Exaltation Implications

[Guest]

Some Mormons describe "feeling the spirit" as a "burning in the bosom", but that sounds like heartburn to me.

 

LOL!

 

Yeah, I'm the same way.  I don't really experience the "burning in the bosom" (the way I understand that phrase) as the Spirit speaking to me but more of just getting caught up in the moment.  You know, like when I attended this Charismatic Movement event where it was like a concert... my bosom was burning that's for sure... but then it's the same burning of the bosom I felt in a Duran Duran concert where I got to be so close as to see John Taylor's eyelashes...

 

But then, I have felt some burning of the bosom moments when I was giving a lesson... but, this is when I already believe in what is true and it's just a feeling of the Spirit's presence while I'm giving the lesson/bearing the testimony of what I believe is true.  But, I do have very specific experiences when I'm trying to ponder what is true - it's not this burning feeling - it is more a clarity.  The world stops and my brain clears and my heart is so at peace everything all of a sudden just makes sense.  This doesn't come without much work.  I have to study and study and research and research and think of this and think of that and pray and pray and sometimes fast and pray... and then Bam!  It hits me.  And when it hits me - it's unshakeable.

 

I think the Spirit talks to me this way because that's just how I learn.  I am a stubborn argumentative woman and the truth has to hit me like a ton of bricks before I can see it - very useful in Engineering school, quite a pest in Theology school.

Edited January 19, 2015 by anatess

[Anddenex]

I appreciate the move you're trying to make here, but I do feel its a bit of a strawman argument.

 

I am confused as to what was misrepresented, or where the straw man originates as you haven't clarified where the fallacy was presented?  

 

My position was not that one should not pray, or even that God does not answer prayers. My point was that, in my experience, LDS tend to tell you to "read the Book of Mormon and pray about it." If, after much study and prayer you come to the conclusion that it is not true, then the typical response I have seen is to say that either that Satan or your own biases influenced the results. Whether Atheists also use the argument or not, that is the definition of confirmation bias.

 

That being said, some of the other LDS (anatess, Just_A_Guy and so forth) presented a more nuanced perspective on the doctrine that made a bit more sense. I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it, but that's something to work out through prayer and study 

 

I do think your doctor analogy actually is a good representation of how prayers and study should work with one another. All good things have God as their origin, so whenever a doctors heals or truth is discovered through study, it is God's doing. Prayer helps ensure that we are allowing God to work through us no matter what our endeavor. Most of the time, the way God normally operates, it's not overtly obvious that he intervened at all. I like to think it's because He does so with such frequency that we just don't notice anymore  :)

 

I understood your position, as you will notice I never mentioned "one should not pray" nor even hinted that one should not pray.  I also did not mention that you specified God doesn't answer prayers.  My thoughts seem pretty clear that it was about praying, and praying to know God's will, and that God does answer prayers.  

 

1) My father's example was of personal study and prayer.

2) The example provided from my mission was about prayer -- praying -- not that one should not pray.

3) My concluding statement, "When a son/daughter of God seeks to align their will with God's will confirmatory bias is removed because the son/daughter is less concerned with being right and more concerned with honoring their God."

 

So, I believe my post represented the concept of praying, not that "one should not pray."  The concept is in how one prays and studies and how they approach God.  And we both agree regarding the last statement.  What I find ironic also is when an Atheist uses the doctor analogy to show confirmation bias, while the doctor himself is praising God for assistance for that surgery (or whatever they assisted with) and the doctor is specifying what a miracle. :) 

 

To be frank, I personally didn't want to address the issue of "following Satan"; however, in light of your response, I will answer.  Let's see if we can gain common ground first.  I think this can be agreed upon by both of us:

 

Jesus Christ is our Savior and the only name by which we can be saved.  There is no other Savior.

 

In this case let X be equal to the above statement.  If X == True, then if anyone else determines X == False, then what spirit are they following?  

 

The Pharisees, through their reason, study, prayer, and logic determined X == False.  What spirit were they following?  All others who determine X to be false, what spirit then are they following? I personally believe we can conclude at least two possibilities:

 

1) They are following Satan.

2) They are honest seekers of truth, but know not where to find it, or how to accept it.  

 

Saul who became Paul, I would say easily fit within #2.  In the beginning he believed X == False and through a vision (not through his own reasoning and logic -- which was leading him astray) he was converted and recognized X in fact was true. Those who solely really on their own wisdom will have a higher probability to be deceived -- like the Pharisees.  They were studied, they were the principle leaders, and yet they couldn't recognize their own God as he walked among them -- why? Again, the concept is in how one prays and studies and how they approach God after they have prayed and studied.

 

Now, If Y (the Book of Mormon) == True, and an individual through study and prayer (no matter how studious) determines Y == False, then what spirit are they following?  So, yes, your boyfriend is correct.  If the Book of Mormon is true and an individual determines the Book of Mormon to be false, then it is easy to determine they aren't listening to the right spirit and if not the right spirit then what spirit are they listening to (#1 or #2)?  

 

Who then determines what is true -- man (the arm of flesh) or God?  Thus, the invitation to pray to approach God without any intent to be right, but only to know his will.  That means, and individual must set aside what they think they know, and humbly petition God with an open mind, with sincerity, and with real intent.

 

Relying solely upon my own merits, my own reasoning is what the Pharisees relied upon (even Saul before he became Paul), oh and what  a loon they thought Paul was after his vision.  It would be nice if all of us received such a witness, but alas we do not.

 

Cheers :)

[SpiritDragon]

I think the problem here is we aren't quite using the term "substance" the same way. When a Catholic uses the term, it's almost always in reference to Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics.

 

A substance in Aristotelian metaphysics is made up of two things: prime matter and substantial form. Prime matter is basically the physical matter that the thing is made out of (its really a bit more nuanced than that) while substantial form is its ordering principle, it makes the matter what it is. For example, the same hunk of matter can be either a dog or a chair, depending on the substantial form it has. Incidentally, the substantial form of a living thing has a special name: the soul.

 

A soul isn't merely united with the body, it's what makes the body a body in the first place. The relationship between the body and soul, both before and after the resurrection, would then have to remain fundamentally the same. Now that relationship will be perfected, as many of our afflictions (sickness, injury, and death) are consequences of a corrupted relationship caused by sin. That being said, radical new powers such as the capacity to function as gods are impossible.

 

My point here is not to say that the Catholic view is necessarily right, just to explain why we make the moves that we make. Obviously I am of the opinion that the early Church was more likely to be functioning off the sorty of metaphysical framework that I'm presenting here (based on when/where it was positiond historically), but that remains my opinion.

 

Interesting. From what you describe I feel like we are not too far off in terminology. The key difference I'm seeing is that LDS don't generally use Soul and Spirit interchangeably, so the prime matter would be the physical body, the substantial matter would be the spirit body, and the soul would be the body and the spirit together from the LDS perspective if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

We look at the family tree of our spirit bodies as only having one level back - Heavenly Father to us - He created all of us (as His literal spirit children).  The first of these spirit children made is our saviour Jesus Christ. As a resurrected being Jesus' Soul is still made up of the same spirit He has always been as well as His perfected physical body. Our Heavenly Father is constituted in the same way of his spirit and perfect immortal physical body - which together make up his eternal soul. Each of us is an eternal spiritual being experiencing mortality and physicality for the first time. Upon our death our spirit and body will be separated until resurrection at which point our bodies will be raised to various levels of perfection and reunited with our spirit as complete souls.

[Claire]

 

 

Now, If Y (the Book of Mormon) == True, and an individual through study and prayer (no matter how studious) determines Y == False, then what spirit are they following?  So, yes, your boyfriend is correct.  If the Book of Mormon is true and an individual determines the Book of Mormon to be false, then it is easy to determine they aren't listening to the right spirit and if not the right spirit then what spirit are they listening to (#1 or #2)?  

 

Who then determines what is true -- man (the arm of flesh) or God?  Thus, the invitation to pray to approach God without any intent to be right, but only to know his will.  That means, and individual must set aside what they think they know, and humbly petition God with an open mind, with sincerity, and with real intent.

 

Relying solely upon my own merits, my own reasoning is what the Pharisees relied upon (even Saul before he became Paul), oh and what  a loon they thought Paul was after his vision.  It would be nice if all of us received such a witness, but alas we do not.

 

Cheers :)

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I suppose there are two points that I'd like to clarify. First, I'm not necessarily saying study alone will get the answer, but likewise I don't subscribe to "faith alone" either. Rather, I would advocate a position of "faith and reason," where we study out the answer and reach true conclusions with divine help. 

 

Next, while I don't necessarily disagree that with the argument that, hypothetically, if the Book of Mormon is authentic revelation, and if my prayers and study disagree with the Book of Mormon, then there is some some fault in my logic or I simply haven't had any revelation one way or the other. The issue, as I mentioned in previous posts, is that if that is an accurate argument, then I have not yet received confirmation and have no idea what the experience is supposed to look like. I can, however, continue to study and pray in the interim.

 

 

Interesting. From what you describe I feel like we are not too far off in terminology. The key difference I'm seeing is that LDS don't generally use Soul and Spirit interchangeably, so the prime matter would be the physical body, the substantial matter would be the spirit body, and the soul would be the body and the spirit together from the LDS perspective if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

We look at the family tree of our spirit bodies as only having one level back - Heavenly Father to us - He created all of us (as His literal spirit children).  The first of these spirit children made is our saviour Jesus Christ. As a resurrected being Jesus' Soul is still made up of the same spirit He has always been as well as His perfected physical body. Our Heavenly Father is constituted in the same way of his spirit and perfect immortal physical body - which together make up his eternal soul. Each of us is an eternal spiritual being experiencing mortality and physicality for the first time. Upon our death our spirit and body will be separated until resurrection at which point our bodies will be raised to various levels of perfection and reunited with our spirit as complete souls.

 

Well, there is a bit more of a difference. The prime matter is never anything by itself, it can't be. From the Catholic perspective it would be something like this: Substantial form by itself is the disembodied human soul, substantial form and prime matter together make a human person, and prime matter by itself simply cannot be. If a person dies, the parts of the body form a sort of anagram of various substances, but no longer makes any sort of intrinsic whole.

 

The thing to remember in the Catholic understanding is that the soul/spirit and the body aren't two separate things that are put together, they are really and truly one thing. The loss of the physical aspect of the body, the prime matter, at death constitutes a serious defect and the soul is greatly diminished. In fact, if one looks at ancient Jewish antropology, one will not the concept of a "rephaim," which we might understand as a "shade." A good example of this would be when Saul has the Witch of Endor summon Samuel, he was summoned as a "rephaim" in the original Hebrew.

 

There are two places in this where the LDS model appears problematic. First, the creation of the "spirit body" independent of the physical body. Humans (or any physical creature) are not naturally purely spiritual beings, we weren't made for that, and it would seem like we were made defectively if we started out that way. The other issue is that, since the body is ordered by the soul, the resurrected body will have to be fundamentally the same as our current mortal bodies.This doesn't allow for "degrees" of perfection. A human soul has to make a human body. The only difference between our mortal and resurrected is that the enmity that currently exists between the soul and the prime matter that constitutes the physical body will be gone, meaning that we will no longer be subject to decay (through age, illness or injury) or to death. We will remain forever "whole."

 

Again, my point here is not to argue that Mormonism is wrong as such, only that it does not seem to be entirely compatible with Aristotelian metaphysics.

[Anddenex]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I suppose there are two points that I'd like to clarify. First, I'm not necessarily saying study alone will get the answer, but likewise I don't subscribe to "faith alone" either. Rather, I would advocate a position of "faith and reason," where we study out the answer and reach true conclusions with divine help. 

 

Next, while I don't necessarily disagree that with the argument that, hypothetically, if the Book of Mormon is authentic revelation, and if my prayers and study disagree with the Book of Mormon, then there is some some fault in my logic or I simply haven't had any revelation one way or the other. The issue, as I mentioned in previous posts, is that if that is an accurate argument, then I have not yet received confirmation and have no idea what the experience is supposed to look like. I can, however, continue to study and pray in the interim.

 

We appear to agree and would both advocate the position of "faith and reason" as found in Doctrine and Covenants 9: 8-9 and Doctrine and Covenents 8: 2-3 would agree that we are to use "faith and reason" as we approach our desire to learn truth.

 

As others have shared, I know not what this burning in the bosom is as described by others.  I have never felt it; however, I have come to know the truth of Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3 and have discovered this to be true.  The selection of King David with Samuel I like also.  Samuel at first thought, his own reasoning, "And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the LORD's anointed is before him," and then through faith Samuel listens to the Lord and realized that Eliab was rejected by the Lord.

 

We are all intelligences given the opportunity to use our own intellect to discover and learn by observation and by experience.  

[Vort]

...Mormonism...does not seem to be entirely compatible with Aristotelian metaphysics.

 

And how. I would go further, and say the two are utterly irreconcilable. Neoplatonism, including Aristotelian metaphysics (and many other Greek philosophical concepts), is in many cases antithetical to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Jane_Doe]

 

Again, my point here is not to argue that Mormonism is wrong as such, only that it does not seem to be entirely compatible with Aristotelian metaphysics.

 

Ok, this is probably a dumb question, by why does this matter?  

[Jane_Doe]

You might find this interesting Claire (from the LDS official Bible Dictionary, https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/spirit.p2?lang=eng&letter=s).

 

 

"Spirit

The word spirit is used in several ways in the scriptures. Probably the basic use has to do with the conscious intelligent individual entity that had an existence previous to mortality. That is, all forms of living things—man, beast, and vegetation—existed as individual spirits, before any form of life existed upon the earth. The spirit is in the likeness of the physical body, as demonstrated in Gen. 2:5; 1 Ne. 11:11; Ether 3:15–16; D&C 77:2; 129; Moses 3:4–7. Furthermore, all spirit is matter but is more refined and pure than mortal element (D&C 131:7).

Every person is literally a son or a daughter of God, having been born as a spirit to Heavenly Parents previous to being born to mortal parents on the earth (Heb. 12:9). Thus each one of us is a dual being: an immortal spirit body, clothed with a body of flesh and bone. As defined in scripture, the spirit and the body constitute the mortal soul (D&C 88:15; see also Gen. 2:7; Moses 3:7–9; Abr. 5:7). A spirit can live independent of a body, but the body cannot live without the spirit (James 2:26). In the Resurrection, the immortal spirit is reunited with the same body of flesh and bone it possessed as a mortal, with two major differences: The union will be permanent, and the body will be immortal and perfected. See also Angels; Holy Ghost; Resurrection."

[end quote]

 

To paraphrase in my own understanding.

 

Before this life – we are spirits.  Able to think, to choose, and desire, but lack tangible body like our Father had/has.

 

This life – spirit and body are united to make a soul.  The spirit still has the ability to choose, desire, and is now also learning and growing in wisdom.  The body comes into being, and is amazing for all the wonderful things it can do.  Together body and spirit are united to make the soul: the pinnacle of God’s creation on this Earth.  The ability to think, feel, choose, learn, create- it’s all amazing.  But this body/spirit/soul all have flaws still and much room for improvement.

 

Death and waiting for resurrection – Body is temporarily separated from the spirit.  Kind of sucks for a little bit, but it’s only temporary.

 

 

Resurrection --- Wohoo!  I’m a fully perfect in Christ!  My body is made whole:  my back doesn’t hurt anymore, I can run for forever, I don’t have grey hair, and so many more wondrous than I can imagine.  My spirit likewise made perfect: I have no more desire to do evil, but to do good continually.  My love has no bounds, my wisdom is learned directly from God.  Together my soul is made whole (the Greek equivalent of “perfect”), and the happiness I feel is incomprehensible. 

[JimmiGerman]

Death and waiting for resurrection – Body is temporarily separated from the spirit.  Kind of sucks for a little bit, but it’s only temporary.

 

 

 

Hmmm, what means temporary...?  Longer than I need to eat up my popcorns...? 

Edited January 21, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Claire]

Ok, this is probably a dumb question, by why does this matter?  

 

In some respects, it doesn't. The whole metaphysics thing was a sidebar conversation that grew out of one of my earlier attempts to point out that we don't always necessarily mean the same thing when we say things like "soul" or "spirit." It doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on who's right. That being said, it is good in general to understand what an LDS/Catholic/anybody else means when they use a term so you don't end up talking past each other :)

 

Interesting article also :)

[Jane_Doe]

In some respects, it doesn't. The whole metaphysics thing was a sidebar conversation that grew out of one of my earlier attempts to point out that we don't always necessarily mean the same thing when we say things like "soul" or "spirit." It doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on who's right. That being said, it is good in general to understand what an LDS/Catholic/anybody else means when they use a term so you don't end up talking past each other :)

 

Interesting article also :)

 

 

Ok, that clears things up.

 

I'm not really into proving who's right.  Yeah, I do think Mormonism is the right way, and if the whole world turned Mormon I think that'd be great.  But I don't think the whole world's ready for that, and you shouldn't rush a flower before it's ready to bloom.  

 

For instance, one of my non-denominational friends recently discovered a church she really likes (cause half of their service is a rock concert) and really encourage her to go there (as opposed to not go to church at all).  In the mean time, through our talks she's figured out that Jane the Mormon really is a Christian too, and I think that's good.  Maybe one day she'll bloom more (God knows what's going on).

[Blackmarch]

Ok, this is probably a dumb question, by why does this matter?  

a lot of greek concepts have been incorporated into underlying foundations of what people think about life, the universe, and everything... mainly because they were adopted by early christianity and from there came to influence europe, and eventually  the americas.

 

[estradling75]

Ok, that clears things up.

 

I'm not really into proving who's right.  Yeah, I do think Mormonism is the right way, and if the whole world turned Mormon I think that'd be great.  But I don't think the whole world's ready for that, and you shouldn't rush a flower before it's ready to bloom.  

 

For instance, one of my non-denominational friends recently discovered a church she really likes (cause half of their service is a rock concert) and really encourage her to go there (as opposed to not go to church at all).  In the mean time, through our talks she's figured out that Jane the Mormon really is a Christian too, and I think that's good.  Maybe one day she'll bloom more (God knows what's going on).

 

Not being ready I think is a point that we often over look.  Sometime I think we tend to view God as a cosmic vending machine.  Push the buttons get the same thing every time.  We tend to overlook that he is the Master Teacher.  It can be hard for us to understand that God's lesson plan for one might not be the same as for another.  That God might have some people pass through several religions in their life time.  While other he has stay put in whatever faith they were born into, because that is what works best for them.

[SpiritDragon]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I suppose there are two points that I'd like to clarify. First, I'm not necessarily saying study alone will get the answer, but likewise I don't subscribe to "faith alone" either. Rather, I would advocate a position of "faith and reason," where we study out the answer and reach true conclusions with divine help. 

 

Next, while I don't necessarily disagree that with the argument that, hypothetically, if the Book of Mormon is authentic revelation, and if my prayers and study disagree with the Book of Mormon, then there is some some fault in my logic or I simply haven't had any revelation one way or the other. The issue, as I mentioned in previous posts, is that if that is an accurate argument, then I have not yet received confirmation and have no idea what the experience is supposed to look like. I can, however, continue to study and pray in the interim.

 

Certainly we don't get answers simply by asking without putting in any effort, but then that isn't faith either it is a vain request. Perhaps this a relic of the talking past each-other vocabulary out there. Anyhow, you're on the right track that study, reason, faith, and prayer are all part of the equation. The real trick is determining what points of information are true knowledge and what points are false knowledge. If one tries to reason with false information it is easy to draw conclusions that make sense based on that information that is ultimately false. So the question is how does one filter out the misinformation and distill out the truth? 

 

In my studies this morning I came across this scripture:

 

2 Nephi 9:

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

 

It struck me that the learned can have a really hard time receiving answers from God, largely I presume because much of their learning is flawed. Until such a person is ready to set aside this "learning" and be taught from God, the answer isn't going to come... which is merciful because if they know the truth by receiving the answer and yet are too prideful in their own "knowledge and wisdom" to accept the truth and act on it they are under greater condemnation. A humble petition requires the one asking to be ready to accept the answer no matter what it is, someone willing to let their preconceived notions fall away as scales from their eyes and begin anew with real truth given from God as a starting point. 

 

Thus our frame of reference becomes those things that we have learned through study and have had confirmed by a witness of the spirit. Anything else we cannot be sure of. Sometimes a witness of the spirit comes during the studying process, while other times it requires prayer for confirmation. But as soon as we start letting our own ideas that we presume to be true but haven't had spiritual confirmation of govern our conclusions... then we can be sure we're going to end up off course.

[JimmiGerman]

Death and waiting for resurrection – Body is temporarily separated from the spirit.  Kind of sucks for a little bit, but it’s only temporary.

 

 

 

Kind of sucks for a little bit...? How long is t... temporary...? 

Edited January 21, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Traveler]

In some respects, it doesn't. The whole metaphysics thing was a sidebar conversation that grew out of one of my earlier attempts to point out that we don't always necessarily mean the same thing when we say things like "soul" or "spirit." It doesn't really have a whole lot of bearing on who's right. That being said, it is good in general to understand what an LDS/Catholic/anybody else means when they use a term so you don't end up talking past each other :)

 

Interesting article also :)

 

I have not read all of the post in this thread.  I am a scientist and engineer and I work in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I will begin by bring up a few point  - I hope we may have in common.  First that there is a G-d.  And that such a G-d is the Father of our spirits.  Second point - we may have inklings of G-d but in essence our understandings are incomplete. 

 

I submit that to come to know G-d - we are best served by understanding Jesus Christ.  That there is no example of G-d that we can know that is not best served by understanding Jesus Christ.  Jesus is our one and only example of G-d. (Period).  This thread was started based on exaltation expectations.   To answer this we must learn the relation of G-d to man.  To do this we use Jesus Christ.  As man is - Jesus Christ once was.  Through the example of Jesus Christ we know that G-d once was a man - Jesus being a man and the example.  Through the example of Jesus Christ through death and the resurrection Jesus sat down on the right hand of G-d as symbolism in the vision of Steven that Jesus was exalted in the resurrection to become one with G-d.  And as Jesus has been resurrected so also is the resurrection of man.  That man can be exalted and also placed at the right hand of G-d.  This symbolizes being one with G-d and Jesus which is the essence of G-dlyness and LDS understanding of exaltation. 

 

This simple truth of exaltation was lost to the world because of apostasy and is explained in these last days in preparation to prepare a kingdom over which Jesus will soon become king.  This kingdom was established as Daniel prophesied - at a time after the Roman empire (of iron) is divided first into two parts - symbolized by the two legs of the image.  Then when the Roman empire would become mixed with clay (feet with ten toes) G-d will restore again his kingdom.  This kingdom will gather the dispersed of Israel.  Isaiah prophesied that the dispersed of Israel will be gathered at the "top of the mountains".  I will point out that Utah in the language of the native Ute people - means "Top of the Mountains".

 

The ensign has been raised to the world.  Those that are a remnant of G-d's ancient covenants as recorded in the Old and New Testament of scripture are being gathered.  And as the seeds being sown in the parable - for many the words of gathering will fall as seeds on stone or by the wayside to be walked asunder by human traditions.

[Claire]

I have not read all of the post in this thread.  I am a scientist and engineer and I work in the field of automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  I will begin by bring up a few point  - I hope we may have in common.  First that there is a G-d.  And that such a G-d is the Father of our spirits.  Second point - we may have inklings of G-d but in essence our understandings are incomplete. 

 

I submit that to come to know G-d - we are best served by understanding Jesus Christ.  That there is no example of G-d that we can know that is not best served by understanding Jesus Christ.  Jesus is our one and only example of G-d. (Period).  This thread was started based on exaltation expectations.   To answer this we must learn the relation of G-d to man.  To do this we use Jesus Christ.  As man is - Jesus Christ once was.  Through the example of Jesus Christ we know that G-d once was a man - Jesus being a man and the example.  Through the example of Jesus Christ through death and the resurrection Jesus sat down on the right hand of G-d as symbolism in the vision of Steven that Jesus was exalted in the resurrection to become one with G-d.  And as Jesus has been resurrected so also is the resurrection of man.  That man can be exalted and also placed at the right hand of G-d.  This symbolizes being one with G-d and Jesus which is the essence of G-dlyness and LDS understanding of exaltation. 

 

This simple truth of exaltation was lost to the world because of apostasy and is explained in these last days in preparation to prepare a kingdom over which Jesus will soon become king.  This kingdom was established as Daniel prophesied - at a time after the Roman empire (of iron) is divided first into two parts - symbolized by the two legs of the image.  Then when the Roman empire would become mixed with clay (feet with ten toes) G-d will restore again his kingdom.  This kingdom will gather the dispersed of Israel.  Isaiah prophesied that the dispersed of Israel will be gathered at the "top of the mountains".  I will point out that Utah in the language of the native Ute people - means "Top of the Mountains".

 

The ensign has been raised to the world.  Those that are a remnant of G-d's ancient covenants as recorded in the Old and New Testament of scripture are being gathered.  And as the seeds being sown in the parable - for many the words of gathering will fall as seeds on stone or by the wayside to be walked asunder by human traditions.

 

 

And here I was thinking this thread was dead :)

 

I suppose I'll start by disagreeing with the assertation that God is the "father of our spirits."

 

The traditional Christian understanding is that Christ is the "only begotten Son of God." The word begotten, which is the past participle form of the word beget, means to "bring into existence by a process of reproduction." What this basically amounts to is that Jesus is God's only Son. Through our baptism, we are integrated into the mystical body of Christ and become sons and daughters and coheirs with him. Our status as God's sons and daughters is, however, contingent upon our integration into Christ's body, and thus we are not God's children intrinsically but through a sort of spiritual adoption through Christ.

 

I'm not necessarily trying to assert that we're right, I'm just pointing out that that is not a topic on which we agree.

 

You said that " As man is - Jesus Christ once was.  Through the example of Jesus Christ we know that G-d once was a man - Jesus being a man and the example." However, it should be noted that John explicitly stated that "the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us," meaning that by becoming flesh Christ assumed something that was not a part of him beforehand. He did not have a body prior to the incarnation, but he most certainly was God ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"). Now, from my understanding, the LDS position seems to equate becoming one with God as aligning one's will with God's, which is fair enough, but it does not follow that traits that we have or which were assumed by Christ are necessarily attributable to God the Father. 

 

Also, saying that Christ became one with God after the resurrection doesn't necessarily follow, since again John's preamble seems to suggest that Christ (the Word) was one with God since "the beginning." 

 

As for Daniel's prophesy, trying to read modern events into prophesy is always a tricky business. That being said, if you were going to point to any modern event being a fulfillment, you could make a much better argument for the restoration of the nation of Israel in the wake of the second world war. Again, though, I think we've had enough failed apocalypse theories coming out of various Christian denominations to see that trying to read to much into modern events and prophesy often results in errors.

 

Anyway, that's my take on it. Thanks for the insights into some of the LDS interpretations of scripture :)

[Traveler]

And here I was thinking this thread was dead :)

 

I suppose I'll start by disagreeing with the assertation that God is the "father of our spirits."

 

 

My reference to the father of spirits is from   Hebrews 12:9  .  The line provide is for the King James Version - I understand in some versions the reference is to our "spiritual" father.  But the point is that the reference rhetorically G-d as a Father and the means by which our spirit exists.

 

 

The traditional Christian understanding is that Christ is the "only begotten Son of God." The word begotten, which is the past participle form of the word beget, means to "bring into existence by a process of reproduction." What this basically amounts to is that Jesus is God's only Son. Through our baptism, we are integrated into the mystical body of Christ and become sons and daughters and coheirs with him. Our status as God's sons and daughters is, however, contingent upon our integration into Christ's body, and thus we are not God's children intrinsically but through a sort of spiritual adoption through Christ.

 

I'm not necessarily trying to assert that we're right, I'm just pointing out that that is not a topic on which we agree.

 

You said that " As man is - Jesus Christ once was.  Through the example of Jesus Christ we know that G-d once was a man - Jesus being a man and the example." However, it should be noted that John explicitly stated that "the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us," meaning that by becoming flesh Christ assumed something that was not a part of him beforehand. He did not have a body prior to the incarnation, but he most certainly was God ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"). Now, from my understanding, the LDS position seems to equate becoming one with God as aligning one's will with God's, which is fair enough, but it does not follow that traits that we have or which were assumed by Christ are necessarily attributable to God the Father. 

 

Also, saying that Christ became one with God after the resurrection doesn't necessarily follow, since again John's preamble seems to suggest that Christ (the Word) was one with God since "the beginning." 

 

 

I am not sure why you want to include the note you have added.  That Jesus existed prior to being a man has no bearing on the subject at hand.  The point is that as man is - G-d (Jesus) once was.  That is the important point I intended to make clear.  The second part is that Jesus is the example of how man becomes one with G-d.  Since you like to quote John please see  John 17:22  This reference says exactly what I said - that in the same manner that Jesus is given glory to be one (exalted) with G-d man also is given glory to be one (exalted) with both Jesus and the Father.  I think it is important to realize that in this scripture - John is not just giving his opinion as he does at the beginning of John (that you found reason to quote) but that he is quoting directly the words uttered by Jesus Christ.

 

 

As for Daniel's prophesy, trying to read modern events into prophesy is always a tricky business. That being said, if you were going to point to any modern event being a fulfillment, you could make a much better argument for the restoration of the nation of Israel in the wake of the second world war. Again, though, I think we've had enough failed apocalypse theories coming out of various Christian denominations to see that trying to read to much into modern events and prophesy often results in errors.

 

Anyway, that's my take on it. Thanks for the insights into some of the LDS interpretations of scripture :)

 

The Kingdom to which Daniel speaks is important to understand - particularly when it is established. I did not try to put any date on any prophesy except to note that the kingdom of iron would become divided - first into two parts and then into many kings.  Verse 44 is the verse I wanted you to consider.

 

 

 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

 

Your suggestion that the kingdom G-d would established was associated with post WWII Israel is problematic in that the kings of Europe (Rome or the holy Roman empire) had already fallen - some in excess of 100 years and Danial said the kingdom would be established while they were still kings.  I would also point out that Israel  currently is not established as a "Kingdom"  Therefore either a Kingdom currently exist and the scripture is true or Danial was a false prophet because there is no kingdom and the Roman empire has fallen - meaning the time has passed - meaning there will not be a kingdom that will stand forever - which would mean that Jesus will not come a second time to be king of such a forever kingdom.

[cdowis]

>

Danial said the kingdom would be established while they were still kings. 

 

 

Let's see what he actually said

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom"

 

merriam-webster.com  a specified time or period :  age <in grandfather's day> —often used in plural <the old days> <the days of sailing ships>

 

 

 

I would also point out that Israel  currently is not established as a "Kingdom" 

 

 

That's nice, but Daniel is referring to the kingdom of God.  "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, "

 

Just a suggestion for the future.   It's really really helpful to give the exact quote rather than your interpretation of what it says..

Edited January 24, 2015 by cdowis

[Claire]

My reference to the father of spirits is from   Hebrews 12:9  .  The line provide is for the King James Version - I understand in some versions the reference is to our "spiritual" father.  But the point is that the reference rhetorically G-d as a Father and the means by which our spirit exists.

 

 

I am not sure why you want to include the note you have added.

 

The part you weren't sure about was me explaining why I disagreed with your assertation that God is the father of our spirits. Hence the point that Jesus was God's only begotten son (emphasis on "only begotten"). You could argue that God is our spiritual father in the sense that he created us, but by that line of thought He's also the father of my dog's spirit.

 

 

The point is that as man is - G-d (Jesus) once was.  That is the important point I intended to make clear.  The second part is that Jesus is the example of how man becomes one with G-d.  Since you like to quote John please see  John 17:22  This reference says exactly what I said - that in the same manner that Jesus is given glory to be one (exalted) with G-d man also is given glory to be one (exalted) with both Jesus and the Father.  I think it is important to realize that in this scripture - John is not just giving his opinion as he does at the beginning of John (that you found reason to quote) but that he is quoting directly the words uttered by Jesus Christ.

 

 

We've actually talked about this particular verse in John earlier in this thread. To put it in context (which is always a good idea when interpreting scripture), John 17 takes place during the last supper (well, the during the night of the last supper, the last supper itself being glazed over in John's Gospel). Based on both what we know about the Last Supper narratives as well as the earlier prayers in the preceding chapters, its safe to assume that it's just the apostles present. For a while before this point, Christ had been praying to the God to bless the apostles, but in verse 20 he transitioned to the people who would learn about the Gospel through them.

 

As I argued earlier, I would still ascertain that the verses here are heavily Trinitarian, and support my earlier assertations about "spiritual adoption." Jesus goes on quite a bit about how the people who hear the Gospel should be one, and one in him, as he is one in the father. That all being said, you'll note in this narrative that Christ always acts as an intermediary. It is always through Christ that men are united with the Father. The reason Christ can act as such a mediator is precisely because he is both God and man, and the reason we need such a mediator is because we are not divine in our own right.

 

Also, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the parts of the Gospel that aren't directly quoting Jesus are "just John's opinion." I would argue that if scripture is in fact inspired, then you can't pick and choose which parts are authoritative and which are "opinion." If John can err in scipture, then it's just as possible that he erred when quoting Jesus. After all, he is generally considered to have written his Gospel some 60-70 years after the resurrection.

 

 

 

Your suggestion that the kingdom G-d would established was associated with post WWII Israel is problematic in that the kings of Europe (Rome or the holy Roman empire) had already fallen - some in excess of 100 years and Danial said the kingdom would be established while they were still kings.  I would also point out that Israel  currently is not established as a "Kingdom"  Therefore either a Kingdom currently exist and the scripture is true or Danial was a false prophet because there is no kingdom and the Roman empire has fallen - meaning the time has passed - meaning there will not be a kingdom that will stand forever - which would mean that Jesus will not come a second time to be king of such a forever kingdom.

 

I should point out that I don't actually think that the establishment of Israel post World War II was the fulfilment of Daniel's prophesy, only that it is a more probably option than the establishment of the LDS church in Utah. Also, there are plenty of kingdoms out there, at least nominally. The United Kingdom comes to mind :)

 

A more likely interpretation would be a more allegorical reference to the Kingdom of God. Also, it should be noted that there are plenty of biblical scholars who would Persian and Median Empire and had the Seleucid Empire after Alexander's as the last kingdom on the list (that of iron), which makes sense since time wise it would pretty much line up with Christ's coming.

 

That all being said, I again would like to reiterate that I don't personally subscribe to any theory here in particular, though I do think most are easier to argue in favor of than the Utah interpretation.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Claire

[The Folk Prophet]

...the Utah interpretation.

 

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

[Traveler]

The part you weren't sure about was me explaining why I disagreed with your assertation that God is the father of our spirits. Hence the point that Jesus was God's only begotten son (emphasis on "only begotten"). You could argue that God is our spiritual father in the sense that he created us, but by that line of thought He's also the father of my dog's spirit.

 

 

I thought you to be serious - I understand well now why so many of my scientific colleges that grew up in traditional religious setting you think you defend so well and have converted to atheism.

 

As a student of scripture I have read Joseph A. Fitzmyer.s.J.A. (A noted Catholic expert on ancient scriptures and a  prestigious expert in the "Dead Sea Scrolls")  and I would point out that his assignment of the Hebrew - "bene ha elohim", "bene elim" and "bene elyon"  have much better interpretation and textual criticism than your sorry and painfully ignorant rendering of "my dog's spirit"

Edited January 24, 2015 by Traveler

[Claire]

I thought you to be serious - I understand well now why so many of my scientific colleges that grew up in traditional religious setting you think you defend so well and have converted to atheism.

 

As a student of scripture I have read Joseph A. Fitzmyer.s.J.A. (A noted Catholic expert on ancient scriptures and a  prestigious expert in the "Dead Sea Scrolls")  and I would point out that his assignment of the Hebrew - "bene ha elohim", "bene elim" and "bene elyon"  have much better interpretation and textual criticism than your sorry and painfully ignorant rendering of "my dog's spirit"

 

Generally speaking, the sons of God from Genesis which you're referring to are in most interpretations considered either fallen angels or, more commonly, the righteous descendants of Seth. Neither of those interpretations would contradict my position.

 

Also, while I don't mind that you disagree with me, I would at least ask that you be civil. Everybody else here has managed to be so far...

 

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

 

That was just how I referenced Traveler's earlier argument about the establishment of the LDS faith in Utah as being the fulfilment of Daniel's prophesy. He used the Ute's name for Utah in his argument, so I thought that would be a good way to distinguish it from the other interpretations of that prophesy which had been presented. Apparently I was mistaken

[The Folk Prophet]

That was just how I referenced Traveler's earlier argument about the establishment of the LDS faith in Utah as being the fulfilment of Daniel's prophesy. He used the Ute's name for Utah in his argument, so I thought that would be a good way to distinguish it from the other interpretations of that prophesy which had been presented. Apparently I was mistaken

 

Okay. Sorry. I hadn't read it closely enough. I was thinking it meant the way Utahns interpret things. Which is quite varied. :)

[Traveler]

Generally speaking, the sons of God from Genesis which you're referring to are in most interpretations considered either fallen angels or, more commonly, the righteous descendants of Seth. Neither of those interpretations would contradict my position.

 

Also, while I don't mind that you disagree with me, I would at least ask that you be civil. Everybody else here has managed to be so far...

 

 

That was just how I referenced Traveler's earlier argument about the establishment of the LDS faith in Utah as being the fulfilment of Daniel's prophesy. He used the Ute's name for Utah in his argument, so I thought that would be a good way to distinguish it from the other interpretations of that prophesy which had been presented. Apparently I was mistaken

 

When one does not comprehend the depth of a subject their answers are of necessity shallow.  Hint - the Dead Sea Scripture has significantly altered our understanding of biblical textual criticism.  

 

And as far as civility is concerned - your statement about your dog's spirit degradation of the LDS sacred notion of being spiritually and physically like our "Father in Heaven" is the most uncivil and condescending comment I have encountered in years.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Traveler