One Third of the Host of Heaven

[CrimsonKairos]

This link might help: Joseph Fielding McConkie

Here are two very important quotes from it (it's a long page):

"It makes no difference," stated President Joseph Fielding Smith, "what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

"Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4).

And:

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they [speak] and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, `Well, that is his own idea.' And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works (I think that is why we call them `standard'—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it" ("Place of the Living Prophet, Seer and Revelator," 14).

Thus the vital importance of becoming masters of the scriptures. How can you compare any man or woman's doctrine to the standard works if you don't know them?

I think that in the Church--unfortunately--many buy and gobble up so many books written by scholars and leaders in the Church instead of focusing an equal amount of interest and attention on the scriptures themselves.

It's not an "either-or" scenario, it's a "both-and" scenario. We would all do well to search the scriptures ourselves instead of relying on books written by Church leaders to constitute our scripture study based on verses they quote and comment on. Church leaders cannot possibly write enough books quoting enough scriptures to meet our scriptural needs. We should actively read and seek truth in the standard works on our own, and then perhaps turn to the counsel and opinions of inspired Church leaders for expansion and thought-provoking writing.

God expects each of us to be responsible for our spiritual instruction and pursuit of personal revelation. The Church leaders are first and foremost to guide and preside over the Church, not teach seminary.

One last quote:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie said: "Those who preach by the power of the Holy Ghost use the scriptures as their basic source of knowledge and doctrine. They begin with what the Lord has before revealed to other inspired men. But it is the practice of the Lord to give added knowledge to those upon whose hearts the true meanings and intents of the scriptures have been impressed. Many great doctrinal revelations come to those who preach from the scriptures. When they are in tune with the Infinite, the Lord lets them know, first, the full and complete meaning of the scriptures they are expounding, and then he ofttimes expands their views so that new truths flood in upon them, and they learn added things that those who do not follow such a course can never know. Hence, as to `preaching the word,' the Lord commands his servants to go forth `saying none other things than that which the prophets and apostles have written, and that which is taught them by the Comforter through the prayer of faith.' (D&C 52:9.) In a living, growing, divine church, new truths will come from time to time and old truths will be applied with new vigor to new situations, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God" (Promised Messiah, 515-16).

How much of the scriptures do you or I read each day? Can we point to stories and verses in each of the standard works to establish doctrines and principles, or do we solely rely on quoting General Conference addresses? It is good to be able to do both, but we must start with the scriptures. Incidentally, General Conference addresses may reference scriptures or verses we are unfamiliar with, and this can be a great springboard to our own scripture study as we read the scriptures in question for ourselves.

Edited February 18, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[marts1]

Pretty sure there talking here about books published on there own, still searching...probably won't find what I'm looking for, looks like so far.

[MarginOfError]

How does scripture use the word "infinite"? What does it mean in a scriptural context?

Regards,

Finrock

Mathematically speaking, finite is a fancy way of saying "bounded." In other words, something that is finite has limits. Another fairly good-but imperfect-synonym for finite is "measurable."

By negation, then, infinite would be unbounded, or limitless. It can be understood to be immeasurable.

This is why the notion of an "infinite Atonement" is so alluring. By the strictest sense, Christ's Atonement can extend beyond all boundaries and there is nothing we can do that can't be forgiven (note: can't and won't are two different things).

In reference to an infinite host of heaven, it's probably being used as hyperbole, much in the same way we would say that the sands of the sea are infinite. Technically, the sands of the sea are finite...we could theoretically sift and count every last one of them. However, they are so many, that we have no desire to do so. For all intents and purposes, they behave infinitely, so we treat them as infinite.

[MarginOfError]

Pretty sure there talking here about books published on there own, still searching...probably won't find what I'm looking for, looks like so far.

You won't find what you're looking for. Books published by the Church go through the Correlation department, which is responsible for verifying that the content of Church published materials does not contradict the statements in the scriptures.

Thus, statements in Church produced manuals are generally consistent with doctrine, but are not necessarily doctrine.

Let's also keep in mind that the manuals are not intended to explicitly teach doctrine. They are intended to encourage thoughtful discussion about doctrine, so that we may learn by the Spirit.

Gospel Principles is no more Church doctrine than is Teaching, No Greater Call or Our Heritage.

[marts1]

I tend to believe these books have been released for the world to recieve by the direction of the Spirit. I'm sure the church would not do otherwise. I regard them as true as any other book.

[CrimsonKairos]

The Church constantly updates, improves, clarifies and expands on the current curriculum materials, marts1.

The only time the scriptures will be modified is if a new section is added to the D&C, or a First Presidency Proclamation/Declaration is added like the polygamy manifesto, etc (or if more bits of Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation of the Bible is included in footnotes or appendices, or even if the chapter and verse division is changed or updated).

The scriptures, not the books written about the scriptures, are to be our primary source for doctrine (not policy or practice, that is different entirely and that's where living prophets really shine).

You did read this quote by President Joseph F. Smith, right?

"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them.

Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."

Now, do I think Gospel Principles the manual will contradict the scriptures? Probably not.

However, that's not the issue. The issue is that the scriptures are to be our first, last and best source of doctrine by which we measure and discern every other man or woman's writings/teachings.

Think about this: Gospel Principles is written about what's in the scriptures and is based on the scriptures, so how can it supersede the scriptures? The prophets are clear that the standard works, not Church curriculum books, General Conference addresses or independently published media are to be the measuring stick, the canon, that determines our doctrine.

The word "canon" comes from Hebrew "qaneh" which means "reed" and they used reeds as rulers or measuring sticks. The standard works are our canon, measuring stick for doctrine.

[marts1]

I don't recall saying they superceded scripture, just that they are truth. In fact I believe the standard works have a greater importance, one reason being that we are counciled to read from them daily. Not anything else was included in that direction.

[havejoy]

What is 1/3 of infinity?

Regards,

Finrock

Just do the math:

Infinity divided by 3 = N

First take the additive inverse of 3 times infinity which gives you the linear matrix of the radius. Divide that by the angles of induction and reflection to determine the rational root of infinity. Using the Schlafi formula to arrive at the topological equivalence we get the answer.

N = 14.76593 metric butt tons.

give or take a 0.00001 butt ton or two.

[Justice]

even though God says that His creations are without end

Part of the explantion is also that there are still worlds being created, and there will be throught all eternities.

I wanted to also ask if you will expand upon the idea of infinite in scripture being associated with the Priesthood?

The simple answer is that it is God's work to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (His children). He cannot do this entirely by Himself, partly because of the veil which separates Himself from us. So, the method is to use the Priesthood, or give certain authorities to man so that he can help accomplish God's purpose.

I don't believe there was ever a first being; I don't believe there was a first man, a first god, a first angel, or a first God. This is how things have always been, and the authority a Father (not Mother for certain, not so obvious, reasons) uses to bring to pass these things for His children has always been this certain power (called the Priesthood). So, the Priesthood is infinite in it's scope; all who have ever been perfected and exalted have been so by the same power, and in the same way... namely by following the plan (of mortality and a Redeemer) that goes hand in hand with the Priesthood that allows or requires its use.

I'm trying to be short and vague, so I hope it wasn't too cryptic to understand.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Justice

[Vanhin]

Also I'm not aware of any scriptural references to an infinite number of hosts in heaven. I think that is because the heavens, "they are many", and the number of hosts for each heaven is finite. However, if by heaven we mean all of existence and throughout any and all possible worlds, then I do believe infinite is an accurate term, as far as the number of hosts go.

Characteristic of exaltation, as I understand it, is the "continuation of the lives" (D&C 132:22). Those who are exalted will continue to glorify the Father and "bear the souls of men "(D&C 132:63). That alone implies infinite generations to come, even if one does not subscribe to infinite generations past. I don't believe you can have one without the other, however. What Joseph Smith taught about the spirits of mankind is true about other things, if something "[has] a beginning" then "it must have an end" (LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon).

The work of God, which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, is endless. To Moses the Lord revealed, "Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?" (Moses 1:3).

We don't have to comprehend something for it to be true. We do not have the infinite capacity to comprehend things like God does, at this juncture, and we ever find ourselves on linear paths with beginnings and ends, and births and deaths, here in mortality. One day we will have the capacity to comprehend infinite and eternal things, but until then we should "marvel not, neither [should we] doubt" (Hel. 5:49) the revelations that God has given us concerning the eternities.

Regards,

Vanhin

[BenRaines]

I believe the scripture refers to the 3rd part not the 1/3, as others have stated. Could be a small number in reality.

Ben Raines

[RipplecutBuddha]

I believe the scripture refers to the 3rd part not the 1/3, as others have stated. Could be a small number in reality.

Ben Raines

I would laugh if the actual number was 42.....

[marts1]

If there was one that rebeled, stands to reason there would be many to follow.

[Blackmarch]

What is 1/3 of infinity?

Regards,

Finrock

except the scriptures don't say an infinite amount.... and infinite is a very loose or vague term as it can be applied in quite a few different ways.

[Wisc]

There is a specific number of intelligences that are spiritually begotten. If the Father was the Christ of the last Plan of Salvation and Christ is the Father of the next of Salvation there is a point in time where one plan ends and another begins... Hence a finite number if intelligences within every plan!! The spiritual creation is over, that was one of the very early stages of the Plan.

That being said I think a 3rd part does just imply a 3 group or something

http://www.angelpalmoni.com/AngelPalmoni/View_The_Scrolls/Pages/PALMONI_files/Media/Progression%20Scroll%20FULL-3/Progression%20Scroll%20FULL-3.jpg?disposition=download

So what you're saying is that Christ only attoned for the inhabitants of THIS world? And that any other children of God on another world in our same mortal state would need another savior to cover them? And when Jesus said He was the ONLY way to the Father, what He really meant was He was the only way for US on THIS earth to get to the Father? And that means that those elsewhere must go through their messiah and not through Christ?

Im not trying to pick a fight.... but I am saying maybe we should be careful about posting our opinions on such deep doctrine without being able to back it up with some prophet power. :)

[Blackmarch]

So what you're saying is that Christ only attoned for the inhabitants of THIS world? And that any other children of God on another world in our same mortal state would need another savior to cover them? And when Jesus said He was the ONLY way to the Father, what He really meant was He was the only way for US on THIS earth to get to the Father? And that means that those elsewhere must go through their messiah and not through Christ?

Im not trying to pick a fight.... but I am saying maybe we should be careful about posting our opinions on such deep doctrine without being able to back it up with some prophet power. :)

Don't know there isn't wrding that out right clearly designates one or the other... but, there are quite a few that state Christ suffered for all.

Unfortunately all could mean the universes, the universe, the solar system, or just earth.....

however I think when one understands God's love, foresight, and etc... I think the logical and sensible conclusion would be universal.

[Vanhin]

That's right.

That by him [Christ], and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

I don't know how the scriptures can be used to support a less universal salvation with scriptures like that all over the place. By Christ, through Christ, and of Christ, "the worlds are", and the inhabitants thereof receive immortality and eternal life. It's all possible through the merits Christ and his Atonement.

I have always liked this video.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Justice]

Have you studied the term "elias" in much depth? There was a person named Elias, but there are many who are "eliases" or "forerunners and preparers."

Many Gopsel words could be similar, and could be be why so many see it differently.

It *could* be that Christ is a person, and also a term. I know it has ALWAYS been part of the plan for their to be a Redeemer or Christ in every eternity and generation. Obviously, this cannot mean the person who was born on this earth. I re-state what I said in an earlier thread, the Jesus Christ who was born on this earth, and is a spirit Son of Father in Heaven, could NOT have been the Savior or Christ who created then atoned for the earth that Father lived on. This Jesus Christ did not come into existence as a spirit Son of the Father until after the Father was perfected and glorified.

So, that this term Christ is farther reaching than One Being is apparent. The truth we have been given on this earth is that no man comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, the Being who was born on this earth and atoned for this earth's sins. The rest we'll have to sort out later.

[Vanhin]

Have you studied the term "elias" in much depth? There was a person named Elias, but there are many who are "eliases" or "forerunners and preparers."

Many Gopsel words could be similar, and could be be why so many see it differently.

It *could* be that Christ is a person, and also a term. I know it has ALWAYS been part of the plan for their to be a Redeemer or Christ in every eternity and generation. Obviously, this cannot mean the person who was born on this earth. I re-state what I said in an earlier thread, the Jesus Christ who was born on this earth, and is a spirit Son of Father in Heaven, could NOT have been the Savior or Christ who created then atoned for the earth that Father lived on. This Jesus Christ did not come into existence as a spirit Son of the Father until after the Father was perfected and glorified.

So, that this term Christ is farther reaching than One Being is apparent. The truth we have been given on this earth is that no man comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, the Being who was born on this earth and atoned for this earth's sins. The rest we'll have to sort out later.

The thing about truth is that it is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, or it is not truth at all. It is without question that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind, and not just this earth, or our scriptures would not say it.

Jesus Christ has always been in existence, just like you have, or the scriptures would not say it. We don't have to try to make everything fit our temporal comprehension, which temporal models are often only types of infinite and eternal truths that we will fully comprehend one day.

Did you exist before you were "born again" as a child of Christ? How about when you are exalted, and become a "begotten son of God", or an heir to all that He has? Do you exist now? If there was a beginning to Christ, you prove there must be an end to Him. That would be contrary to what the scriptures say about Him.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Justice,

What about Elder Maxwell's video clip above? Do you think that he is mistaken about Christ's jurisdiction being far greater than this earth? What about D&C 76? So, when the Joseph Smith testified that "the worlds" (plural) are in, through, and of Christ (singular, whom they saw at the right hand of the Father), and that through Christ the inhabitants are begotten sons and daughters unto God, how does that jive with your belief that He is the Savior of just this earth?

Regards,

Vanhin

[CrimsonKairos]

So, that this term Christ is farther reaching than One Being is apparent.

That's assuming that our present experience occurred in reverse in another Heavenly Father's stewardship.

I see no reason why our Heavenly Father's stewardship and plan for us has to be the same plan/experience He underwent. When I say I see no reason, I mean no scriptural or doctrinal reason.

[Finrock]

Hello brother! :)

The thing about truth is that it is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, or it is not truth at all. It is without question that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind, and not just this earth, or our scriptures would not say it.

Jesus Christ has always been in existence, just like you have, or the scriptures would not say it. We don't have to try to make everything fit our temporal comprehension, which temporal models are often only types of infinite and eternal truths that we will fully comprehend one day.

Did you exist before you were "born again" as a child of Christ? How about when you are exalted, and become a "begotten son of God", or an heir to all that He has? Do you exist now? If there was a beginning to Christ, you prove there must be an end to Him. That would be contrary to what the scriptures say about Him.

Regards,

Vanhin

I think this post is confusing the argument that is being made. Justice's postion doesn't seem to be one of "existence" but rather about a "state of existence." The question is not did Jesus exist prior to becoming a spirit child of Heavenly Father, but was Jesus the Anointed One before He was a begotten spirit child of Heavenly Father? Further, if Jesus Christ is the Savior of all (defining all in the absolute terms you seem to be using) of mankind, is Jesus then the Savior of Heavenly Father? These aren't rhetorical questions and I invite anyone who has an interest to answer them.

I don't believe that Justices position is about trying to bend truth to fit any temporal comprehension but simple a question of logic. Also, I think it is unfair to label Justice's argument as one that is being made to fit a temporal comprehension as opposed to the alternate view that you are postulating. It is a matter of each one coming from different theological and soteriological views and consequently postulation differing ontological perspectives. One important aspect that I see that is being ignored is that Justice is defining "eternity" as an epoch or generation of time. This is an important distinction and is supported by scripture. Your position seems to define eternity as a never ending continuity, which also has scriptural support. But, I think scriptural speaking, the view that eternity deals with an epoch or a generation of time rather than a never ending continuity, is a strong case.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited February 20, 2010 by Finrock

[Justice]

Justice,

What about Elder Maxwell's video clip above? Do you think that he is mistaken about Christ's jurisdiction being far greater than this earth? What about D&C 76? So, when the Joseph Smith testified that "the worlds" (plural) are in, through, and of Christ (singular, whom they saw at the right hand of the Father), and that through Christ the inhabitants are begotten sons and daughters unto God, how does that jive with your belief that He is the Savior of just this earth?

Regards,

Vanhin

Finrock seems to understand what I'm saying, even if he doesn't agree.

If I said He was the Savior of just this earth, I'm not sure why I did (or where I did). I believe I said He is the Savior for all the world that He created. To us, they are numberless, but not to Him.

[Justice]

Vanhin, the best way I can explain my belief is to use something we're familiar with.

We are born, and begin to exist physically. We did not exist physically until we were born. However, the elements used to "create" our bosy with did exist forever.

I believe spirit birth is much like this. Replace the physical matter with "intelligence" and it seems to work perfectly.

[Vanhin]

Hello brother! :)

I think this post is confusing the argument that is being made. Justice's postion doesn't seem to be one of "existence" but rather about a "state of existence." The question is not did Jesus exist prior to becoming a spirit child of Heavenly Father, but was Jesus the Anointed One before He was a begotten spirit child of Heavenly Father? Further, if Jesus Christ is the Savior of all (defining all in the absolute terms you seem to be using) of mankind, is Jesus then the Savior of Heavenly Father? These aren't rhetorical questions and I invite anyone who has an interest to answer them.

I don't believe that Justices position is about trying to bend truth to fit any temporal comprehension but simple a question of logic. Also, I think it is unfair to label Justice's argument as one that is being made to fit a temporal comprehension as opposed to the alternate view that you are postulating. It is a matter of each one coming from different theological and soteriological views and consequently postulation differing ontological perspectives. One important aspect that I see that is being ignored is that Justice is defining "eternity" as an epoch or generation of time. This is an important distinction and is supported by scripture. Your position seems to define eternity as a never ending continuity, which also has scriptural support. But, I think scriptural speaking, the view that eternity deals with an epoch or a generation of time rather than a never ending continuity, is a strong case.

Regards,

Finrock

Just a quick note before I answer the question of the atonement. I don't define eternity as a never ending continuity in all cases. In fact, I tend to agree that one use of the word "eternal" means an epoch or generation of time. This mainly because the word "eternal" has a more defined meaning in modern scripture. However, the word eternal has been used by modern prophets and the scriptures to mean an endless continuity as well. For example, Joseph Smith described the spirit of man as "eternal", having no end, like a ring. That seems to be an endless continuity, or "one eternal round".

We are familiar with the phrase "for time and for all eternity" as latter-day saints. All eternity in this sense seems to mean "endless continuity". Are we in agreement there? Or does that mean that the "covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, [and] expectations" that are seal by the Holy Spirit of Promise are only in effect for all of this epoch of time (D&C 132:7)? I don't think so. I think they are in effect forever and ever, and endlessly so - or "for all eternity". When I have made my covenants in Holy places, they have been with that promise in mind.

Eternal and infinite are not synonyms. It would be silly if they were, since they are often used together to describe God's, greatness, tenure, and juristiction (ex. [God] is infinite and eternal) The scriptures also use phrases like "from everlasting to everlasting" and endless, sometimes in the same sentence with "eternal". I especially like from "everlasting to everlasting", because it demonstrate a trancendence of the epochs or generations.

In short, I do subscribe to an understanding that abscribes an "endless continuity" to God, but it's not solely because of the meaning of the word "eternal". To me, the scriptures painstakingly make the point with as many adjectives as it does, so that we cannot mistake it. What language could God use to describe an endless continuity, if not those words? In fact, "continue" and "endless" make regular apperances in holy writ as well.

Now about the Atonement of Christ and the Father's exaltation. Jesus taught, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6). I don't see a problem here. The Father is, of course, already at the Father since he is Him. Like Christ, who gave his life and took it back up again, and entered his exaltation, I believe the Father has the power in himself to do the same thing. Or, rather the other way around, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19). Neither the Father, nor the Son, was in need of redemption, since neither would have sinned and died spiritually, and both had power over death. That is true of the Son for sure, and if I am right, of the Father as well. John 5:19 seems to concur.

The rest of us will need at least redemtion from physical death, and the vast majority redemption from sin in order to be redeemed from the fall and return to the presence of God.

Regards,

Vanhin