Some interesting doctrines of LDS

[rameumptom]

Another concept comes from Isaiah and Peter: spirit prison. Peter stated it is where Jesus preached the gospel to the dead. Why do this, if the dead did not need to be preached to?

The early Christian writing, Gospel of Nicodemus, expresses clearly the paradise. Yes, Jesus did break down the door of death, but the understanding is that not all left at that point. You'll note that when Jesus resurrected, the Bible tells us that the righteous also arose and entered into the city.

Finally, Paradise and heaven are two separate places. Paul establishes the difference in 2 Cor 12:1-4.

[Shadow]

Ok , Misshalfway where in the Bible does it say that everyone can aquire the Aaronic Priesthood. Because if anyone know more about that it would be the Jews, as they still practice it today, according to the Law given to them by God. (They don't believe Christ came so still practice as if Christ had not come yet.)

You're not answering my points, you're merely restating what you've already explained. You are explaining

the OLD Aaronic priesthood as it operated under the Mosaic Law. No one is disagreeing with you that that is no longer relevant.

What I'm pointing out is that just because it no longer operates under the same laws DOES NOT mean it no longer exists. When a

company restructures, does it cease to exist? No. You have failed to address my basic argument that Christ has modified the law,

rendering the sacrificial elements obsolete and overhauling the priesthood rather than eliminating it altogether. Please show me

the Scriptures which disprove this argument. I don't believe there are any.

The definition and role for the priesthood's are the definition of why one cannot co-exist with the other one. If it is just a

"Title" then there is not reason to debate. But that isn't the case. There was a role and responsibility for each one and each

one's role and responsibility are against each other. That is why Christ came to fulfill the Law and make a new covenant. He

fullfilled the law and in the new covenant we are neither saved nor condemned by it, but by it we know sin. (Paul Stated this.

For example if I were to tell someone that water (H20) could only be in the state of ice or gas at a given time not both. If they did

not understand what Ice or Gas was or the states of water it would be difficult to say why they could not co-exist, but in the definition of the ice and

gas states of water you find out why they cannot co-exist just in the definition, there would be no sense in trying to have a "logical"

debate on that. And that is what I am trying to say. In the purposes that each priesthood was to serve, makes it unable to co-exist.

Once again, no one is disagreeing with this premise; where we differ is only in our belief in the continued, though modified,

existence of the Aaronic priesthood alongside the Melchizidek.

Once again you are missing the point, I am stating their roles because to understand why they cannot co-exist one would

have to understand, (1) Why they came to be, and (2) what where they established to fulfill. Because we must all agree

that they were not established just for the sake of it .

Okay, this is where some basic Biblical and historical knowledge comes in handy. First of all, every Scriptural reference to

"the resurrection" logically indicates that there is a spirit world where we wait for that resurrection. This place is referred

to variously as Sheol (the grave/underworld), Abraham's bosom (i.e. the place where our ancestors await us), and Paradise.

"Paradise" comes from a Persian word meaning a walled garden - it's basically the Persian version of the Garden of Eden (the

Hebrew phrase "gan 'eden" is literally translated as "enclosed garden of delight"). "Paradise" does not refer to the place where

God is (Heaven), it refers to the pleasant place where good folks go after death and before resurrection; there also is the unpleasant

"spirit prison" for those who are bad. There are cognates in the Eyptian "Reed Fields" and the Greek "Elysium", both sections

of the underworld set apart as places of delight for the spirits of the virtuous dead. Among early Christian Fathers, both

Irenaeus and Origen made the distinction between "Heaven" and "Paradise", with Origen describing Paradise as "an earthly 'school'

for souls of the righteous dead, preparing them for their ascent through the celestial spheres to heaven."

Christ did not ascend to his Father on the day he died; he descended to Sheol, Paradise, the spirit world of the ancestors,

where he preached to the spirits in prison. That is what he meant by telling the thief he would be with him that day

in Paradise. He did not ascend to his Father until after he was resurrected and appeared to the disciples. So would you then

make Christ a liar?

Yes, I know he did not go straight to the father, but he when down to Abrahams Bosom. When he went down there he set

the captives free. They are now no longer there, but in heaven. Abraham's Bosom is no longer because Christ died and went

down (just as you said) and saved the captives. Also you did not answer my question, where in the Bible does it say it still exists to

this day?

I'm interested in knowing what religion we are talking about here. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches eternal principles

taught by God's prophets from the beginning of the world. The Bible is not the fulness of God's teachings. We need additional

witnesses to understand the truth. Otherwise we have the confusion that exists in the world today.

Now this is interesting that you brought this up darrel. Here, I believe you would be referring to the modern day prophets, the Book of Mormon

and the other such books that the LDS use. I would like to state that I am coming from a Christian point of view, not an LDS view. I have

personally read what I consider enough of the book of Mormon. The reason why I do not refer to the book of Mormon on my spiritual difficulties

or theologies because just like Aelswyth, I love History, I read it for enjoyment and for my spare time, and when I read the book of Mormon pretty much

all of the history is just out there with not archaeological evidence whatsoever. Now I am not saying that there needs to be evidence for everything

just at least a couple of things, maybe at least one thing. But I don't find it anywhere in the Book of Mormon, except the parts that reference to the Bible.

Here are some things that I find hard to believe:

Not one of the Neophite cities have been found or traces of the Lamenities. Also a lot of the information regarding the Americas

are totally out on its own, that is why there is no maps in the back of the Book of Mormon stating the geographic locations of the ancient

cities that they often refer to. The reason of this is because the LDS church cannot decide on the correct one. I actually encourage you

to look at the purposed maps of what America looked like according to the Book of Mormon and you find that it doesn't even look anything

like modern day American.

I have read and studied everything even down to the hill Commora (Think I spelled it right) itself. Where there

should be some 10,000,000 + artifacts, this would include skeletal remains of the two battles (around 2,000,000), if they wore helmets that

would give us another 2,000,000, if they wore breastplates - another 2,000,000, if they wore shin guards -another 4,000,000, this does not

include the the swords and/or spear heads, arrow heads (if they had archery), or skeletal remains of horses that they said they rode into

battle with(Which there is convicting evidences that there were not before the Europeans came over). It seems with this staggering number that

there would be at least 1 artifact recovered. And this is just in 2 battles.

I haven't even began to explain all the other statements in the

Book of Mormon, such as the advanced coin system it states that they used (1 coin is yet to be found), the HUGE Mayan temple like structures

they said they build (Actually in the beginning of the Book of Mormon there is supposed to be a very accurate picture of what it looks like-

A Mormon that works in the Temple stated that it was an accurate picture).

Also where are the Neophites capital Zerhamemla? How about the Lamenite cities?

Now, I believe that the Word of God, the Holy Bible, is the fullness of God to man. There has been no other book written that is even close

to any other. It has been used to find old cities, actually I believe almost all the cities in the Bible have been found or are still

inhabited today. There are detailed maps of the Bible in the Ancient times. And there are some, what most people considered to be advanced

science in it. Science that would almost be impossible for any man to achieve at that time. (Such as the 4 "Wind Belts" that circulate the earth.)

Please don't take this information as I am trying to "kill" Mormonism or try to smack people in the face, but instead what I am trying to do

is put myself in a position as a spectator. My goal is to find the right religion not for me or what I want, but for the sake of getting to

heaven. I am sure all of you are, to a certain extent degree agree with this. But it comes down to that there are no 2 truths. And I want to know

the what truth is the correct one. And finally I am stating these facts so that if anyone has any objection that I may read into it and in

so doing, gain more knowledge.

-Shadow

[rameumptom]

Shadow, can you tell me how Jesus, who did not possess the Aaronic Priesthood, was able to baptize and perform many of the works he did? It is because God called him as a priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek. God chose how he was going to establish His order. Why doesn't the Bible tell us? Because the Bible doesn't have all the answers. It does tell us that God reveals his secrets through prophets (Amos 3:7), which is exactly how he did it in Jesus' day, and in our day, as well.

The key is finding out whether God can change things through a prophet. The Bible shows time and again that He can. Prior to Moses, many performed priesthood functions. Originally, God planned to take the first born male of Israel to make a priest, but gave the function to the Levites, instead. Given this change, it is clear that God could change it as often as he wishes. It is, after all, His priesthood and authority.

We learn in the D&C that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and its purpose is to prepare the people to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. That's how it worked in Moses' and Jesus' days, and that's how it works now.

[rameumptom]

Now, I believe that the Word of God, the Holy Bible, is the fullness of God to man. There has been no other book written that is even close

to any other. It has been used to find old cities, actually I believe almost all the cities in the Bible have been found or are still

inhabited today. There are detailed maps of the Bible in the Ancient times. And there are some, what most people considered to be advanced

science in it. Science that would almost be impossible for any man to achieve at that time. (Such as the 4 "Wind Belts" that circulate the earth.)

This is without meaning. Most of the cities of Israel were still known throughout history, and weren't lost. And even with this accuracy, it does not prove the prophecies or miracles in the Bible. Nor does it prove Jesus' godhood. They've found "proofs" of the Book of Mormon, as well. The location of Nahom has been found, as well as the Arabian Bountiful. These were lost for centuries, and not easily known in Joseph Smith's day (if at all). But we're aware of them today. That's more impressive than saying, "here's Jerusalem exactly where the Bible says it should be", when Jerusalem has always existed and been known to men.

The Bible prophecies of prophets working in the last days. The only question is whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or not. If he is, then your arguments over priesthood are moot.

[Hemidakota]

Here are some things that I find hard to believe:

Not one of the Nephite cities have been found or traces of the Lamanites. Also a lot of the information regarding the Americas is totally out on its own, that is why there are no maps in the back of the Book of Mormon stating the geographic locations of the ancient

cities that they often refer to. The reason of this is because the LDS church cannot decide on the correct one. I actually encourage you to look at the purposed maps of what America looked like according to the Book of Mormon and you find that it doesn't even look anything like modern day American.

Did I miss something here? What part of the Book of Mormon are you referring too to prove your assumption? Don't be haste to judge.

Do some research of ancient cities dated that are found in the eastern part of the Yucatan Peninsula and compare to the western portion. Something drastically happened to the land mass. Also, use the same comparison of ancient cities found going south to Columbia.

What we view today as Americas [some features changed] land masses, were not the same features found before the death of Christ. Members usually look at the map of today and expect it never changed since the first man. Even during the time of Noah, there some changes to land features of earth that we view today prior to the flood.

I have read and studied everything even down to the hill Cumorah (Think I spelled it right) itself. Where there should be some 10,000,000 + artifacts, this would include skeletal remains of the two battles (around 2,000,000), if they wore helmets that

would give us another 2,000,000, if they wore breastplates - another 2,000,000, if they wore shin guards -another 4,000,000, this does not include the swords and/or spear heads, arrow heads (if they had archery), or skeletal remains of horses that they said they rode into battle with(Which there is convicting evidences that there were not before the Europeans came over). It seems with this staggering number that there would be at least 1 artifact recovered. And this is just in 2 battles.

Actual Native American artifacts were found around the ‘the hill’ by local farmers and still more can be found if you time, devotion, and allowed to do so. These artifacts may have nothing to do with that last stand [large scale battle] as some think.

Though, I never understood why people refer the hill as Cumorah when the prophet just calls it a hill. The original hill can be located in below the border. Where? That is still being debated on which Cerra. If you go on to Goggle Maps, zoom in to Southern Mexico, type Cumorah in the search box for proposals.

Changing the topic, I won’t begin to tell you about the Mounds being found throughout North America with skeletal remains that exceed the normal human height of today. .

I haven't even began to explain all the other statements in the Book of Mormon, such as the advanced coin system it states that they used (1 coin is yet to be found), the HUGE Mayan temple like structures they said they build (Actually in the beginning of the Book of Mormon there is supposed to be a very accurate picture of what it looks like-A Mormon that works in the Temple stated that it was an accurate picture).

Also where are the Nephites capital Zarahemla? How about the Lamanite cities?

Who do think the Mayans, Olmecs, and Toltec [others I failed to mention] parents? Then we have a corrupted language that was not a Nephite origin since the Lamanites mixed with the remainder of the Jaredites, later with the Mulekites, and apostated Nephites. I would expect the these Lamanites after warring among themselves, make changes to the original way of life by each predecessor claimed king.

Eventually, the truth will come on exact locations of those cities, as other plates will be forth coming.

[rameumptom]

I am very sorry for putting that up without explaining from where I am coming from. I am bringing this information from a Christian perspective, not from an LDS (Mormon) point of view. This is probably why it is different from what you have been taught. If you have any questions about what I said or any Bible verses that contradict what I said, I would most willing go through them with you.

Oh, and also you may be saying that Christian doctrine and LDS doctrine are the same and I will have to say Hinkle said it himself that he did not believe in the God of Christianity.

No, he said that he did not believe in the God of the Creeds of modern Christianity. That's a major difference.

BTW, Baptism for the Dead WAS practiced by a few early Christian groups. Paul mentions to the Corinthians that some Christians were baptizing so that they would rise again (1 Cor 15:29). Among the early Christians that baptized after Paul are the Marcionites.

One Pauline church in Ephesus that still stands and is cared for by Eastern Orthodox priests has back-to-back churches. Both sides have benches and a baptismal font. One side is for all people, and the other is only for members. Why have a baptismal font in a members-only chapel? The EO priest will tell you that they performed baptisms for the dead. This still is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church's belief, though they do not practice nor teach it anymore.

I would hope those making firm claims on this list would first do their homework and research beyond what their pastor tells them. It would greatly reduce the amount of clutter in the discussions based upon wrong claims. While people can still disagree as to whether the current Christian church should practice baptism for the dead, it is ridiculous and/or ignorant for anyone to claim that it was not practiced by early Christians.

[Aelswyth]

Yes, I know he did not go straight to the father, but he when down to Abrahams Bosom. When he went down there he set

the captives free. They are now no longer there, but in heaven. Abraham's Bosom is no longer because Christ died and went

down (just as you said) and saved the captives. Also you did not answer my question, where in the Bible does it say it still exists to

this day?

More to the point, where does it say it no longer exists? Since it clearly did exist, and since all indications are that it continues to exist (such as the prophesied Judgment Day), I believe the burden of proof is on you to show that somehow it has simply vanished from existence.

I'm curious, if you do not believe in Paradise/Abraham's Bosom/the spirit world, then what on earth do you think happens when people die? Obviously, if they don't go to the Spirit World, they must go either to Heaven or Hell. Since the Judgment is not until the last day, then the destination cannot yet be based on any final worthiness; so either everyone goes to Heaven (an impossibility since no unclean thing can enter the presence of God) or everyone goes to Hell (not exactly just OR loving, wouldn't you say?).

Clearly, the only way to reconcile end-time prophecies with a just and loving God is the continued existence of the Spirit World, i.e. Abraham's Bosom. Just because Christ freed the captives who were there at the time of his death and resurrection does not by any stretch of meaning imply that the place itself ceased to exist. If you free all the inmates from a prison, does the prison magically vanish? Do people stop committing crimes and being sent there? Of course not, on both counts. People have not stopped dying since Christ came, so there is still need for a Spirit World where we can dwell until the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord arrives. If you do not believe this, then how do you explain the final judgment?

[Shadow]

Shadow, can you tell me how Jesus, who did not possess the Aaronic Priesthood, was able to baptize and perform many of the works he did?

It is because God called him as a priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek. God chose how he was going to establish His order. Why

doesn't the Bible tell us? Because the Bible doesn't have all the answers. It does tell us that God reveals his secrets through prophets

(Amos 3:7), which is exactly how he did it in Jesus' day, and in our day, as well.The key is finding out whether God can

change things through a prophet. The Bible shows time and again that He can. Prior to Moses, many performed priesthood functions.

Originally, God planned to take the first born male of Israel to make a priest, but gave the function

to the Levites, instead. Given this change, it is clear that God could change it as often as he wishes. It is, after all, His priesthood and authority.

We learn in the D&C that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and its purpose is to prepare the people

to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. That's how it worked in Moses' and Jesus' days, and that's how it works now.

This is without meaning. Most of the cities of Israel were still known throughout history, and weren't lost. And even with this accuracy,

it does not prove the prophecies or miracles in the Bible. Nor does it prove Jesus' godhood. They've found "proofs" of the Book of Mormon,

as well. The location of Nahom has been found, as well as the Arabian Bountiful. These were lost for centuries, and not easily known in

Joseph Smith's day (if at all). But we're aware of them today. That's more impressive than saying, "here's Jerusalem exactly where the

Bible says it should be", when Jerusalem has always existed and been known to men.

The Bible prophecies of prophets working in the last days. The only question is whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or

not. If he is, then your arguments over priesthood are moot.

Well, here you kind of took it at face value. There are many cities that were "lost" in the Bible. For example Jericho,

and they have almost 100% found Sodom and Gomora, they were able to find through the clues of the Bible. Now why haven't they found the great and

might city of Zerahemla the capital of the Neophite Empire? It isn't only bigger, but older and more advanced than Jerusalem. They

had HUGE temples, like the Mayan, but we can't find those, why? How about the Lamenites, the ones who conquered them? And also where are the

cities of Nahom and the Arabian Bountiful located?

Another thing here I wasn't saying this proves Jesus, but it does give us the thought that maybe since all this evidence is true that

maybe the rest of it might be to, where as in the Book of Mormon, there is pretty much no Historical evidence whatsoever

Now the question comes up. Is Joseph Smith a prophet? This has to be a yes or no answer, no maybe answers. I have to say that by the evidences

in the Book of Mormon, I would have to say no. He said he saw God the Father, which in the Bible it clearly states that you cannot. There

are some 3 or more stories of the appearance to Joseph Smith. From just angels, to God being there, to just

Jesus being there. I mean you think if something that great happend you would never forget it. Also he is the only prophet to bring a "New" book

that contridicts the Bible in more than one place.

Another quite interesting thing to know is if you watch the new LDS video(the one they published) on Joseph Smith, they portray him as a "Lamb lead to the slaughter".

Also the tour guides of the Carthage prison speak that way, that all they had was canes to fend off the people.

Thats great and fine, but if you read the church history (the one the LDS published) it states that he basically died in a gun battle. He

wounded 3, killing 2. He was smuggled a 6 shooter pistol into his cell before the incedent. This kind of says alot about the LDS church.

Also in situations like that you can tell

what a man is like.( In the unexpectated or dire circumstances, not in every day life.)

They also state that they found the Talismen of Jupiter on Joseph

Smith after he had died. Maybe it didn't mean anything, but the Talismen Of Jupiter is an artifact of cultic, satanic

background, that really doesn't make sense for him to be wearing it. (It is used by people practicing Wikka, but the true background comes

from Egypt and it comes from the worship of other gods.)

Did I miss something here? What part of the Book of Mormon are you referring too to prove your assumption? Don't be haste to judge.

Do some research of ancient cities dated that are found in the eastern part of the Yucatan Peninsula and compare to the western portion.

Something drastically happened to the land mass. Also, use the same comparison of ancient cities found going south to Columbia.

There is something to note here, when we talk about these empires we are not locolizing them. These are regional empires, comparable to the

Roman or Greek empires. So there should be some evidences beyond the local, to refrence some type of existance. For example the Nephites

are almost like the Jews, as they document alot of stuff, why can't we find any documents?

What we view today as Americas [some features changed] land masses, were not the same features found before the death of Christ.

Members usually look at the map of today and expect it never changed since the first man. Even during the time of Noah, there some

changes to land features of earth that we view today prior to the flood.

Ok, I agree with you on that, but didn't Jesus suppossedly come to them? That means America would have to have some very drastic land mass

changes in about 2000 years. Actually not only drastic in local areas but nation wide where you couldn't even reconize the old America. It

is just imopossible.

Actual Native American artifacts were found around the ‘the hill’ by local farmers and still more can be found if you time, devotion,

and allowed to do so. These artifacts may have nothing to do with that last stand [large scale battle] as some think.

You fail to answer what I stated, I am saying there isn't just a few here and there. There should be collosal amounts. For example there

should be some 2,300,000 coins. This would be only if every soldier had only 1 coin. It states that they had an advanced coin system. Why

can't we find just 1? We have been here for some 300 years, you think we could have found 1. (How long do we have to wait for the smallest

of evidences?)

Though, I never understood why people refer the hill as Cumorah when the prophet just calls it a hill. The original hill can be

located in below the border. Where? That is still being debated on which Cerra. If you go on to Goggle Maps, zoom in to Southern Mexico,

type Cumorah in the search box for proposals.

This is what I mean, they don't know where it is. Pretty much every city that is mentioned is being debated on where it could have been. (the

ones I am referring to are the ones that are supposed to be located here in America)

Changing the topic, I won’t begin to tell you about the Mounds being found throughout North America with skeletal remains that exceed

the normal human height of today. . Who do think the Mayans, Olmecs, and Toltec [others I failed to mention]

parents? Then we have a corrupted language that was not a Nephite origin since the Lamanites mixed with the remainder of the Jaredites,

later with the Mulekites, and apostated Nephites. I would expect the these Lamanites after warring among themselves, make changes to

the original way of life by each predecessor claimed king.

The skeletal remains by no means conclude that these could have been Nephite orign. Also you state that they could have made changes to

the original way of life. This is true, but there is not way that they would have abbandond everything and lived like the Native Americans

lived. They were able to create metal armor, had an advanced coin system, were able to build huge structures, and much more. How and why

would they give this up to live almost a nomadic life style.

Now the Mayans and Aztec civilizations were "advanced", but not nearly as advanced as the Nephites were or the Lamenites, they would have

had to go back in time to become the Aztec civilztion. It would be the first to ever be done as far as I know.

No, he said that he did not believe in the God of the Creeds of modern Christianity. That's a major difference.

Exacly my point. What is one of the most debated creeds of Christianity and Mormonism? The Trinity.... The Christian's belive that

God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in being, while the Mormons deny it. That would mean that you do not believe in

the same God as Christians.

[Shadow]

BTW, Baptism for the Dead WAS practiced by a few early Christian groups. Paul mentions to the Corinthians that some Christians

were baptizing so that they would rise again (1 Cor 15:29). Among the early Christians that baptized after Paul are the Marcionites.

One Pauline church in Ephesus that still stands and is cared for by Eastern Orthodox priests has back-to-back churches. Both sides

have benches and a baptismal font. One side is for all people, and the other is only for members. Why have a baptismal font in a

members-only chapel? The EO priest will tell you that they performed baptisms for the dead. This still is part of the Eastern Orthodox

Church's belief, though they do not practice nor teach it anymore.

I would hope those making firm claims on this list would first do their homework and research beyond what their pastor tells them.

It would greatly reduce the amount of clutter in the discussions based upon wrong claims. While people can still disagree as to

whether the current Christian church should practice baptism for the dead, it is ridiculous and/or ignorant for anyone to claim that

it was not practiced by early Christians.

Ok, just because "other" christian are doing it doesn't mean it is Biblical. Extra things I really don't have much to say for. I totally disagree

for the baptism for the dead because once your dead, the game is over. There isn't any need for it and the Bible doesn't say you need to

do it. If you do it I don't believe your cultic, just wasting your time. But then again it is your time to waste according to free will.

Also I would apprciate if you would state that I need to do my home work. If you are a mormon you would really have no idea where I am comming

from. As I listen to what you have to say, listen to me. Also I never said they didn't baptise for the dead, I said it isn't Biblical. That

is a major difference.

More to the point, where does it say it no longer exists? Since it clearly did exist, and since all indications are that it continues to

exist (such as the prophesied Judgment Day), I believe the burden of proof is on you to show that somehow it has simply vanished from existence.

I'm curious, if you do not believe in Paradise/Abraham's Bosom/the spirit world, then what on earth do you think happens when people die?

Obviously, if they don't go to the Spirit World, they must go either to Heaven or Hell. Since the Judgment is not until the last day, then the

destination cannot yet be based on any final worthiness; so either everyone goes to Heaven (an impossibility since no unclean thing can enter the

presence of God) or everyone goes to Hell (not exactly just OR loving, wouldn't you say?).

Ok, this I have to say is a good question. Notice when you say in the last day, this doesn't imply the last day for God, but us. God is

eternal and so don't have a beginning or end, and in do have this ability is not governd by time. So when some one dies they are judged and

the reward or condemnation is given instantaiously. How is this? Because God is forever present (Due to no time he is never old), right now

is just as new as yesterday and tomorrow will be. So in a sense when you die you will be at the end of days(for you). Being that we are

governed by time. Now how does this apply to Abraham's Bosom if you had to wait for Christ to save you? Well you had to "wait" because you

could not go to heaven. To answer this accuratly you would have to answer this question. If you are now not governed by time and there is

no time, how long do you "wait"? This is like saying how long is eternaty and how long will it feel to you?

Clearly, the only way to reconcile end-time prophecies with a just and loving God is the continued existence of the Spirit World, i.e.

Abraham's Bosom. Just because Christ freed the captives who were there at the time of his death and resurrection does not by any stretch

of meaning imply that the place itself ceased to exist. If you free all the inmates from a prison, does the prison magically vanish? Do

people stop committing crimes and being sent there? Of course not, on both counts. People have not stopped dying since Christ came, so

there is still need for a Spirit World where we can dwell until the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord arrives. If you do not believe

this, then how do you explain the final judgment?

Also God is just and loving, yes. But this don't mean what you implied it to mean. Because God is just, you fear him because he cannot let

sin go on without being punish for if he let sin slide, he may be good to you, but now not just. And actually we all deserve to go to Hell,

that is why Christ came so that we may have to ability to go to heaven.

Well you kind of used a poor analagy for that. In the prison thing. It is almost like this. Say you everyone over on earth was dirty. And God

didn't want you to mess everything up and so contructed a temperery motel that you could "stay" at until Christ was to come over and say

God is ready for you to come over to his Hotel where he was able to put down some plastic covers so you didn't get dirt all over the place.

Now everyone can go to his Hotel because he has done the neccassary work so you don't mess it up. This doesn't mean that the old motel has

to be torn down. It just means no one has to stay there any more. (I did this one on the fly so you kind of have to forgive me).

[Hemidakota]

What was left of the civilization of the Nephites after being exterminated by those apostates and pagans? What do you think happened to all those cities? Wasn’t the Lamanites, nomadic by culture; just walked in and inherited city after city? Do you not think over time there would be changes made to those Nephite cities? What happen after the destruction of the Nephites? Did the Lamanites turned in upon themselves and began a civil war? Who was left after this incident? Currently, the City of Nephi resides beneath a much larger city – not far from the waters of Mormon. Some findings that had been seen are striking in revealing such facts if you visit in person.

Now, go to Google maps and view the southern portion of Mexico and type in Zarahemla.

There are some in the church, as there are out of the church will deny that the Book of Mormon portray the cities in this part of the world. I beg to differ. Many times in life, approaching those items that ‘fancy’ our intellect in searching for the answer, will come after our trial of faith, and through maturity in receiving such a worthy answer.

Now, whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet, needs to be a personal answer. Saying so without a ‘just’ answer is foolish and immature intelligence.

[Aelswyth]

Exacly my point. What is one of the most debated creeds of Christianity and Mormonism? The Trinity.... The Christian's belive that

God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in being, while the Mormons deny it. That would mean that you do not believe in

the same God as Christians.

Ever heard of Unitarians? They're Christian. They don't believe in the Trinity.

There are also many Evangelical Christians who hold to Nontrinitarianism.

The Christadelphians are Nontrinitarian.

Here is a nice little quote from the Wikipedia article on Nontrinitarianism:

"Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity is a tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines (see Apophasis) to the greater truth they are intended to address, i.e. God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect."

I would also point out that there have been General Authorities of the Church, and other prominent Mormons, who have indeed espoused an understanding of the Trinity and even used the term in their writings.

Don't you think it's a little arrogant and, well, unChristlike to decide for yourself who is and isn't a real Christian? I think this calls for a few words from Christ himself:

"Do not judge, lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged. And with the same measure you use, it shall be measured to you. And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:1-3

"Not everyone who says to me, "Master, Master," shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father in the heavens. Many shall say to me in that day, "Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done many mighty works in your name?" And then I shall declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!""

I humbly point out that this could just as easily refer to you as it could to me; so maybe we should leave all the judgments about who is or is not a true follower of Christ up to him and his Heavenly Father.

[Aelswyth]

Ok, this I have to say is a good question. Notice when you say in the last day, this doesn't imply the last day for God, but us. God is

eternal and so don't have a beginning or end, and in do have this ability is not governd by time. So when some one dies they are judged and

the reward or condemnation is given instantaiously. How is this? Because God is forever present (Due to no time he is never old), right now

is just as new as yesterday and tomorrow will be. So in a sense when you die you will be at the end of days(for you). Being that we are

governed by time. Now how does this apply to Abraham's Bosom if you had to wait for Christ to save you? Well you had to "wait" because you

could not go to heaven. To answer this accuratly you would have to answer this question. If you are now not governed by time and there is

no time, how long do you "wait"? This is like saying how long is eternaty and how long will it feel to you?

Also God is just and loving, yes. But this don't mean what you implied it to mean. Because God is just, you fear him because he cannot let

sin go on without being punish for if he let sin slide, he may be good to you, but now not just. And actually we all deserve to go to Hell,

that is why Christ came so that we may have to ability to go to heaven.

Well you kind of used a poor analagy for that. In the prison thing. It is almost like this. Say you everyone over on earth was dirty. And God

didn't want you to mess everything up and so contructed a temperery motel that you could "stay" at until Christ was to come over and say

God is ready for you to come over to his Hotel where he was able to put down some plastic covers so you didn't get dirt all over the place.

Now everyone can go to his Hotel because he has done the neccassary work so you don't mess it up. This doesn't mean that the old motel has

to be torn down. It just means no one has to stay there any more. (I did this one on the fly so you kind of have to forgive me).

Okay, I get what you're saying. I understand your viewpoint and how it all hangs together. But, I disagree with your conclusions and don't see them supported in Scripture. I think most Christians would agree with me that there is a single, final Judgment Day for all souls, not a separate one for each. I've rarely heard anyone espouse the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment immediately upon death. One point that immediately presents itself to me is that such a system would seem to make death itself rather pointless. What happens, you die one day, you're buried, and then the next you're resurrected and off to Heaven or Hell? Do you believe in the bodily resurrection? Most Christians do, and I haven't noticed any reports of mysteriously empty coffins lately.

Out of curiosity, what scriptural passages do you see as supporting the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment immediately after death?

[JonboySquarepants]

i think shadow may have been saying that once we die we too are outside of time. it does not govern us anymore. it still runs things in order for people on earth, but not people who are dead. the rest of the world would be as the blinking of an eye to the dead. so, judgement may happen right after we die because we're not constrained by time anymore. it's not that it's a judgement for each individual person after each person dies, but it would seems as though as though once we die, that's it. we aren't gonna be up there watching the rest of the world go on and live on for how ever many years, may it be one year or three thousand years, until the second coming. once we die, we're outside of time, and thus onto the next step, i.e. judgement.

i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything said, and maybe i read that wrong, but that's what i understood it to say.

[Aelswyth]

i think shadow may have been saying that once we die we too are outside of time. it does not govern us anymore. it still runs things in order for people on earth, but not people who are dead. the rest of the world would be as the blinking of an eye to the dead. so, judgement may happen right after we die because we're not constrained by time anymore. it's not that it's a judgement for each individual person after each person dies, but it would seems as though as though once we die, that's it. we aren't gonna be up there watching the rest of the world go on and live on for how ever many years, may it be one year or three thousand years, until the second coming. once we die, we're outside of time, and thus onto the next step, i.e. judgement.

i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything said, and maybe i read that wrong, but that's what i understood it to say.

Thank you Jonboy. I see the point. Still not convinced, though; why would spirits be "outside time"? Are Satan and his demons outside time? And even though we're talking about the perception of time, rather than the passage of time itself, that would still involve being somewhere for that "blink-of-an-eye eternity", wouldn't it? We have been taught that the Spirit World is right here on earth; so it must still operate under earthly time. I don't see any evidence that spirits are outside time. If they were, what would be so terrible about spending a "blink-of-an-eye" in spirit prison? Heck, that wouldn't be so bad. :)

[JonboySquarepants]

lol, whoa! i don't know. that was just my take on what i read. i wasn't agreeing with it. :)

[Aelswyth]

lol, whoa! i don't know. that was just my take on what i read. i wasn't agreeing with it. :)

I know, Jonboy... sorry, I was kind of replying to Shadow by way of your clarification... not intending to draw you into the fray! :)

[Shadow]

Shadow, can you tell me how Jesus, who did not possess the Aaronic Priesthood, was able to baptize and perform many of the works he did?

It is because God called him as a priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek. God chose how he was going to establish His order. Why

doesn't the Bible tell us? Because the Bible doesn't have all the answers. It does tell us that God reveals his secrets through prophets

(Amos 3:7), which is exactly how he did it in Jesus' day, and in our day, as well.The key is finding out whether God can

change things through a prophet. The Bible shows time and again that He can. Prior to Moses, many performed priesthood functions.

Originally, God planned to take the first born male of Israel to make a priest, but gave the function

to the Levites, instead. Given this change, it is clear that God could change it as often as he wishes. It is, after all, His priesthood and authority.

We learn in the D&C that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and its purpose is to prepare the people

to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. That's how it worked in Moses' and Jesus' days, and that's how it works now.

Oh, sorry I noticed I didn't answer this one . This would be simple. Christ was able to do this because he was God in flesh. He doesn't

need the Aaronic priesthood, he was PERFECT and sinless and so would not need to be saved from sin. Now no God can't just change the

priesthood when every he wants. He only established one to man until Christ came to fulfill the Melkizedek priesthood.

Also no it doesn't work that way. Christ is forever eternal and so doesn't pass the priesthood, so until Christ dies eternally he will never

change the priesthood. And since he is eternal he will forever be our High Priest.

What was left of the civilization of the Nephites after being exterminated by those apostates and pagans? What do you think happened

to all those cities? Wasn’t the Lamanites, nomadic by culture; just walked in and inherited city after city? Do you not think over

time there would be changes made to those Nephite cities? What happen after the destruction of the Nephites? Did the Lamanites turned

in upon themselves and began a civil war? Who was left after this incident? Currently, the City of Nephi resides beneath a much larger

city – not far from the waters of Mormon. Some findings that had been seen are striking in revealing such facts if you visit in person.

Now, go to Google maps and view the southern portion of Mexico and type in Zarahemla.

There are some in the church, as there are out of the church will deny that the Book of Mormon portray the cities in this part of the world. I beg to differ.

Many times in life, approaching those items that ‘fancy’ our intellect in searching for the answer, will come after our trial of faith, and through maturity

in receiving such a worthy answer.

Now, whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet, needs to be a personal answer. Saying so without a ‘just’ answer is foolish and immature

intelligence.

Now you are being out there ... Just because you say the Lamenites (Who we have no solid evidence for their existence) were nomadic they

would have left the city alone? If they destroyed it there would be ruins. Or are you saying they moved every stone out of place and moved

them across America so that no one could find any evidence that they ever existed?!? This would be so far out there. Now maybe we couldn't find any? Maybe, but sooner or later

you would find something, we been here some 300 years in America can we have one

artifact for evidence? I mean is that too much to ask?

Yes, I do believe that

they would have changed, but they would not be erased from the earth. We are talking about Mayan size temples here. These are HUGE

and if they built these you think we would find one ruined one. We actually have no trace whatsoever of them.(Well except the Mayan ones of course )

Joseph Smith being a prophet isn't a personal answer. Have you ever head the saying, "With proof like that who needs evidence?" That is

what you just said. Actually I took the God given ability of reason and said he isn't a prophet.

Ever heard of Unitarians? They're Christian. They don't believe in the Trinity.

There are also many Evangelical Christians who hold to Nontrinitarianism.

The Christadelphians are Nontrinitarian.

Here is a nice little quote from the Wikipedia article on Nontrinitarianism:

"Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a

"hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for

years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity

is a tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines

(see Apophasis) to the greater truth they are intended to address, i.e. God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or

Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is

usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect."

I would also point out that there have been General Authorities of the Church, and other prominent Mormons, who have indeed espoused

an understanding of the Trinity and even used the term in their writings.

Don't you think it's a little arrogant and, well, unChristlike to decide for yourself who is and isn't a real Christian? I think

this calls for a few words from Christ himself:

"Do not judge, lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged. And with the same measure you use, it shall

be measured to you. And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:1-3

"Not everyone who says to me, "Master, Master," shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father

in the heavens. Many shall say to me in that day, "Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name,

and done many mighty works in your name?" And then I shall declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!""

I humbly point out that this could just as easily refer to you as it could to me; so maybe we should leave all the judgments about

who is or is not a true follower of Christ up to him and his Heavenly Father.

And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:3

- This should answer your

question. It is saying don't be a hypocrite. If you are going out and stealing cars don't preach that no one should steal cars.

"Not everyone who says to me, "Master, Master," shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father

in the heavens. Many shall say to me in that day, "Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name,

and done many mighty works in your name?" And then I shall declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!"

This right here says why you can't be saved by works. They were able to cast out demons in Jesus Christ's name and yet they could not

enter heaven. They also did mighty works and still not.

Also no it is not my thing to say you are not a Christian, but when you deny the Trinity you are denying one of the greatest aspects of God

and saying you believe in more than one God which is polytheism, which the Bible states that there in only 1 God and he knows

none other.

[Shadow]

Okay, I get what you're saying. I understand your view point and how it all hangs together. But, I disagree with your conclusions

and don't see them supported in Scripture. I think most Christians would agree with me that there is a single, final Judgment Day

for all souls, not a separate one for each. I've rarely heard anyone espouse the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment

immediately upon death. One point that immediately presents itself to me is that such a system would seem to make death itself

rather pointless. What happens, you die one day, you're buried, and then the next you're resurrected and off to Heaven or Hell?

Do you believe in the bodily resurrection? Most Christians do, and I haven't noticed any reports of mysteriously empty coffins

lately.

Out of curiosity, what scriptural passages do you see as supporting the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment immediately

after death?

Again here you are stating the law of Time. God created time and so in not apart of time itself.

For example say you are writing a story

about Mary. You start writing this sentence, "Mary started to go to sleep then, ....", you here the phone ring, and so you go answer the phone and

forget about the sentence and then go have lunch. You come back and see that the sentence wasn't finished and so finish saying, " she heard a

knock at the door", now there has been about 2 hours between the start and finish of the sentence, but for the person in the story, it has been

maybe 2 minutes or so.

Here is another example if you look at a time line you will see a long line of dates. You look at then and they are all present to you. As

you can access any of the information at any time without have to wait (you dont have to wait 20 years to read what 1920 has to say and what

1940 has to say). God is like the person in front of the time line, everything is present and so when people die they come out of that

"time" of which we are apart of. Now yes everyone will be judged at one time. But you must understand that we reason in time and day

God has no time and day. That like saying after you die, I have to wait "x" amount of years in spirit in a spirit world before I am eternal in spirit. You

are then saying time only applies to certain "spirits" and that there are different stages of "spirits" and that some "spirits" must change

again to become eternal. This is not so.

Also where does it say this in scripture. It says it when God says he is the Alpha and Omega beginning and end. He is the First and the Last (Alpha and Omega)

and in time you have a beginning and end. To reason this is to try to reason outside of what God created for you to reason with. For example

if you read the book "The theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein" he has a section that goes over what he believe to be time and the

characteristics. He almost was able to describe it in math, but as you have noticed he and no other have been able to find the exact equation.

Thank you Jonboy. I see the point. Still not convinced, though; why would spirits be "outside time"? Are Satan and his demons outside

time? And even though we're talking about the perception of time, rather than the passage of time itself, that would still involve

being somewhere for that "blink-of-an-eye eternity", wouldn't it? We have been taught that the Spirit World is right here on earth;

so it must still operate under earthly time. I don't see any evidence that spirits are outside time. If they were, what would be so

terrible about spending a "blink-of-an-eye" in spirit prison? Heck, that wouldn't be so bad.

Are Satan and his demons outside of time? Yes, they don't "age". They are eternally separated for God and to be so they would have to be

eternal themselves. Now about the spirit world thing. When you say a blink of an eye in a spirit prison that wouldn't be so bad. Well you

have to do to things on this. You are trying to compare 2 different "realities" if you will and so to go on with this you would have to say

well spending a blink of an eye in hell isn't bad. But there has to be some type of "experience", for it there was not experience you couldn't

have torment or joy. Now how do you explain how "experience" works in Heaven or Hell, I really have no idea, to tell you the truth I haven't been

there yet .

[Hemidakota]

We only assume they don't age based on our limited viewpoint. Even they will eventually return to that chaotic matter in the end.

At this point, trying to define the GODs time is nearly impossible without observation. Once observe and writing it, is another story.

[Hemidakota]

i think shadow may have been saying that once we die we too are outside of time. it does not govern us anymore. it still runs things in order for people on earth, but not people who are dead. the rest of the world would be as the blinking of an eye to the dead. so, judgement may happen right after we die because we're not constrained by time anymore. it's not that it's a judgement for each individual person after each person dies, but it would seems as though as though once we die, that's it. we aren't gonna be up there watching the rest of the world go on and live on for how ever many years, may it be one year or three thousand years, until the second coming. once we die, we're outside of time, and thus onto the next step, i.e. judgement.

i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything said, and maybe i read that wrong, but that's what i understood it to say.

If time is equal ones viewpoint of earth, then yes.

Let me add some tidbit of info concerning the members of the Church of the First Born [CFB] and resurrection; using Abraham as an example, he is now FATHER [GOD] and is glorified being at this moment. I used the key phrase here - CHURCH OF THE FIRST BORN. Unless, they [CFB] are called to a further work, there glory will be pending until that mission is complete; hence, Joseph Smith. He is still working beyond the veil in completing his mission. You are not going to find Abraham body where he was buried.

I am at times, puzzled, when I see seeing people drawn to these ancient mummies [prior to Christ death], knowing they were not resurrected and pose an eternal problem.

By and by I saw the Prophet again [after Joseph Smith's death], and I got the privilege to ask him a question. "Now," said I, "I want to know why you are in a hurry. I have been in a hurry all through my life but I expected my hurry would be over when I got into the kingdom of heaven, if I ever did." Joseph said, "I will tell you, Brother [Wilford] Woodruff, every dispensation that has had the priesthood on the earth and has gone into the celestial kingdom, has had a certain amount of work to do to prepare to go to the earth with the Savior when he goes to reign on the earth. Each dispensation has had ample time to do this work. We have not. We are the last dispensation, and so much work has to be done and we need to be in a hurry in order to accomplish it." (Deseret News Weekly, November 7, 1896.) (Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton, p.268)

[Aelswyth]

- This should answer your

question. It is saying don't be a hypocrite. If you are going out and stealing cars don't preach that no one should steal cars.

What question? I know exactly what it's saying. It's saying don't criticize someone else for their short-sightedness when you could be just as blind yourself, if not more.

This right here says why you can't be saved by works. They were able to cast out demons in Jesus Christ's name and yet they could not

enter heaven. They also did mighty works and still not.

It must take some mighty mental gymnastics to wring that interpretation from this scripture. Have you even glanced at the surrounding passages which provide the context? I guess I need to post the whole thing:

"A good tree is unable to yield wicked fruit, and a rotten tree to yield good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruits you shall know them." Matt. 7:18-20

The tree is the person, the fruits are the works. This states that if a tree (person) is not producing good fruit (good works) it will be cut down (separated from God's covenant people) and thrown into the fire (sent to Gehenna for destruction). Let's move on:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Master, Master', shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father in the heavens." Matt. 7:21

Only those actually living a Christ-like life and following the commandments will see Heaven, not just anyone who says "I believe in Jesus!" Very clear. Next:

"Many shall say to me in that day, 'Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done many mighty works in your name?' And then I shall declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!'" Matt. 7:22,23

Here we have Christ himself again saying that it's not enough just to throw his name around all the time and perform these kind of empty "miracles" like prophecy, exorcism, speaking in tongues, snake-handling etc; one must follow the commandments or it is all in vain. The import of the last sentence may be obscured in some translations of the Bible, but the Greek word in the original is anti-nomos meaning antinomianism or "lawlessness", which is the doctrine that one need not actually do anything or obey the commandments to receive grace. Here, in black and white, are the words of Christ condemning those who profess the doctrine of antinomianism (grace not works). And just to establish it a bit further:

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be like a wise man who built his house on the rock, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not do them, shall be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, and it fell, and great was its fall."

This states once again the necessity of doing, not just believing or professing. See also the story of the rich young man in Matt. 19, wherein Jesus informs the man that in order to have eternal life, he must follow the commandments and additionally sell all his possessions, distribute the proceeds to the poor, and join the disciples in following Christ. Not exactly, "Just accept me as your Savior and you're good to go, buddy!"

Also no it is not my thing to say you are not a Christian, but when you deny the Trinity you are denying one of the greatest aspects of God

and saying you believe in more than one God which is polytheism, which the Bible states that there in only 1 God and he knows

none other.

Look, you seem stuck in one interpretation of the Bible, and who knows, maybe you've only been taught that one way from birth and honestly can't perceive it any other way, but truly, there are many, many other ways of seeing things, as amply demonstrated by the numerous denominations of Christianity upon the earth today. Clearly many people differ in their views. Although you find the text to support your idea of the Trinity, there are many others who find support for other views, and all can be understood to some degree. And although you interpret the text to support your view that there is only one Entity belonging to the class of being called "gods", I must point out that there are numerous passages demonstrating that accepting the existence of other gods is a Biblical view, and in fact most Bible scholars and historians agree that an understanding of the heavenly council of gods ruled by our Heavenly Father is present throughout the Old Testament and also throughout much of the New Testament pseudepigraphia. "God of gods" is not just a meaningless title.

[Aelswyth]

Again here you are stating the law of Time. God created time and so in not apart of time itself.

For example say you are writing a story

about Mary. You start writing this sentence, "Mary started to go to sleep then, ....", you here the phone ring, and so you go answer the phone and

forget about the sentence and then go have lunch. You come back and see that the sentence wasn't finished and so finish saying, " she heard a

knock at the door", now there has been about 2 hours between the start and finish of the sentence, but for the person in the story, it has been

maybe 2 minutes or so.

Here is another example if you look at a time line you will see a long line of dates. You look at then and they are all present to you. As

you can access any of the information at any time without have to wait (you dont have to wait 20 years to read what 1920 has to say and what

1940 has to say). God is like the person in front of the time line, everything is present and so when people die they come out of that

"time" of which we are apart of. Now yes everyone will be judged at one time. But you must understand that we reason in time and day

God has no time and day. That like saying after you die, I have to wait "x" amount of years in spirit in a spirit world before I am eternal in spirit. You

are then saying time only applies to certain "spirits" and that there are different stages of "spirits" and that some "spirits" must change

again to become eternal. This is not so.

Also where does it say this in scripture. It says it when God says he is the Alpha and Omega beginning and end. He is the First and the Last (Alpha and Omega)

and in time you have a beginning and end. To reason this is to try to reason outside of what God created for you to reason with. For example

if you read the book "The theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein" he has a section that goes over what he believe to be time and the

characteristics. He almost was able to describe it in math, but as you have noticed he and no other have been able to find the exact equation.

Are Satan and his demons outside of time? Yes, they don't "age". They are eternally separated for God and to be so they would have to be

eternal themselves. Now about the spirit world thing. When you say a blink of an eye in a spirit prison that wouldn't be so bad. Well you

have to do to things on this. You are trying to compare 2 different "realities" if you will and so to go on with this you would have to say

well spending a blink of an eye in hell isn't bad. But there has to be some type of "experience", for it there was not experience you couldn't

have torment or joy. Now how do you explain how "experience" works in Heaven or Hell, I really have no idea, to tell you the truth I haven't been

there yet .

All this is simply your own theorizing. None of it is in the Scriptures. You may personally find it compatible with your interpretation of Scripture, but it's still just conjecture. You're going way beyond anything the Bible says, and so it seems this discussion is a bit pointless. I can't dispute your personal theories unless they're mainly rooted in actual scriptural texts. My views are derived from explicit statements in both the Bible and LDS Scriptures, taken largely at plain meaning and extrapolated as little as possible. You've taken a few vague statements in the Bible and spun a hugely theoretical eschatology that appears to be mainly the product of imagination. I don't disagree that it's a possibility, but so are many other things; and we're not talking possibilities, you're trying to convince me your eschatology is the only correct one, that it's the absolute truth. I simply don't see any solid basis for it whatsoever.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Shadow

Also no it is not my thing to say you are not a Christian, but when you deny the Trinity you are denying one of the greatest aspects of God

and saying you believe in more than one God which is polytheism, which the Bible states that there in only 1 God and he knows

none other.

This is always a funny thing to me. Ask a Jew or Muslim what he thinks of the Trinity, and he'll tell you that it is another term for polytheism! The Bible teaches a pantheon of Gods. The earliest portions of the Bible are based upon the Divine Council of Gods, with El Elyon (God Almighty) as the head, and his divine sons, including Yahweh. Isaiah 6 has Isaiah seeing the Divine Council. Job 1 has several sons of El Elyon go to test Yahweh for preeminence over Israel.

Where the Lord says he is the only God and there is none before nor after him, refers to the Divine Council. 70 sons of the divine council were given earthly kingdoms. Yahweh was given Israel. Next door in Canaan, the divine son Yam fell and was replaced by Baal. Referencing this, Yahweh was stating to Israel: I am the only God of Israel; there never was a God before me nor after me (or, I wasn't replaced nor usurped power from another god to obtain my place as Israel's god).

Originally Posted by Shadow View Post

Again here you are stating the law of Time. God created time and so in not apart of time itself.

I do not see anywhere in the Bible that states God is outside of time. In fact, Peter tells us that 1 day to God is the same as 1000 years to man. If we take Peter at his word, we must admit that God IS within time, just not at the same speed as we experience with time. If God dwells by Days, regardless of the length, then he dwells within time. If God rested on the seventh day, then does that not show that he experienced something He called resting during a period of time called a Day?

[Shadow]

It must take some mighty mental gymnastics to wring that interpretation from this scripture. Have you even glanced at the surrounding

passages which provide the context? I guess I need to post the whole thing:

"A good tree is unable to yield wicked fruit, and a rotten tree to yield good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut

down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruits you shall know them." Matt. 7:18-20

The tree is the person, the fruits are the works. This states that if a tree (person) is not producing good fruit (good works) it will

be cut down (separated from God's covenant people) and thrown into the fire (sent to Gehenna for destruction). Let's move on:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Master, Master', shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father

in the heavens." Matt. 7:21

Only those actually living a Christ-like life and following the commandments will see Heaven, not just anyone who says "I believe in

Jesus!" Very clear. Next:

"Many shall say to me in that day, 'Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done

many mighty works in your name?' And then I shall declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!'"

Matt. 7:22,23

Here we have Christ himself again saying that it's not enough just to throw his name around all the time and perform these kind of

empty "miracles" like prophecy, exorcism, speaking in tongues, snake-handling etc; one must follow the commandments or it is all in

vain. The import of the last sentence may be obscured in some translations of the Bible, but the Greek word in the original is

anti-nomos meaning antinomianism or "lawlessness", which is the doctrine that one need not actually do anything or obey the

commandments to receive grace. Here, in black and white, are the words of Christ condemning those who profess the doctrine of

antinomianism (grace not works). And just to establish it a bit further:

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be like a wise man who built his house on the rock, and

the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on

the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not do them, shall be like a foolish man who built his house on

the sand, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, and it fell, and great

was its fall."

This states once again the necessity of doing, not just believing or professing. See also the story of the rich young man in

Matt. 19, wherein Jesus informs the man that in order to have eternal life, he must follow the commandments and additionally

sell all his possessions, distribute the proceeds to the poor, and join the disciples in following Christ. Not exactly, "Just

accept me as your Savior and you're good to go, buddy!"

This is true you can't just say you believe you have to do what he says. But it doesn't say you are saved by them. For example if you

have faith in someone, you believe what he says correct? Well, if you don't do what he says can you really say you believe what he says?

No, you can't. That is why you do what he says, not as works, but because you believe what he said is true. You aren't saved by works,

you are saved by grace. You can't be saved by both, it then would not be grace would it?

Look, you seem stuck in one interpretation of the Bible, and who knows, maybe you've only been taught that one way from birth

and honestly can't perceive it any other way, but truly, there are many, many other ways of seeing things, as amply demonstrated

by the numerous denominations of Christianity upon the earth today. Clearly many people differ in their views. Although you find

the text to support your idea of the Trinity, there are many others who find support for other views, and all can be understood to

some degree. And although you interpret the text to support your view that there is only one Entity belonging to the class of being

called "gods", I must point out that there are numerous passages demonstrating that accepting the existence of other gods is a

Biblical view, and in fact most Bible scholars and historians agree that an understanding of the heavenly council of gods ruled

by our Heavenly Father is present throughout the Old Testament and also throughout much of the New Testament pseudepigraphia.

"God of gods" is not just a meaningless title.

Could you give me a list where it says there are more than one true God? And yes I believe I could be wrong, but you could very well be

too and you haven't given me any solid ground for me to consider, but what you feel and I am sorry, but that isn't enough. Also maybe

you were taught from when you were born, because I wasn't, I wasn't saved until my later years so I was taught and expirenced alot of things

before I was born.

All this is simply your own theorizing. None of it is in the Scriptures. You may personally find it compatible with your interpretation

of Scripture, but it's still just conjecture. You're going way beyond anything the Bible says, and so it seems this discussion is a

bit pointless. I can't dispute your personal theories unless they're mainly rooted in actual scriptural texts. My views are derived

from explicit statements in both the Bible and LDS Scriptures, taken largely at plain meaning and extrapolated as little as possible.

You've taken a few vague statements in the Bible and spun a hugely theoretical eschatology that appears to be mainly the product of

imagination. I don't disagree that it's a possibility, but so are many other things; and we're not talking possibilities, you're

trying to convince me your eschatology is the only correct one, that it's the absolute truth. I simply don't see any solid basis for

it whatsoever.

Am I going way beyond the Bible? The whole spirit children and how Satan is Jesus's brother, and how we may one day become God is way

beyond the Bible and it seems that you except that as truth, but it isn't even spoke of in the Bible, it is actually spoken against.

What was the serpents temptationt Eve? You can become like god by eating the forbidden fruit, knowing both good and evil. Also you can't

believe wholly the LDS doctrine and the Bible as it contritdict like it is going out of style. I can give you a list if you want.

This is always a funny thing to me. Ask a Jew or Muslim what he thinks of the Trinity, and he'll tell you that it is another term for polytheism!

The Bible teaches a pantheon of Gods. The earliest portions of the Bible are based upon the Divine Council of Gods, with El Elyon (God Almighty)

as the head, and his divine sons, including Yahweh. Isaiah 6 has Isaiah seeing the Divine Council. Job 1 has several sons of El Elyon go to test Yahweh

for preeminence over Israel.

The reason they call it polytheism is because they are 3 seperate beings, I and many other christians believe the Trinity to be one

inseperatable being. It states it over and over in the Bible.

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Amen.

He says he is with us always. So he must have been there in the beginning and will be with us in the end. Jesus has been there always

and so has the rest of the Trinity. Jesus also states that you know God the Father through Christ and that God the Father and Jesus are

one.

Where the Lord says he is the only God and there is none before nor after him, refers to the Divine Council. 70 sons of the divine council were given earthly

kingdoms. Yahweh was given Israel. Next door in Canaan, the divine son Yam fell and was replaced by Baal. Referencing this, Yahweh was stating to Israel:

I am the only God of Israel; there never was a God before me nor after me (or, I wasn't replaced nor usurped power from another god to obtain my place as

Israel's god).

So you are here saying that you believe in many Gods? Then why does it say that God knows no other gods, not even one, this it states in

Isaiah. Are you saying that God's knowledge is limited to just his own presence? If so then we would have to question what does he actually

know. Also the post made by Aweslthew (spelling may be wrong) says how I am going way outside the Bible, but the whole thing on how Yam fell

and was replaced by Baal and a Devine council that is equal with God is way beyond what I am saying and way outside of the text of the Bible.

Also you need to note that god the name is also given to men/creatures of great power, as Satan is considered the god/ruler of this world and

the kings of the earth and such have also been given the term "god". So this is where you might be mistake as there is a council of "gods".

[Shadow]

I do not see anywhere in the Bible that states God is outside of time. In fact, Peter tells us that 1 day to God is the same as

1000 years to man. If we take Peter at his word, we must admit that God IS within time, just not at the same speed as we experience

with time. If God dwells by Days, regardless of the length, then he dwells within time. If God rested on the seventh day, then does

that not show that he experienced something He called resting during a period of time called a Day?

Ok, no it doesn't state it word for word "God is out of Time" in the Bible, but there are many explanations for this. For example you

said that he rested on the seventh day and are saying that he must be in "day" , so therefore in "time" or some type of time. Well let me

ask you this. If you were eternal and out of time how would you describe that to someone in time? You would of course use time to explain timelessness.

For example if I were to explain what the ocean was to someone who never seen a large body of water, would be pretty hard to use terms that

are associated with the ocean. To explain it I could say the ocean is a gathering of a large amount of water and that you can't see the

other side, I could also say that it can reflect the sun like a mirror in the sunset, and on windy days have large sharp hill like "waves".

Now does this mean that the ocean is an endless mirror with hills on it?No it doesn't by any means.

I used the mirror and hills as an example to explain something different, something that he hadn't seen ever. Now how does this explain the

seventh day? Well if he said he created everything in some order according to him it would be hard to grasp, but if he said I took 7 days on

earth then it is easier to grasp how long it took.