endured by Christ were equally as eternal? If that is your belief, is it also the belief of your church at large (i.e., is that official LDS doctrine)?

I actually disagree with Maxel on this; it seems to me that the penalty for sin is an eternity in hell and nothing less would suffice to redeem us therefrom. I don't claim to comprehend how this was possible.

I've heard some church leaders' quotes (buried in one of my files in storage at present) that seem to support that point of view, but I certainly wouldn't call it church doctrine--members can (and, as you see, do) disagree on the topic.

[Dymmesdale]

I can't speak for Justice, but I can weigh in on my opinion of the subject. To me, 'infinite' and 'eternal' are synonymous but not always containing the same nuances- that is, sometimes 'eternal' is speaking of an infinite duration of time, and sometimes 'infinite' is referring to an infinite quantity (or quality) of something, but not an endless duration of time.

In this case, I see 'infinite' as meaning just that- in-finite, or not finite (or measurable). That is to say, the pain that Christ bore while fulfilling the requirements of the Atonement are immeasurable to finite beings, but measurable to Him and His Father- that is, that pain had an end, although we cannot comprehend the sheer amount of suffering He endured before that end was reached. Otherwise, Christ could not have declared 'it is finished' before 'giving up the ghost' at His crucifixion. To my knowledge, a belief like I have just stated is in line with what the LDS church 'at large' believes; though I do not claim to know 100%.

Ok, I agree with you about the infinite part. His suffering was beyond our comprehension, since it included not only the most physically agonizing pain, but also the heartbreak of knowing that, for that time, his had taken all the sin of the world on himself, and the Father had turned his back on him.

However, I am still confused about how his suffering could have been eternal, since that word implies an infinite length of time, and we all know that he now sits at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

[Dymmesdale]

I'm not sure what to think about the rest of your post, but I'll answer this one.

The terms infinite and endless are synonyms to me. If God is to redeem man from infinite or endless punishment, then the suffering or sacrifice that redeem's man must be equally infinite and endless.

Alma 34:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

• • •

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

Sadly, I can't quote the Bible here because it's not as clear on this topic. But, even this Book of Mormon quote, whether you believe it or not, should help you understand my view.

I believe that the sacrifice was not infinite in duration, but in sufficiency. Christ died once, shed his blood on the cross, one time. He took upon himself the sins of the elect, all at the same time. That is why it was so unbearable. He is no longer suffering, no longer holds the sins of the elect on his shoulders, otherwise he could not be with the Father now.

[Giant_Son]

I believe that the sacrifice was not infinite in duration, but in sufficiency. Christ died once, shed his blood on the cross, one time. He took upon himself the sins of the elect, all at the same time. That is why it was so unbearable. He is no longer suffering, no longer holds the sins of the elect on his shoulders, otherwise he could not be with the Father now.

The atonement is eternal and everlasting in its effect or impact. Christ suffered in the Garden and on the cross and "FINISHED his preparations unto the children of men." So, I think we are agreeing on this point.

[Hemidakota]

Perhaps the experience portion is eternal and not the pain.

[Dymmesdale]

The atonement is eternal and everlasting in its effect or impact. Christ suffered in the Garden and on the cross and "FINISHED his preparations unto the children of men." So, I think we are agreeing on this point.

Yes, I think we are.

[KoalaBear]

If this isn't written in anywhere, i'm sure you guys can just add it and say that it happened. You have the ability to dispell truths, so that must mean you can make them up as well!!

[D1derly]

In my opinion, nature is subject to God because He fully understands all the laws and workings of nature. If He bent or broke laws, nobody (or nothing) would obey Him -- He couldn't be trusted. For example, the miracles Jesus performed may have seemed like "magic" or miracles to those in His day, but someday we'll understand how He did them, and they won't seem so mysterious anymore. Imagine how the pioneers would feel if they could see us driving in our cars, talking on cell phones to people hundreds of miles away or flying in airplanes... that would seem magical or miraculous, but it's all technology and using the physical laws of this earth for our benefit.

Deb

[Just_A_Guy]

If this isn't written in anywhere, i'm sure you guys can just add it and say that it happened. You have the ability to dispell truths, so that must mean you can make them up as well!!

Saith the pot to the kettle . . .

/troll-feeding

[Dymmesdale]

In my opinion, nature is subject to God because He fully understands all the laws and workings of nature. If He bent or broke laws, nobody (or nothing) would obey Him -- He couldn't be trusted. For example, the miracles Jesus performed may have seemed like "magic" or miracles to those in His day, but someday we'll understand how He did them, and they won't seem so mysterious anymore. Imagine how the pioneers would feel if they could see us driving in our cars, talking on cell phones to people hundreds of miles away or flying in airplanes... that would seem magical or miraculous, but it's all technology and using the physical laws of this earth for our benefit.

Deb

Can the same be said of the sun not setting one day, or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead? Or, for that matter, His own resurrection?