Degrees Of Glory

[jiggypoo]

Lionheart -

I don't entirely agree with your discertation on the Atonement. You state it as though it had no meaning outside of providing the Ressurection. Surely the Garden experience was not about the Ressurection - but about the blood being given so that we are made white, sanctified through Christ's goodness and sacrifice, this being done so that we can enter into the presence of the Father. The Atonement enables Salvation not just through ressurection, but through GRACE, for we cannot make complete recompense for our actions. The law and justice must be satisfied - and the garden made that wholely possible (i.e. saved by grace after all we can do).

I presume that this would fit within the redemption stage you spoke of. We much first be reconsiled to God, then made pure by Jesus Blood, then endure to the end. Exaltation is enabled through the taking upon ourselves priesthood and covenants required for it.

Atleast, that is how I believe it works.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by jiggypoo@Dec 22 2005, 01:57 PM

Lionheart -

I don't entirely agree with your discertation on the Atonement.  You state it as though it had no meaning outside of providing the Ressurection.  Surely the Garden experience was not about the Ressurection - but about the blood being given so that we are made white, sanctified through Christ's goodness and sacrifice, this being done so that we can enter into the presence of the Father.  The Atonement enables Salvation not just through ressurection, but through GRACE, for we cannot make complete recompense for our actions.  The law and justice must be satisfied - and the garden made that wholely possible (i.e. saved by grace after all we can do).

I presume that this would fit within the redemption stage you spoke of.  We much first be reconsiled to God, then made pure by Jesus Blood, then endure to the end.  Exaltation is enabled through the taking upon ourselves priesthood and covenants required for it. 

Atleast, that is how I believe it works.

←

Oh boy, here we go again Must you keep doing this to me?

Okay, if one fully understands redemption, they will realize that it is a very big thing. Redemption is the doorway to salvation. Whithout it one cannot attain to any of the three degrees of glory. Even all of the greatest prophets of old, like Moses, Abraham, Shem, Melchizidek, all had to wait in a state of limbo until the Saviour was crucified before they could finally enter into their glory; because the price hadn't been paid for their redemption yet.

Adam and Eve were in an immortal condition until they partook of the forbidden fruit. This is known as the fall; because they fell from immortality to mortality. This action doomed all of mankind to suffer death; however, the Saviour's atonement assured all of mankind redemption from the actions of Adam. This is given to us by grace. So through the atonement, we are redeemed from eternal death. Also, if we accept Jesus as our saviour, we will be guaranteed a place in one of the three degrees of glory; all of which carry a certain amount of glory. Our place in those three degrees is our exaltation. Some may attain to a glorious exaltation while others may attain to a not so glorious exaltation. It all depends on our diligence in serving the Lord.

Now there is no such thing as "saved by grace after all we can do" because it is not necessary. Every one who accepts Jesus Christ as their Saviour will be saved in one of the three degrees. Their exaltation in those degrees will depend on them and how they live their life. Another way to term "all we can do" is "do our best". If we don't do our best, yet we still accept Jesus as our Saviour, we will still be saved, just in one of the lower kingdoms. On the other hand, if we truly do our best, we will be saved in one of the higher kingdoms.

All sins will be forgiven except for the sin against the Holy Ghost. Even someone who has committed the most unspeakable sins, could be saved into the highest degree; not very likely but possible. Consider Saul of Tarsus, he was one of the early Christian Church's most dire persecutors, yet he turned his life completely around and was saved into a very high exaltation. Because you see, on judgement day, it's not about what we have done, it's about who we are. That is what the Lord looks at. How have we progressed in this life? Have we used every opportunity to better ourselves, or did we let them slip by and allow ourselves to become more slothful? Understanding this principle will help one more fully understand the parable of the ten talents. You can have two men; both of them truly do their best, however, one of the men makes more temporal accomplishments in this lifetime than the other because of the cards they were dealt. They will both receive the same reward because they both did their best.

This is also why the Saviour instructs us to forgive always. Because it doesn't matter what we have done in the past. The thing that matters is the type of person we are right now, and what is in our hearts.

Although, we will pay a price for our wicked deeds, however, that punishment will be brought on by ourselves and not by the Lord; either in this life or the next. That punishment will be an awakening to our own guilt for squandering our time here doing wicked deeds and not using every opportunity to multiply our talents.

"The strongest words of tongue and pen are those four words 'What Might Have Been"

See Mosiah 2: 33-39

So in response to this statement:

"Surely the Garden experience was not about the Resurrection - but about the blood being given so that we are made white, sanctified through Christ's goodness and sacrifice, this being done so that we can enter into the presence of the Father."

Man was doomed to eternal death for actions not of their own. The Saviour came down and spilled His blood and gave his life in a most brutal manner to redeem mankind from that doom. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. And whosoever should believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. (hence the term "our redeemer")

But that's not all; those who believe in Him will be saved in one of the three degrees of glory. (hence the term "our Saviour")

I view this as being a very important price that He paid; and nothing small by any means. It was out of his grace and love for us that He was willing to do that. And this price could not be paid by just anyone; it had to be paid by someone pure. The best had to be sacrificed in order for us to be able to receive the best opportunities.

We can still enter into the presence of the Father but it won't be a free ride.

I hope this helps you to understand my point a little better; and I apologize for not making it more clear the first time.

[Ray]

LionHeart,

I agree with just about everything you said in your last post, and your previous comment before that, but it might help you to know that most LDS use the word “exaltation” in the context of life after death as a reference to receiving the highest degree of glory possible for all of us to attain, and not simply any degree of glory which is higher than the glory of someone else. And as a matter of fact, most Christians use the word “salvation” in the same way, as being saved to the highest degree of salvation possible.

Or in other words, those of us who do not receive the highest degree of glory possible to us through the atonement of Jesus Christ will not be fully saved and will not be fully exalted, because those of us who do not receive the highest degree of glory possible could have received a higher degree of glory, or exaltation, or salvation, by simply doing their individual best at all that they did do.

And btw, I believe nobody but God is perfect all of the time, no matter how much we might be perfect most of the time, so I thank God that the atonement and His plan of salvation also allows for forgiveness to those of us who truly do Repent.

[jiggypoo]

Lionheart -

What did the Atonement do about sin? Did it play a role in redeeming us from our sins? If so, what role is that?

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by jiggypoo@Dec 24 2005, 12:05 AM

Lionheart -

What did the Atonement do about sin?  Did it play a role in redeeming us from our sins?  If so, what role is that?

←

It did nothing for our sins. That belief comes from the other Christian denominations. They believe that sin keeps us from gaining salvation, and the Saviour's atonement will wash away our sins if we just believe that He is our Saviour; (at least according to my understanding) and this washing away of our sins is our salvation.

LDS doctrine says that we will be saved in one of the three degrees of glory if we believe that Jesus is our Saviour.

Our sins will be forgiven as long as we repent; except for the sin against the Holy Ghost; which is basically not repenting of our sins.

Our sins will not hold us back, but they are a measuring stick to measure our progress in this life.

I will give a little illustration to help you understand this better:

Imagine you're in a sculpting class sculpting a statue of your instructor. Your instructor just so happens to be our Saviour. You will be graded on how closely your statue resembles Him. The twist is that you don't know how much time you have to complete the sculpture. Once the time is up, you will be required to drop your tools and submit your sculpture for final judgement.

This sculpture represents your character; you are trying to make it match Christ's character as closely as possible. The grade you get on it represents your degree of exaltation. If you received 100% on it, then you did an excellent job. 100% would be the highest degree in the celestial kingdom while 0% would be the lowest degree in the telestial kingdom. But everyone in the class will receive a grade on their sculpture, or in other words, everyone in the class will receive an exaltation in one of the three degrees of glory.

The Saviour's atonement represents the fact that we are even at the school; or in other words, our redemption. And our belief in Him is the door key to enter into the classroom; where we will ultimately gain salvation in one of the three degrees.

In this illustration, sin can be likened to piddling around. If we do too much of it, we will not have our sculpture perfected enough when the time expires. It's all about working towards becoming perfect, like our Saviour. Some people may enter the classroom and do absolutely nothing and get a 0%, while others might just turn away completely and not ever enter the classroom. But in the end, it's all about who we have become in this lifetime, or how closely our sculpture resembles Christ before the time expires; not about what we have done; although what we have done has a direct effect on how good our sculpture is. If we have piddled around too much, or in other words, sinned too much, our statue will not come very close the Saviours countenance.

The closer we get our statue to looking like Christ, the more determined we are to stay busy and make the grade. On the other hand, the further we are away from that goal, the more likely we are to get discouraged or distracted; although this may not actually happen with everyone.

Sin is just a measuring stick. If we become perfect, and that becomes who we are, we will not sin any more. The further we are from being perfect, the more we will sin. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes.

Satan will try to use this concept against us by leading us to believe that we have committed such horrendous and/or so many sins that surely, the Lord has given up on us, and that there is no use in even trying any more. This is as far from the truth as it could possibly be. But unfortunately, so many have lost out on a greater exaltation because of this very thing. We must never give up. We must always push foreward and never let feelings of shame or remorse stand in the way of our progress. Letting go of these feelings is part of our repentance. We must put our sins behind us, because that is what our heavenly father does.

Anyway, I hope this answers your question.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 23 2005, 12:09 PM

LionHeart,

I agree with just about everything you said in your last post, and your previous comment before that, but it might help you to know that most LDS use the word “exaltation” in the context of life after death as a reference to receiving the highest degree of glory possible for all of us to attain, and not simply any degree of glory which is higher than the glory of someone else.  And as a matter of fact, most Christians use the word “salvation” in the same way, as being saved to the highest degree of salvation possible. 

Or in other words, those of us who do not receive the highest degree of glory possible to us through the atonement of Jesus Christ will not be fully saved and will not be fully exalted, because those of us who do not receive the highest degree of glory possible could have received a higher degree of glory, or exaltation, or salvation, by simply doing their individual best at all that they did do.

And btw, I believe nobody but God is perfect all of the time, no matter how much we might be perfect most of the time, so I thank God that the atonement and His plan of salvation also allows for forgiveness to those of us who truly do Repent.

←

This is definately true Ray. Both the terms "salvation" and "exaltation" are used in quite a wide range of interpretations. However, in official doctrine, they have a specific place. Most of the time though, when someone speaks of exaltation they will usually say "glorious exaltation". ie "he attained to a glorious exaltation." This sort of helps to realize that they are speaking of a higher exaltation than just simply an exaltation.

[jiggypoo]

So what you are saying is this:

1) Salvation = Ability to enter one of The 3 Degrees of Glory (done by Atonement)

2) Exaltation = inheriting a Degree of Glory (determined by nature of works done in this life)

Is this what you are getting at?

[john doe]

This is definately true Ray. Both the terms "salvation" and "exaltation" are used in quite a wide range of interpretations. However, in official doctrine, they have a specific place. Most of the time though, when someone speaks of exaltation they will usually say "glorious exaltation". ie "he attained to a glorious exaltation." This sort of helps to realize that they are speaking of a higher exaltation than just simply an exaltation.

Hmmmmm. Glorious exaltation. In my 40+ years of living among LDS in the heart of LDS country, in many locations, I have never heard this term. And I've listened to some pretty wild theorists. Are you sure you're not making this up as you go? Perhaps you could point us to some speeches made by GA's that reference these these things and the differences?

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by jiggypoo@Dec 24 2005, 02:52 AM

So what you are saying is this:

1) Salvation = Ability to enter one of The 3 Degrees of Glory (done by Atonement)

2) Exaltation = inheriting a Degree of Glory (determined by nature of works done in this life)

Is this what you are getting at?

←

Precisely.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by john doe@Dec 24 2005, 09:43 AM

This is definately true Ray. Both the terms "salvation" and "exaltation" are used in quite a wide range of interpretations. However, in official doctrine, they have a specific place. Most of the time though, when someone speaks of exaltation they will usually say "glorious exaltation". ie "he attained to a glorious exaltation." This sort of helps to realize that they are speaking of a higher exaltation than just simply an exaltation.

Hmmmmm. Glorious exaltation. In my 40+ years of living among LDS in the heart of LDS country, in many locations, I have never heard this term. And I've listened to some pretty wild theorists. Are you sure you're not making this up as you go? Perhaps you could point us to some speeches made by GA's that reference these these things and the differences?

←

Why, don't you believe me? It makes sense, doesn't it?

But no, I am not making this up as I go. This is how it was taught according to the early leaders. There is a little booklet written by the late Apostle Orson F. Whitney called "The Way, The Truth and The Life". That touches on these principles.

Actually, the term "glorious exaltation" was used more often among the early leaders than the latter ones. I study the early teachings more often than I study the latter ones. I have also heard the term "exaltation in the highest kingdom".

The websters dictionary term for the word "exalt" is as follows:

1. To raise in rank, power etc.; elevate. 2. to praise; extol.

Some people could gain a slight exaltation, while others might gain a glorious one.

Even if you look at the three degrees as a whole and not consider the degrees within them, one who has earned a place in the terrestrial kingdom would be exalted above those in the telestial. All three of them are glorious; there is just a most glorious and a least glorious.

But perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "Official Doctrine" because really the only thing that is official are the things in the standard works. And I don't think they go into this principle in such detail. They just give you a little here and a little there. Most of my information comes from discourses given by early leaders; which aren't canonized as scripture. But, if those men were prophets, and this principle is what the Lord revealed to them, then it's not likely that it's changed.

But if it has been your understanding that exaltation only appplies to the celestial kingdom, and you can find some references that prove that I just misunderstood what I read, I will gladly be set straight. I don't care if I get proved wrong, the only thing that matters to me is that I know the truth.

[jiggypoo]

Lionheart --

thanks for the answer. My reply:

I've re-read your words & pondered them.

You state that sin will be used as a measuring stick for our progress, but we will earn our glory by our works. These statements seemt to be in contradiction. If my glory is determined by works, then works is the measuring stick - "sin" and "works of pure, single intent" being types of the "works to be judged by" category.

You state: "Now there is no such thing as "saved by grace after all we can do" because it is not necessary. "

Tell me what Nephi meant by his statement in 2NE 25:23? If it is not necessary, then why did he make such a statement?

You state that the Atonement does nothing about sin. Please explain the following verse:

Alma 22:14

This verses clearly states to me a relationship between the Atonement and sin. Please clarify how you came to understand the Atonement as doing nothing about sin.

You say: "Because you see, on judgement day, it's not about what we have done, it's about who we are"

I agree it will not be about what we've done. I believe it will be WHY we've done it. It is the WHY that defines the WHO in our being, not the WHAT. God judges upon intent, not exclusively upon action. I believe this may be what you are trying to convey here.

"Have we used every opportunity to better ourselves, or did we let them slip by and allow ourselves to become more slothful? Understanding this principle will help one more fully understand the parable of the ten talents. You can have two men; both of them truly do their best, however, one of the men makes more temporal accomplishments in this lifetime than the other because of the cards they were dealt. They will both receive the same reward because they both did their best."

Yes, this is again coming to the WHY of the matter, rather than the materialist perspective of WHAT. As for life's circumstances, I do understand that Lord takes into account all the cards. If He didn't, He would not be Just nor Merciful.

"This is also why the Saviour instructs us to forgive always. Because it doesn't matter what we have done in the past. The thing that matters is the type of person we are right now, and what is in our hearts."

God instructs us to forgive so that we may be forgiven also. Forgiveness isn't simple, nor trite. Forgiveness is an act of genuine Love, a sign of Grace that we can ill afford to let pass, nor withhold from those passing before us.

As for the past - it DOES matter. It will show the intent of our heart. It will reveal the hypocrite and the slothful, as well as the enduring righteous. The NOW will not matter at this point, as the definition of our character will be blazen upon our soul and evidenced by our past.

"Although, we will pay a price for our wicked deeds, however, that punishment will be brought on by ourselves and not by the Lord;"

The Lord states clearly in D&C 19:15-19 that it will be He who exercises justice and allows the just punishments to commence upon those who fail to repent and use the Atonement to wash their souls clean. I believe you may be stating it is we who EARNED this reward by sinning.

As for "our wicked deeds", we will suffer for only those that we do not repent of. We will be free of those sins of which we've been forgiven. This forgiveness comes by way of the Atonement of Christ. We are sanctified through Him. D&C 20:30-31 states we are justified through the Grace of Jesus, and thus sanctified through Him. This enables us to partake of the reward our works of pure, single intent have earned us.

As for the punishment, I believe you are correct - it is designed to change flawed character and lead a person to redemption.

A note about the Atonement: it isn't just about physical redemption. It is about spiritual redemption of the person. The Atonement, when applied fully, changes character flaws and purifies the individual. It is called sanctification. It is spoken of much by the early prophets and is a central point of the Scriptures. We much be sanctified before we can inherent any type of glory - for no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God.

[john doe]

Actually, the term "glorious exaltation" was used more often among the early leaders than the latter ones. I study the early teachings more often than I study the latter ones.

So, you listen to the teachings of the dead prophets more than the living ones.

Oooookaaaaaayyyyyy.

[LionHeart]

*"You state that sin will be used as a measuring stick for our progress, but we will earn our glory by our works. These statements seemt to be in contradiction. If my glory is determined by works, then works is the measuring stick - "sin" and "works of pure, single intent" being types of the "works to be judged by" category."*

Actually they go hand in hand if you look at it right. The closer you are to perfection, the less you sin and the more good works you will do. This is what tells you how close your character is to perfection and what type of person you have become; which is what you are judged by. That is the concept I had in mind.

*"You state: "Now there is no such thing as "saved by grace after all we can do" because it is not necessary. "

Tell me what Nephi meant by his statement in 2NE 25:23? If it is not necessary, then why did he make such a statement?

You state that the Atonement does nothing about sin. Please explain the following verse:

Alma 22:14*

This verses clearly states to me a relationship between the Atonement and sin. Please clarify how you came to understand the Atonement as doing nothing about sin."

You are right and I thank you for pointing this out. I was under the impression that you were referring to the sectarian world's interpretation of salvation; in which case this statement is correct.

2nd Nephi 25:23 says "know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do."

Alma 22:14 says "but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance."

These two scriptures refer to the same thing; which is covered by my earlier posts; I just didn't put it in a context that would link it with these scriptures.

See, again another way to say "after all we can do" is "after we have done our best." So in other words, we do our best, and strive for perfection, and repent of our sins, and it is through the grace of God that we are forgiven. Through His grace, he is willing to look past our sins and see what we have made of ourselves, and not hold our sins against us. Notice, the part where Alma says that it is through our faith and repentance that our sins are atoned for.

So the atonement guarantees redemption and if we believe, and repent of our sins, it also guarantees salvation. Through the grace of God, we are forgiven of our sins.

*"This is also why the Saviour instructs us to forgive always. Because it doesn't matter what we have done in the past. The thing that matters is the type of person we are right now, and what is in our hearts."

God instructs us to forgive so that we may be forgiven also. Forgiveness isn't simple, nor trite. Forgiveness is an act of genuine Love, a sign of Grace that we can ill afford to let pass, nor withhold from those passing before us.

As for the past - it DOES matter. It will show the intent of our heart. It will reveal the hypocrite and the slothful, as well as the enduring righteous. The NOW will not matter at this point, as the definition of our character will be blazen upon our soul and evidenced by our past.*

Precisely. God does instruct us to forgive so that we may be forgiven also. And why? Partly because in the Lords eyes it doesn't matter what we have done in the past. And if we are to be like him, we must be able to love and forgive others the same way He does.

As for what we have done in the past, again that is a measuring stick of our progress, so it would matter to us, but the Lord has the ability to look into our hearts and see who we have become in this lifetime. He doesn't need past events to see that. When we sinned in the past, that was because that was who we were at the time the sin was committed; the capacity to commit that sin was part of our character. But that doesn't necessarily mean that is who we are still.

This is the way I understand it as far as sins are concerned, but like you touched on, the Lord would take into account our enduring righteousness. Otherwise He would not test us in it.

* "Although, we will pay a price for our wicked deeds, however, that punishment will be brought on by ourselves and not by the Lord;"

The Lord states clearly in D&C 19:15-19 that it will be He who exercises justice and allows the just punishments to commence upon those who fail to repent and use the Atonement to wash their souls clean. I believe you may be stating it is we who EARNED this reward by sinning.

As for "our wicked deeds", we will suffer for only those that we do not repent of. We will be free of those sins of which we've been forgiven. This forgiveness comes by way of the Atonement of Christ. We are sanctified through Him. D&C 20:30-31 states we are justified through the Grace of Jesus, and thus sanctified through Him. This enables us to partake of the reward our works of pure, single intent have earned us.*

I guess one must then ask the question "what is that punishment?" Here is what I was referring to when I said it will be brought on by us and not the Lord. In the book of Mosiah 2: 38, it says "Therefore if a man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do waken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt and pain and anguish which is like an unquenchable fire whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."

So you can see by this that it is our own guilt that is our punishment. True, the Lord allowed it to come upon us, but it is ultimately brought on by ourselves.

As for the very wicked, sometimes the Lord will come and inflict vengeance on them while in this lifetime, but when we get to the other side, we will waller in our own guilt.

And yes, we will be free of those sins which we repent of, but we will not be free of the remorseful feelings we will have from not attaining to the highest degree because of the fact that it was in our nature to commit those sins. And when I say "sins" in this particular instance, I am referring to those sins that could have been avoided; because of the fact that this life is a learning process and it is inevitable that we will commit sin. That is what we signed on for. However, those sins which we commit twice or the sins we are warned about through the teachings and actions of others are the ones we could have avoided. These are the ones that will effect us. But it will not be the sin itself that bothers us; it will be the fact that we allowed that to be a part of our nature after being warned about it in one way or another. I will quote again "The strongest words of tongue and pen are those four words, 'what might have been.'"

But let me tell you how I came to this understanding. Riddled throughout the scriptures and the teachings of the early prophets, you will find bits and pieces of this topic. What I'm trying to do is put them all together in one picture. So this being the case, I really appreciate your input on it because it points out where I might be misunderstanding something and it helps me to better understand it as well.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by john doe@Dec 24 2005, 06:18 PM

Actually, the term "glorious exaltation" was used more often among the early leaders than the latter ones. I study the early teachings more often than I study the latter ones.

So, you listen to the teachings of the dead prophets more than the living ones.

Oooookaaaaaayyyyyy.

←

Yes. Is this wrong? The reason I do is this: In a little booklet called "Marks of the Church of Christ" written by the late elder Edwin F. Parry, it says that the true church will be one in doctrine. This being the case, I study the gospel as taught by the early leaders because that is the guarantee that I will be getting the pure, undefiled message. If Joseph Smith was truly a prophet, then one would be wise to be one with him in doctrine. And how else would you know how he taught the gospel without studying his teachings; or any other prophet for that matter. And I don't agree with the concept that living prophets trump dead ones. If anything it would be the other way around. If the living prophet tried to contradict the dead one, assuming you had a testimony that the dead one was a true prophet, then to me, that would expose the living one as being false.

[john doe]

If anything it would be the other way around. If the living prophet tried to contradict the dead one, assuming you had a testimony that the dead one was a true prophet, then to me, that would expose the living one as being false.

So which Prophet was false concerning blacks and the priesthood, JS, BY, or SWK? Also, do you not think that perhaps some of the early LDS leaders may have brought some of their own religious thoughts, attitudes, traditions, and biases along with them when they joined the church?

[jiggypoo]

Lionheart -

It seems we're really on the same page, as I agree with much of what you have said. Thanks for a good discussion. I feel edified.

[BenRaines]

Here is what a leader of the church has said about following the living prophet.

Ezra Taft Benson, “Listen to a Prophet’s Voice,” Ensign, Jan. 1973

While we have the scriptures to learn from I will listen to the words of a living prophet.

If we do not listen to them, why have them?

[Josie]

In the days we live in today, I am sooooooo thankful for having a living prophet to guide us through these times and let us know what the Lord would have us do. I trust our prophet, whoever the Lord calls to get me through each minute of each day, and I fill that I need his words alittle more with each passing day.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by john doe@Dec 25 2005, 12:55 PM

If anything it would be the other way around. If the living prophet tried to contradict the dead one, assuming you had a testimony that the dead one was a true prophet, then to me, that would expose the living one as being false.

So which Prophet was false concerning blacks and the priesthood, JS, BY, or SWK? Also, do you not think that perhaps some of the early LDS leaders may have brought some of their own religious thoughts, attitudes, traditions, and biases along with them when they joined the church?

←

I see what you are attempting to do here. You are attempting to get me backed in a corner where you can condemn me for whatever I say. But I will play along. Here is my standing on this matter:

I do think that some of the early leaders brought some of their personal opinions and biases into the picture; some more than others however. And no more then than they do now.

But I have studied the life of Joseph Smith enough to know that he put his personal life aside. He was close enough to God that I would trust my life to the things he taught. He was told in a revelation that he was stronger in spiritual works than in temporal works so he dedicated his efforts to the Church; and no longer labored for the sustainance of himself or his family. All of that was provided by donations of time, food, supplies, and money by faithful members.

Brigham Young, on the other hand, was more of a temporal leader than a spiritual leader. And I percieve him as being more opinionated than Joseph Smith.

As for my answer to your question in regards to the blacks holding the priesthood, and who the false prophet was, I will say that I have no opinion to give. I have heard that Joseph Smith taught that the blacks could not hold the priesthood, but I have been unable to find any evidence to support it thus far. I have found evidence that Joseph Smith taught that the blacks carried the curse of Cain however. But I also know that joseph smith personally believed that the blacks should be treated equal but they should not be allowed to marry the whites. He even imposed fines on two blacks for attempting this in Nauvoo.

But according to what I have found thus far, it was Brigham Young who actually instigated the priesthood ban. And from what I gather, he was somewhat racist. So his personal opinion may very well have had something to do with it.

Therefore, because of the lack of evidence for or against Joseph Smith teaching it, I take no stand. I will add that because I live where I do, I don't come across very many blacks, but the ones I have came across have been very respectable people. Therfore I hold nothing against them.

[john doe]

Nice waffle. Can I get eggs and bacon with that?

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by john doe@Dec 26 2005, 09:17 AM

Nice waffle. Can I get eggs and bacon with that?

←

Dude, you really need to extract the stick.

[GRR8]

Originally posted by john doe@Dec 26 2005, 09:17 AM

Nice waffle. Can I get eggs and bacon with that?

←

In regards to Negroes being unable to recieve the two priesthoods, this doctrine held up through 1979. Finally, President/Prophet Spencer Kimball had the guts to do what was right, and remove this edict. Why it was practiced, or rather, the excuses given, 'Curse of Cain' etc, were man made excuses, not Godly ones. Now here is something more to consider, if people of faith in this organization are taught that the Prophets have the ability to be visited by 'Gods' and Joseph Smith Jr says he was, even before there was the Prophet of his time, then wouldnt it be logical to assume that anyone can be visited by the 'Gods' at the request of prayerful individuals? I could get a visitation proclaiming from God that Iapetus was a home to human ancestors, just as Joseph claimed he was told that 'God' lives on a planet near the Star he calls,,,Kolob. The exclusivity of Blacks to the so called Godly priesthoods in the LDS church, up till 1979, is a sordid chapter in church history, allbeit nothing close to the Catholic History, but exclusive nevertheless. There is not one sane excuse for this. Jesus was a Jew. Not a Christian. But yet he gave the priesthood to NON JEWS. So wheres the logic in the exclusivity of blacks to the priesthoods of your church up until 1979 fit in? Is it logical to assume that individuals are responsible for their actions just as the church teaches concerning he beginnings of sin, or does it allow the 'blanket sin covers all mankind' that other churches teach. No it does not. Therefore, using this same logic, the so called 'Curse of Cain' shoulndt be a curse at all. Just a genetic mutation rather. Hell, we are all genetic mutations, of varying degrees, so for this denial of priesthoods to black faithful believers in the lds church is a sin in and of itself and hypocritical of the doctrines of faith of the lds church up until 1979. If there really is a God, why does he not appear to anyone else nowadays. Why does he not appear to the current prophet? Why did he not appear to the modern prophets of the 20th century and this current century. If God is the same today and always, then why wouldnt God appear to every Prophet through all the ages? I bring these topics up because there appears to be holes in some of the churches doctrines

[john doe]

Originally posted by LionHeart+Dec 26 2005, 09:22 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-john doe@Dec 26 2005, 09:17 AM

Nice waffle. Can I get eggs and bacon with that?

←

Dude, you really need to extract the stick.

←

Could you explain what you mean by this? Please be as specific and graphic as necessary. I think you are trying to insult me since you can't rationally explain your invalid position, but please feel free to prove me wrong on that point.

[LionHeart]

Originally posted by john doe+Dec 28 2005, 01:54 AM-->

Originally posted by LionHeart@Dec 26 2005, 09:22 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-john doe@Dec 26 2005, 09:17 AM

Nice waffle. Can I get eggs and bacon with that?

←

Dude, you really need to extract the stick.

←

Could you explain what you mean by this? Please be as specific and graphic as necessary. I think you are trying to insult me since you can't rationally explain your invalid position, but please feel free to prove me wrong on that point.

←

I'll let you use your imagination on This one. It could even be a good thing if you want it to be.

I really don't see why you think my position is invalid. It's perfectly clear to me. I think Joseph Smith brought his personal opinion to the table less than Brigham Young did. And Since I have only heard that Joseph Smith instigated the priesthood ban but I cannot find anything to verify it, my position remains neutral and will remain so until I find something to either support it or prove it wrong.

Is this clear enough for you?

Anyway, which one do you think was in the wrong out of J.S., B.Y., or S.W.K.?

On a further note, what is the deal with you? When did I offend you; that would warrant such attacks?

[john doe]

Dude, you really need to extract the stick.

On a further note, what is the deal with you? When did I offend you; that would warrant such attacks?

You wrote both of these, yet you are accusing me of attacking you?

To help you out in your quest: there is good evidence that JS ordained a black man to the priesthood. It appears that the priesthood ban was instituted under BY, and he may have used the "descendents of Cain" as part of the explanation for it. SWK, obviously, was the prophet who revealed that all men may hold the priesthood, making the priesthood available to all men regardless of their ethnic background.

If you will remember, you were the one who made the claim that you would rather follow the teachings of the dead prophets, and compare their words against the current prophets, and if there was a difference, you could tell that the living one was false. I take exception to this stance. I believe that the living prophet, if we are sustaining him as the prophet, and if we believe that he is the prophet, would trump the dead prophets, since he would be giving us information that God would want us to have at this time.

Thus my Question: it seems that some of the dead prophets may have contradicted each other on this issue, and I would guess that there are many other cases as well if someone wanted to take the time to research them. So, which dead prophet do you believe? My point was not to make you defensive, but to help you see that the JoD is not the be-all end-all for LDS doctrine and positions. The JoD is not LDS scripture, and never was intended to be, no matter how much some people want to elevate it to that stature. It does not hold the same weight as the First Presidency Message in the current issue of the Ensign. And if an old Ensign conflicts with a new Ensign, if you sustain the current Prophet, in my mind the new one trumps the old one. I believe in continuing revelation. Do you?

Now,