Our pre/post mortal name?

[selek]

See, I would have hit the laugh button on your post because of this one little sentence!! ~TG

As was my intention...

...so how come you didn't?

[SteveVH]

As I stated, the distinction was implicit in your phrasing.

On the other hand, I accept your clarification that the perceived distinction was not deliberate.

Thank you.

The Church would be of poor little use if it were not.

We already have a surfeit of "Christian" churches each espousing their own particular sectarian practice, creed, or kitsch.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be of no value if it were simply one more variation of the common theme.

I agree 100%. To be clear I certainly did not mean that as a criticism. The Catholic Church is pretty unique as well.

You are, but don't take it too hard.

Not everyone can be as consistently and unfailingly correct as I am.

No doubt.

For the record, I categorically reject that characterization.

If a poster has something thoughtful or insightful to say, I can generally be counted upon to laud that poster's words- regardless of their announced faith or lack thereof. I have done so in several instances in your own case.

If a poster has genuine questions and displays a sincere interest in learning and understanding LDS thought on a particular matter, I am more than eager to assist them.

I do not, however, believe in sugar coating hard truths, nor in coddling or indulging those who are here only to flaunt their own ignorance or to stir up contention.

While we disagree on a number of points, our disagreements have thus far been civil, if not necessarily genteel- a state of affairs I have no interest in changing.

I can live with that.

Others, however, are not so "above board".

I have been doing amateur apologetics (frequenting boards such as these and answering questions in other venues) for a number of years now.

And to be perfectly blunt: there are people out there who will tell any lie, don any mask, and poison any well in order to attack and discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

While an unpleasant reality, it is nonetheless an eternal verity- for both the LDS Church as well as the Catholic.

So before presuming to cluck your tongue at me for being "twitchy", you might do well to consider how I came by my scars.

I can certainly empathize with your experience.

[SteveVH]

However, I know what makes sense (to me, obviously). I don't think that there are cosmic "pools" of angel matter, God matter, regular-going-to-be-human matter. I am not making fun. I am just trying to explain that this just doesn't seem correct to me.

Well, I would say that is a good thing. It doesn't make sense to me either. I don't really know how to respond. "Pools" of angel matter and God matter and human matter? Maybe you can explain further. God created lizards and he created horses, does this mean there is a pool of lizard matter and a pool of horse matter as well?

In the first estate, we were all spirit off-spring of our Heavenly Father. The Savior became the only begotten when he was born of flesh and blood through the sacred union between Mary (an earthly woman) and Heavenly Father (a god, our Heavenly Father). The rest of us are literal spirit children of our Heavenly Father, but we are born of mortal mothers and mortal fathers. Jesus is different. Rightly so.

Yes, I am aware of this belief.

Only begotten = the only spiritual off-spring to also be born of flesh and blood of Heavenly Father. It does not mean, to me, that the Savior was the only spirit begotten of Heavenly Father.

Okay.

I have come to understand that the Savior became our "father" when he atoned for all the sins of man, when he ransomed himself for each of us.

What happened to the Father who was Father prior to the atonement?

Don't we have brothers and sisters in our mortal families who "rebel", or who turn against what they have been taught?

Why couldn't that have happened in our spiritual family?

It did, although I don't believe I was present. But I respect your position.

This is why it does not offend or bother me to know that Lucifer was once in the first estate with me, or that he rebelled.

Doesn't bother me either. Lucifer was the most beautiful of the angels, until he rebelled. Then he wasn't in heaven anymore and wasn't so beautiful anymore. It is what it is.

Lucifer made a mistake. A big one. His rebellion not only robbed him of his inheritance (of gaining a body and getting to live with God again if he lived righteously), but it lead 1/3 of God's other spirit children astray. They chose to follow Lucifer, thus damning themselves to the same eternal banishment and punishment as Lucifer.

Yes, this would be consistent with your belief that there is no difference in nature between you and angels and God.

It makes sense that Satan is trying his hardest to destroy us, considering that he rebelled against his Father, against his brother, and against light and truth itself. He hates us. We represent everything he will never have: Bodies. Families. Love. Joy. Peace. Eternal happiness.

His hatred of me, of you, of every good person (regardless of religion or lack thereof) makes more sense understanding that he was once in the presence of all truth, all righteousness, of his very Father in Heaven, and yet he rebelled.

He not only hates us for what we have, but he must hate himself an awful lot for making such a monumental mistake. The mistake of all mistakes. To rebel against Father, while in His presence.

For me, this brings clearer, deeper meaning to the commandment to honor thy mother and father.

I guess you cannot make me "feel" what you believe, any more than I can make you "feel" what I believe. I just know that I have found what makes my soul sing. I have found what makes my head and heart agree. I have found what I would die for. I have found what I will live for. I have no fear, no shame, no regrets. I know that I have found what makes physical sense, spiritual sense, and cosmic sense to me.

Hope I was clear.

Crystal. And I am very happy for you.

Edited March 7, 2013 by StephenVH

[Roseslipper]

Non-LDS Christians don't believe Lucifer is a son of God. He is a creation of God, an angel to be specific, but not a son. We do not believe angels are the same as God or the same as humans.

We believe that mankind can become a son of God by adoption, not by lineage. So we do not believe we are the same substance as God. We believe we can become godly in our actions and heart, but we don't believe we can become gods.

I don't claim to be an expert on LDS theology, but these are differences I have noted.

I did not know this about other Christians not believing Lucifer was a son of God....Hey Im a jamp!! Jewish American Mormon Princess

[Tough Grits]

Well, I would say that is a good thing. It doesn't make sense to me either. I don't really know how to respond. "Pools" of angel matter and God matter and human matter? Maybe you can explain further. God created lizards and he created horses, does this mean there is a pool of lizard matter and a pool of horse matter as well?

Sorry, StephenVH. I read very fast and I type very fast. I have to say, though, that when I was reading your comment "pools" of matter or spiritual essence is the image that came to my mind. I can't explain it any better than I originally did. Maybe that's for the best!! :)

What happened to the Father who was Father prior to the atonement?

I actually had more to my original post regarding this...but I deleted it before hitting the "Submit Reply" button.

It has taken me 14 years of discipleship, of study, of pondering, of prayer, and of living what I believe to come to the knowledge (minimal as it may be) that I have about the Savior. How can that be put into words? Some things just have to be lived to understand. :)

I just don't have any deep doctrinal pearls about God's nature, essence, and/or substance. All I can offer is the basic, overly-simplistic testimony that I know that He is my Father in Heaven, that I lived with Him and learned the gospel plan before coming to earth, and that I am striving to get back to Him. I have nothing complicated to offer about the Savior, only my simple testimony that he lives, that he atoned for all mankind, and that he is the only begotten of Heavenly Father. ~TG

[SteveVH]

Sorry, StephenVH. I read very fast and I type very fast. I have to say, though, that when I was reading your comment "pools" of matter or spiritual essence is the image that came to my mind. I can't explain it any better than I originally did. Maybe that's for the best!! :)

I actually had more to my original post regarding this...but I deleted it before hitting the "Submit Reply" button.

It has taken me 14 years of discipleship, of study, of pondering, of prayer, and of living what I believe to come to the knowledge (minimal as it may be) that I have about the Savior. How can that be put into words? Some things just have to be lived to understand. :)

I just don't have any deep doctrinal pearls about God's nature, essence, and/or substance. All I can offer is the basic, overly-simplistic testimony that I know that He is my Father in Heaven, that I lived with Him and learned the gospel plan before coming to earth, and that I am striving to get back to Him. I have nothing complicated to offer about the Savior, only my simple testimony that he lives, that he atoned for all mankind, and that he is the only begotten of Heavenly Father. ~TG

To be real honest, I think a simple faith is many times the most authentic. We enter heaven through the grace of God, not because we might know a bunch of "stuff". And all we are really asked to do is love him with all our heart, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourself. So that is really the task before us. :)

[Traveler]

To be real honest, I think a simple faith is many times the most authentic. We enter heaven through the grace of God, not because we might know a bunch of "stuff". And all we are really asked to do is love him with all our heart, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourself. So that is really the task before us. :)

Does no one else see the great conflict with this post? First it was said that we can only enter heaven by G-d's grace and not anything we learn? Really? Then the next statement implies that we must learn a bunch of really difficult stuff - in particular we must learn to love G-d and we must also learn to love our fellow man????

If there is a task before us then it really is not the task of G-d's grace.

The Traveler

[pam]

Does no one else see the great conflict with this post? First it was said that we can only enter heaven by G-d's grace and not anything we learn? Really? Then the next statement implies that we must learn a bunch of really difficult stuff - in particular we must learn to love G-d and we must also learn to love our fellow man????

If there is a task before us then it really is not the task of G-d's grace.

The Traveler

And then again this is the Christian Beliefs Forum where thoughts and beliefs by members of all faiths are presented. Now whether we, as LDS, agree or not really is irrelevent in this forum. We welcome thoughts and perspectives from those of other religions as long as all is done respectfully.

[SteveVH]

Does no one else see the great conflict with this post? First it was said that we can only enter heaven by G-d's grace and not anything we learn? Really? Then the next statement implies that we must learn a bunch of really difficult stuff - in particular we must learn to love G-d and we must also learn to love our fellow man????

If there is a task before us then it really is not the task of G-d's grace.

The Traveler

All I am saying, Traveler, is that our first obligation as Christians is to love. That doesn't require that we learn anything and any knowledge we do attain is useless without it. There is much to be said for a simple faith centered on loving God and neighbor. In fact, that must be the basis for all Christian faith, in my opinion.

[Traveler]

All I am saying, Traveler, is that our first obligation as Christians is to love. That doesn't require that we learn anything and any knowledge we do attain is useless without it. There is much to be said for a simple faith centered on loving God and neighbor. In fact, that must be the basis for all Christian faith, in my opinion.

I am suggesting that love is learned. I could say it is learned from G-d through the spirit - but I have come to believe that all truth is learned from G-d through the spirit. Like any other thing learned - learning starts with discipline.

There is a saying that there is none so blind as those that will not see. In the scriptures we are commanded to love. I do not see that learning to love is that different from learning any other discipline. That love is an acquired taste and deliberately developed attribute - that comes from practice and repetition - not desire out of control or a lucky chance encounter as the “world” seems to portray love.

Maybe I am off on this but it seems to me that the scriptures are clear - we learn to love G-d by keeping the commandments. If we think we can love G-d without the discipline of the commandments we are badly mistaken - or as the scriptures very harshly say - we lie. I honestly believe that those that try or think to love G-d without the discipline of the commandments are putting the cart before the horse - they have it all backwards.

I believe that without discipline the grace of G-d is wasted. I do also understand that without the Grace of G-d discipline is impossible. So if someone keeps the commandments the only possible result is to love G-d - which is not possible without keeping the commandments. Thus it is that G-d gives us commandments out of his love and grace and we become a partner with G-d’s grace by our efforts to learn the necessary “knowledge” to become disciplined by way of G-d’s commandments - we learn love of G-d and our fellow men.

The Traveler

Edited March 21, 2013 by Traveler

[Traveler]

And then again this is the Christian Beliefs Forum where thoughts and beliefs by members of all faiths are presented. Now whether we, as LDS, agree or not really is irrelevent in this forum. We welcome thoughts and perspectives from those of other religions as long as all is done respectfully.

I am trying to understand exactly what the belief is. I do this by asking a question concerning what appears to me to be a contradiction.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

I am suggesting that love is learned. I could say it is learned from G-d through the spirit - but I have come to believe that all truth is learned from G-d through the spirit. Like any other thing learned - learning starts with discipline.

John tells us that God is love. We are made in the image and likeness of God, therefore we are made in the image and likeness of love; it is a part of who we are. That is why even a mentally challenged human being who is not capable of learning past a very elementery level, is, nevertheless, capable of loving and in many cases, loving better than those with higher intellectual capacity.

There is a saying that there is none so blind as those that will not see. In the scriptures we are commanded to love. I do not see that learning to love is that different from learning any other discipline. That love is an acquired taste and deliberately developed attribute - that comes from practice and repetition - not desire out of control or a lucky chance encounter as the “world” seems to portray love.

Yes, love is an act of the will. Even when we do not like someone, we can will to love them; indeed, we are commanded to love them. I would not agree that love is an acquired taste, as if it is something at first repulsive or distasteful.

Maybe I am off on this but it seems to me that the scriptures are clear - we learn to love G-d by keeping the commandments. If we think we can love G-d without the discipline of the commandments we are badly mistaken - or as the scriptures very harshly say - we lie. I honestly believe that those that try or think to love G-d without the discipline of the commandments are putting the cart before the horse - they have it all backwards.

Keeping the commandments is something we will do because we love. The commandments are love in action and if we do not keep them it is because we do not love God. Jesus didn't say keep my commands in order to learn how to love me. He said those who love him will keep his commands. Love comes first, not last.

I believe that without discipline the grace of G-d is wasted. I do also understand that without the Grace of G-d discipline is impossible. So if someone keeps the commandments the only possible result is to love G-d - which is not possible without keeping the commandments. Thus it is that G-d gives us commandments out of his love and grace and we become a partner with G-d’s grace by our efforts to learn the necessary “knowledge” to become disciplined by way of G-d’s commandments - we learn love of G-d and our fellow men.

The Traveler

Spiritual discipline is absolutely necessary. I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot say that we love God while breaking his commandments. This is the entire reason that Jesus could sum up all of the commandments in the first two; Love God and neighbor and you will keep all of the commandments.

[Traveler]

John tells us that God is love. We are made in the image and likeness of God, therefore we are made in the image and likeness of love; it is a part of who we are. That is why even a mentally challenged human being who is not capable of learning past a very elementery level, is, nevertheless, capable of loving and in many cases, loving better than those with higher intellectual capacity.

Yes, love is an act of the will. Even when we do not like someone, we can will to love them; indeed, we are commanded to love them. I would not agree that love is an acquired taste, as if it is something at first repulsive or distasteful.

Keeping the commandments is something we will do because we love. The commandments are love in action and if we do not keep them it is because we do not love God. Jesus didn't say keep my commands in order to learn how to love me. He said those who love him will keep his commands. Love comes first, not last.

Is it Catholic doctrine that mental challenged individuals are better examples of how to keep the commandments because they "naturally" are better at love?

Spiritual discipline is absolutely necessary. I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot say that we love God while breaking his commandments. This is the entire reason that Jesus could sum up all of the commandments in the first two; Love God and neighbor and you will keep all of the commandments.

If spiritual discipline is absolutely necessary - how are the mentally challenged able to be spiritually disciplined concerning the commandments?

Also if love is all that is needed in order to keep all the commandments - why is there baptism, communion, tithes and offerings and many other commandments if one already loves G-d?

I could offer my opinion but I do not want it to appear that I am objecting to Catholic doctrine or preaching.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Is it Catholic doctrine that mental challenged individuals are better examples of how to keep the commandments because they "naturally" are better at love?

Its not a doctrine. It is just self-evident to anyone who has been around these folks. They truly love unconditionally and yes, that is a better example than one who does not.

If spiritual discipline is absolutely necessary - how are the mentally challenged able to be spiritually disciplined concerning the commandments?

Spiritual discipline is a requirement for those of us who are tempted by our own pride; by the world; by the flesh. This applies to most of us. Those who are mentally challenged are spared much of the temptation that requires spiritual discipline in order to overcome.

Also if love is all that is needed in order to keep all the commandments - why is there baptism, communion, tithes and offerings and many other commandments if one already loves G-d?

Because if one loves God he will do what God commanded. Again, love comes first. If we are following the commandments without love, they are nothing more than empty practices. Why do you believe that Jesus summed up the Ten Commandments in the first two?

I could offer my opinion but I do not want it to appear that I am objecting to Catholic doctrine or preaching.

The Traveler

It doesn't bother me if you object. If you didn't you would be Catholic, right? I'm happy to answer any question you might have and my skin is getting thicker all the time, so ask away or give your opinion. I'll make sure to set you straight. :)

Here's the bottom line, Traveler, when it comes to your ascertion that love is a learned behavior. I don't know or remember whether or not you are a father. But I would ask any parent: Did you have to learn to love your children? (For the sake of argument, lets leave out the teenage years, okay? )

[selek]

Does no one else see the great conflict with this post? First it was said that we can only enter heaven by G-d's grace and not anything we learn? Really? Then the next statement implies that we must learn a bunch of really difficult stuff - in particular we must learn to love G-d and we must also learn to love our fellow man????

How do you eat an entire elephant?

One bite at a time.

If the laborer is truly worthy of his hire, he labors diligently, regardless of the enormity of the task...

[madeleine1]

I am suggesting that love is learned. I could say it is learned from G-d through the spirit - but I have come to believe that all truth is learned from G-d through the spirit. Like any other thing learned - learning starts with discipline.

There is a saying that there is none so blind as those that will not see. In the scriptures we are commanded to love. I do not see that learning to love is that different from learning any other discipline. That love is an acquired taste and deliberately developed attribute - that comes from practice and repetition - not desire out of control or a lucky chance encounter as the “world” seems to portray love.

Maybe I am off on this but it seems to me that the scriptures are clear - we learn to love G-d by keeping the commandments. If we think we can love G-d without the discipline of the commandments we are badly mistaken - or as the scriptures very harshly say - we lie. I honestly believe that those that try or think to love G-d without the discipline of the commandments are putting the cart before the horse - they have it all backwards.

I believe that without discipline the grace of G-d is wasted. I do also understand that without the Grace of G-d discipline is impossible. So if someone keeps the commandments the only possible result is to love G-d - which is not possible without keeping the commandments. Thus it is that G-d gives us commandments out of his love and grace and we become a partner with G-d’s grace by our efforts to learn the necessary “knowledge” to become disciplined by way of G-d’s commandments - we learn love of G-d and our fellow men.

The Traveler

How do you account for love of God before Moses?

[SteveVH]

Does no one else see the great conflict with this post? First it was said that we can only enter heaven by G-d's grace and not anything we learn? Really? Then the next statement implies that we must learn a bunch of really difficult stuff - in particular we must learn to love G-d and we must also learn to love our fellow man????

If there is a task before us then it really is not the task of G-d's grace.

The Traveler

Let me try another approach in answering this. Grace, while free, requires a response evidenced by the manner in which we live our lives. Grace is God's love poured out on us. We must respond in love which includes getting to know the One who loves us, worshiping him, and loving God and our neighbor by keeping God's commands. But it all begins with love, both the grace poured out by God and our response to that grace. Without love everything else is worthless, including all knowledge.

Edited March 22, 2013 by StephenVH