Should the Old Testament be treated like the Apocrapha?

[Dravin]

No.

That would contradict the Godly characteristic of "infinite love".

The thought that comes to my mind is thus: What investment surpasses this, "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)"? I think the idea that because he, if you'll excuse the phrase, has skin in the game because of the suffering and experiences of the atonement is understandable from a mortal perspective, we tend to cherish more those things we suffer for. I think it an error though to apply such a perspective to Christ. Our immortality and eternal life, aka success, was already his work and glory, mortality did not make it somehow more so.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Dravin

[selek]

The website is a legit site. It is very well documented.

Just not "well documented" enough to provide an actual citation about the author or his/her affiliation with/towards the Church.

Given the number of citations which you've offered which do not say what you claim they do, you will understand if I do not take your word for it.

And is the simplest manner to view Joseph Smiths Sermons.

It is indeed.

Yet once again, you dodge the point: the site itself contradicts your assertion and does not make the arguments you claim.

Every bit of evidence you've offered thus far either does not state what you wish, or requires that we make a suppositional leap well beyond faith and into speculation.

Do you thing the Holy Ghost will be an un-embodied spirit eternally?

What I think about the Holy Ghost is totally irrelevant to what the Church has stated plainly about the nature of God (and which I've already quoted).

You, not I made the assertion that Christ was changed by his mortal ministry, and that his harsh pre-mortal judgements were tempered by his experiences in mortality.

The burden of proof is yours- and thus far, you've offered nothing to fulfill that burden.

[mikbone]

I will honor your position.

Yet I cannot recant mine.

I salute you.

[selek]

I will honor your position.

Yet I cannot recant mine.

I salute you.

I do not ask you to recant your position. (On those occasions when I wish to beat someone into submission, generally bring a two-by-four ).

Thank you for actually attempting to explain and defend your position rationally.

Although we disagree, I believe we were both edified by the discussion and an examination of the evidence offered.

Edited April 7, 2013 by selek

[bytor2112]

I respectfully disagree.

When talking about God, one has to differentiate between God the Father, Jehovah / Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Jehovah did learn and grow during his mortal ministry. The atonement changed him.

If you are arguing that Elohim is Perfect and un-changeable I could agree with you.

I tend to agree and scripture seems to somewhat support. Such as:

Alma 7:

12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

and

Hebrews 2

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

and also in the words of Elder McConkie:

This is something of which uninspired men have no comprehension. Truly, he was the Lord Omnipotent before the world was; truly, he was like unto the Father in the premortal life; truly, he was the Son of God here on earth—and yet, with it all, as with all the spirit children of the same Father, he too was subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Father's plan.

He also was born on earth to undergo a mortal probation, to die, to rise again in immortal glory, to be judged according to his works, and to receive his place of infinite glory in the eternal kingdom of his Everlasting Father. How well Paul said:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

And being made perfect, he became the author [that is, the cause] of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. [Hebrews 5: 8–9

Edited April 7, 2013 by bytor2112

[selek]

I tend to agree and scripture seems to somewhat support. Such as:

and

Hebrews 2

Excellent citations.

I always read them more as speaking for our benefit- explaining Christ's compassion in terms we can understand- rather than implying that Christ actually "needed" the lessons.

That, of course, is a matter of how one interprets the Scriptures in question, and how one fits them into the larger mosaic of faith.

[mikbone]

Moses 4: 1-2 is a curious interchange.

Lucifer wants to be the 'savior' without the personal struggle but still receive the honor. Jehovah volunteers to become the Savior and I believe that He had an idea what this calling entailed. Notice how Jehovah offers to give all the honor that is obtained via this position back to Father. But here is the thing, Jehovah is not a vector that simply transfers Glory to the Father. Jehovah has earned honor and glory. And He has it in spades.

What would have happened if Jesus would have backed out? Would we still honor him the same?

[mikbone]

I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father, so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory, so that Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before; it is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of any thing that is not contained in the Bible, and I think there are so many wise men here, who would put me to death for treason; so I shall turn commentator to-day. April 7, 1844 - "King Follett Discourse", Joseph Smith Jr. as recorded in Times and Seasons Minutes

There are two problems with this citation:

First, the King Follet discourse is yet another second-hand retelling, recorded well after the fact. The extant copies of which are mutually contradictory.

Second, this citation speaks to OUR progression to Godhood.

It says nothing about Christ progressing to Godhood in mortality.

On the contrary, the Scriptures and teachings of the Church are quite explicit: Jesus was god BEFORE mortality.

Actually the first part talks about Jehovah following in the path of his Father. Then it states that we must follow the same path.

Palms 82:6 teaches that we are gods.

D&C 132:29 teaches that Abraham has already entered into his exaltation and sits upon his throne.

So there appears to be multiple levels of godhood.

Do you believe the first portion of the Lorenzo Snow couplet? As man is God once was? And if so how do you interpret it?

[selek]

Actually the first part talks about Jehovah following in the path of his Father. Then it states that we must follow the same path.

I would agree- except that as I understand the context, it is not Jehovah speaking, but Joseph.

Additionally, the King Follet Discourse- whatever wisdom it may contain- is NOT doctrine, but a second-or-third hand recitation of one man's recollection (recorded long after the fact IIRC) of what Joseph said.

If memory serves (and it may not) there are only three extant copies of the KFD- and they do not agree.

Palms 82:6 teaches that we are gods.

None of which speaks to Jesus' "path" to Godhood.

D&C 132:29 teaches that Abraham has already entered into his exaltation and sits upon his throne.

So there appears to be multiple levels of godhood.

I would suspect that rather than different levels of godhood, there's the matter of individual progression towards complete godhood.

In any case, such speculation is irrelevant as we are explicitly assured in both Scripture and the teachings of the Church that the Savior was fully God, rather than some sort of journeyman, acolyte, or apprentice.

Do you believe the first portion of the Lorenzo Snow couplet? As man is God once was? And if so how do you interpret it?

I do.

I do not, however, interpret it to mean that God was once a sinner who then progressed towards Godhood.

It is my understanding that he, like the Savior, were both perfect and without sin- "God" from eternity to eternity. I do not believe that there is a single moment in all of eternity when they were NOT "God".

The Plan of Salvation is (to be perfectly blunt) an artificial construct- a curtch, if you will- created by God to help those of us who could not measure up to the fullness of the Law without his assistance.

It was given to us because we need it.

Heavenly Father and the Savior are not subject to the Plan because they do not need it. They are already "God".

We, being lesser beings, do.

Edited April 8, 2013 by selek

[mikbone]

I would agree- except that as I understand the context, it is not Jehovah speaking, but Joseph.

I read it differently. Joseph is speaking as if he is Jehovah.

It is my understanding that he, like the Savior, were both perfect and without sin- "God" from eternity to eternity. I do not believe that there is a single moment in all of eternity when they were NOT "God".

The Plan of Salvation is (to be perfectly blunt) an artificial construct- a curtch, if you will- created by God to help those of us who could not measure up to the fullness of the Law without his assistance.

Thank you. This explains much.

I bought into the Plan of Salvation long ago. Hook, Line, & Sinker.

[selek]

I read it differently. Joseph is speaking as if he is Jehovah.

In point of fact, I agree with this interpretation. But Joseph speaking "as though he were Christ" is a far different thing than "thus saith the Lord."

Thank you. This explains much.

I bought into the Plan of Salvation long ago. Hook, Line, & Sinker.

Since we are both in possession of physical bodies and both members of the Church, the evidence we both did- at the beginning of the world.

[mikbone]

Since we are both in possession of physical bodies and both members of the Church, the evidence we both did- at the beginning of the world.

lol, true.

But I don't think the plan of salvation is a crutch. I think it as a ladder.

[selek]

lol, true.

But I don't think the plan of salvation is a crutch. I think it as a ladder.

One metaphor is as good as another.

At its root, the Plan of Salvation is a means by which we may reach things that would normally be beyond our grasp.

[mikbone]

One metaphor is as good as another.

At its root, the Plan of Salvation is a means by which we may reach things that would normally be beyond our grasp.

I disagree.

A crutch helps the lame to walk.

A ladder allows the healthy to elevate themselves to a location that they could not achieve otherwise.

I believe that you have the potential to be just like God is.

[selek]

I disagree.

A crutch helps the lame to walk.

A ladder allows the healthy to elevate themselves to a location that they could not achieve otherwise.

I consider this characterization to be somewhat (and unnecessarily) harsh for a number of reasons.

If the goal is on a table and I am on the farside of the room unable to walk, it is every bit as much out of my reach as if it were on a shelf fifteen feet above my head.

Both the ladder and the crutch are tools by which I may reach my goal despite my handicaps (whether that handicap is being lame or merely short).

Moreover, there is none among us who is "healthy".

We are all unclean to one degree or another.

In the eternal sense, we are all hobbled, crippled, lame, or infirm- having fallen short of the potential which we are given.

I believe that you have the potential to be just like God is.

I agree- but without the crutch/ladder/prosthesis/aid/tool of the Plan of Salvation, it would be eternally beyond my grasp.

In point of fact, and in an eternal sense, we ARE lame.

It is only by the aid of "the crutch" of the Plan of Salvation that we may attempt to walk in God's footsteps.

[mikbone]

In the eternal sense, we are all hobbled, crippled, lame, or infirm- having fallen short of the potential which we are given.

Nah,

1) I assume that you are excluding Jesus Christ in the above statement. Because you have already defined Him and His Father as sin free and perfect.

2) We are not lame. We are healthy and strong. I have yet to **** myself and my potential is unlimited. This mortal life is a fleeting moment (albeit a crucial test). And if we pass this test we have the ability via the atonement to become sin free and perfect.

I think that at times we mis-understand the difference between repentance, forgiveness, the atonement and absolution.

For example in the legal field there is the concept of a pardon vs. expungement. In a pardon, a person is forgiven for the crime and does not have to pay the penalty. When an expungement is granted, the person whose record is expunged can treat the event as if it never occurred.

When we follow the steps of repentance we are forgiven. Via the atonement we can essentially obtain expungement of our sinful record.

Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

A million years from now if you have been able to obtain your calling and election and inherit eternal life you can also claim that you are sin free. That you never sinned. That you are perfect.

Edited April 8, 2013 by mikbone

[selek]

1) I assume that you are excluding Jesus Christ in the above statement. Because you have already defined Him and His Father as sin free and perfect.

Quite obviously, from the previous statement that Heavenly Father and Jesus are not subject to the Plan of Salvation, as they having no need of it to achieve perfection.

2) We are not lame. We are healthy and strong.

"Lame" is defined as follows:

lame 1(lm)

adj. lam·er, lam·est 1. Disabled so that movement, especially walking, is difficult or impossible: Lame from the accident, he walked with a cane. A lame wing kept the bird from flying.

2. Marked by pain or rigidness: a lame back.

3. Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame excuses for not arriving on time.

By both the first and third definitions, we- having fallen short of the law- are unable to move forward spiritually except through the intercession of Christ and our Heavenly Father.

Except through the Plan of Salvation, it would be impossible for us to attain the level of spiritual perfection for which we were intended.

Our own efforts to achieve perfection are irredeemably week, ineffectual, and unsatisfactory.

By any reasonable standard and definition, we are therefore spiritually lame- movement (and progress) are difficult if not impossible except by means of the "crutch" given us to overcome our handicap.

However much the analogy offends hubris and pride, it nonetheless stands up to close examination.

[mikbone]

Additionally, the King Follet Discourse- whatever wisdom it may contain- is NOT doctrine, but a second-or-third hand recitation of one man's recollection (recorded long after the fact IIRC) of what Joseph said.

If memory serves (and it may not) there are only three extant copies of the KFD- and they do not agree.

The KFD has not been voted on by common consent so no it is not in the cannon.

But it was Joseph Smiths final general conference talk.

It was recorded in six separate accounts: Sources: Joseph Smith diary (Willard Richards), Samuel W. Richards record, Thomas Bullock report, Wilford Woodruff journal, William Clayton report, and the George Laub record. Some of these reports were recollections while other records were notes taken at the event. Oh, how I wish we had a complete recording of the event! And the copies do agree from what I have studied.

April 7, 1844

Quote from Jeffery R. Holland - todays afternoon session.

"Joseph Smith has taught me more of God's love, of Christ's divinity and of priesthood power (in this world); than any other Prophet of whom I have read, known, or heard - in a lifetime of seeking."

Why any LDS would dismiss a conference talk from Joseph Smith is beyond my understanding.

Edited April 8, 2013 by mikbone

[mikbone]

In the eternal sense, we are all hobbled, crippled, lame, or infirm- having fallen short of the potential which we are given.

If you had written, in a temporary sense instead of an eternal sense I would have agreed with you.

But in an eternal sense, those of us who do inherit the highest level of the celestial kingdom are whole and sin free. Not lame.

[selek]

If you had written, in a temporary sense instead of an eternal sense I would have agreed with you.

But in an eternal sense, those of us who do inherit the highest level of the celestial kingdom are whole and sin free. Not lame.

How about this: "In an eternal sense, we are all 'lame'- hobbled and unable to fulfill our eternal potential except through the Atonement offered by our Savior Jesus Christ. Through obedience and fidelity to Christ and his commandments, we can be made whole in the eternities."

Better?

[mikbone]

Yes

[selek]

The KFD has not been voted on by common consent so no it is not in the cannon.

But it was Joseph Smiths final general conference talk.

It was recorded in six separate accounts: Sources: Joseph Smith diary (Willard Richards), Samuel W. Richards record, Thomas Bullock report, Wilford Woodruff journal, William Clayton report, and the George Laub record. Some of these reports were recollections while other records were notes taken at the event.

The Church website specifies five sources, none of which were concise stenographic records.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

Oh, how I wish we had a complete recording of the event! And the copies do agree from what I have studied.

The key words, of course, are "from what I have studied."

Quote from Jeffery R. Holland - todays afternoon session.

"Joseph Smith has taught me more of God's love, of Christ's divinity and of priesthood power (in this world); than any other Prophet of whom I have read, known, or heard - in a lifetime of seeking."

None of which is currently in doubt or question.

The problem is that the records of the KFD are (at best) second-hand and imperfect.

Because they were not vetted, reviewed, or ratified by the Prophet, we are left with an collection of best-guess accounts which may or may not accurately reflect the thoughts and ideas Joseph was trying to express.

Why any LDS would dismiss a conference talk from Joseph Smith is beyond my understanding.

As is the extent to which the KFD is an accurate record of Joseph's talk.

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God insofar as it is translated and recorded correctly.

We apply the same standard to the King Follett Discourse; it is the Word of God (through Joseph) only insofar as it is recorded correctly.

To quote President Gordon B. Hinckley:

" I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

Why any LDS would dismiss a direct answer to a direct question offered to a Prophet of God is beyond my understanding.

Why any LDS would dismiss what we do know in favor of speculating about that which we do not is equally a mystery.

In any case, your assertion is a red-herring. We, as Latter-day Saints do not reject the King Follet Discourse- we simply acknowledge that the record is too problematic to be adopted without reservation and considerable forethought.

The same holds true for the Journal of Discourses and many other records from that period.

Where we find truth in them (as corroborated by the acknowledged and official statements of the prophets and leaders of the Church) we embrace that truth.

[mikbone]

To quote President Gordon B. Hinckley:

" I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

Why any LDS would dismiss a direct answer to a direct question offered to a Prophet of God is beyond my understanding.

Why any LDS would dismiss what we do know in favor of speculating about that which we do not is equally a mystery.

In any case, your assertion is a red-herring. We, as Latter-day Saints do not reject the King Follet Discourse- we simply acknowledge that the record is too problematic to be adopted without reservation and considerable forethought.

The same holds true for the Journal of Discourses and many other records from that period.

Where we find truth in them (as corroborated by the acknowledged and official statements of the prophets and leaders of the Church) we embrace that truth.

For what it is worth. The Hinckley response that you quoted is of questionable value.

Source: Richard Ostling in his TIME Magazine, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer interview 1997, asked President Hinckley

Question: God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Answer: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

Drawing Nearer to the Lord

President Gordon B. Hinckley

Nov 1997 Ensign conference issue

“The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that’s to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church.”

[Irishcolleen]

Well, Christ considered the OT to be scripture. He quoted it often enough. If we look deep we see things in the OT that show so many truths! This is true even in the genealogies. It helps to get a chronological Bible, where the reading is divided up by the time the events occurred. When we see the history intertwined with prophecy and poetry in the order it occurred it gives a fuller picture of the scripture.

For the record, most people get bogged down in the books of the law, but look at 2 Tim 3:16-17.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

[rameumptom]

I suggest you focus on the sections of the OT that are of value to you, such as the writings of the Major/Minor prophets. I don't think certain parts of Leviticus or Numbers were (for the most part) designed to bring the Spirit into our lives. They do give important information, however much of it secondary to spiritual things. That said, the greater gospel teachings are not found in the lists of people working as musicians in the Tabernacle, but in the issues that ancient prophets dealt with that apply to us today.