tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post3791019078782912110..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Seeking the Lord the Old-Fashioned Way: In the Holy TempleJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11996407965226567242009-06-11T14:50:18.644-05:002009-06-11T14:50:18.644-05:00Hi Nathan,
Don't misunderstand my words, I do...Hi Nathan,<br /><br />Don't misunderstand my words, I do believe very much in being guided by faith, especially where comes to God. I've looked at enough of the pro-lds, and anti-lds websites out there over the years to draw the conclusion that the whole truth is not going to be found in those sources. My experience with each of those respective sources really has been that both sides distort the facts to make their arguments more plausible, or make their positions more credible. So I generally don't trust either the pro or the anti lds websites for information. From my vantage point, I see both sides as having motive to distort the facts, and have seen both sides do so. Good example of that are the allegations that JS was convicted of fraudulent activities. That, from what I've been able to gather is a distortion of the facts. But, the pro-lds sites tend to gloss over the fact that JS was accused of these things, and the anti-lds websites will tell you that he was convicted. So, I tend not to trust either source, and look to more objective places for info. But I still pray very much, and draw on my faith for answers too.<br /><br />Sincerely <br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41492300970626912782009-06-11T11:08:47.951-05:002009-06-11T11:08:47.951-05:00Well that's unfortunate then.
Man's cogni...Well that's unfortunate then.<br /><br />Man's cognitive search for "factual information" has never been preferred as the way to discover the things of God, instead of prayer and fasting and faith. <br /><br />(Alma 32:28-43)<br /><br />But, to each his own I guess.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40013705869559409372009-06-11T10:52:31.028-05:002009-06-11T10:52:31.028-05:00Hi Nathan,
I think its difficult to compare the C...Hi Nathan,<br /><br />I think its difficult to compare the Catholic frowning on partaking of the eucharist with not letting non-mormons inside the temple. Perhaps you can do so given that the reason non-catholics are discouraged from partaking of the eucharist is that other christian faiths don't subscribe to the belief that the eucharist is the literal body of Christ; Catholics do. Its not really an exclusion, its a matter of conviction, if you don't believe this to be true...you shouldn't partake." I suppose you could take that position with the LDS Temple as well. <br /><br />I actually shy away from Pro-LDS websites as much as I shy away from Anti-LDS websites. I've found that both tend to embelish the facts into a distortion to support their respective position on things. My preference is to see with my own eyes first, if I can, then ask questions to clarify what I have seen. I've found this is really the best way to glean factual information. I still may check some of the websites you've talked about, but I do take the information there with a grain of salt.<br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47429359510125235642009-06-08T08:29:58.803-05:002009-06-08T08:29:58.803-05:00CD - that's understandable.
"Outsiders&...CD - that's understandable. <br /><br />"Outsiders" from every religion feel that others have something to hide - the Vatican itself has lots to "hide," even from Catholics (or so Dan Brown & the History channel claim), the Masons (though not a religion) have lots to "hide" from those who are not privy to be within their temple walls.<br /><br />Curiosity gets the best of some. <br /><br />You seem to have a pretty strong understanding of what goes on within the walls of the LDS temples. In fact, there are plenty of LDS Web sites that you can peruse that explain EXACTLY what happens step-by-step in the temples. Of course, sadly enough, there are plenty of sites with erroneous information as well (ignore those). <br /><br />Even the Roman Catholics frown on "outsiders" partaking of the Eucharist. So we all have some similarities.<br /><br />No biggee!<br /><br />It is our conviction that it isn't man who has made the requirement that those without temple recommends (who meet worthiness requirements) be barred from entering the temple, but a commandment from God - much like the Israelites were not allowed to enter the Holy of Holies except for the High Priest on Yom Kippur. Others weren't allowed to even enter the middle chamber immediately preceding the Holy of Holies. This idea of certain requirements needing to be met before one may participate in a rite or ceremony is nothing the LDS made up (I'm sure you already understand all of this, so I'm just typing for future readers' sakes).Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-52362559973331632092009-06-08T08:08:26.428-05:002009-06-08T08:08:26.428-05:00Hi Nathan Coffey,
I didn't necessarily mean t...Hi Nathan Coffey,<br /><br />I didn't necessarily mean to say you had anything to hide. But, from an outsiders perspective, that is what it feels like...it feels like you are trying to hide something by not letting others know what goes on inside your temples. That said, I still don't think an HBO fictional drama is the best way to show what happens in the Mormon Temple, that's just a gratuitous act done for the sake of improving ratings and causing controversy. <br /><br />I've gleaned a great deal of what goes on inside your temples from my wife, and from reading about the ceremony on line. From that vantage point, I don't see why the ceremony would be closed, or why there's this assumption that non-LDS would not comprehend or not hold the ceremony sacred. Some definitely would mock the ceremony, but most people in this world would respect your faith and the sacred nature of the ceremony. <br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-5796579558280561582009-06-04T08:33:39.869-05:002009-06-04T08:33:39.869-05:00Catholic Defender - And it is for that VERY reason...Catholic Defender - And it is for that VERY reason you just mentioned that the Church does not publicize our temple rites and ceremonies. So those who do not understand and who do not view them as holy as we do, make "a mock of that which [is] sacred (Helaman 4:12]. Or in New Testament terms: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." (Matthew 7:6, 3 Nephi 14:6). Again, Doctrine & Covenants 41:6 says: "For it is not meet that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the pearls to be cast before swine."<br /><br />Finally, we have nothing to "hide" (poor choice of words) within the walls of the temple. All are welcome. They just first have to pass a few worthiness and membership criteria. (I know you didn't mean it like that though)Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-89449993741743309292009-06-04T07:47:50.447-05:002009-06-04T07:47:50.447-05:00Hi Conan the Librarian,
I do have kids. We raise...Hi Conan the Librarian,<br /><br />I do have kids. We raise them LDS. That was also part of the promise I made. <br /><br />Anonymous of June 3,<br /><br />Regarding HBO showing the temple ceremony, I have mixed opinions on that. On the one hand, I think that its a cheap shot to take something viewed as sacred by a particular church, and display it for all the world to see. On the other hand, I'm curious and wonder what it is that the LDS Church has to hide.<br /><br />The problem I see with HBO's actions, isn't so much that they are showing the temple ceremony; its the why they are showing the temple ceremony. From what I can tell, the purpose of showing the ceremony is to boost ratings, not educate folks as to what happens. As such, it seems likely that HBO will sensationalize and take literary license with the service; very much the way television has portrayed the Mass. I think that is wrong. It would be far better to just do a documentary on the temple ceremony, and show it objectively to people. <br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28715741442707403142009-06-03T07:31:37.628-05:002009-06-03T07:31:37.628-05:00What do you think about HBO putting temple scenes ...What do you think about HBO putting temple scenes on TV? Isn't that kind of cheap?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64025015151273280162009-05-29T19:24:33.428-05:002009-05-29T19:24:33.428-05:00Very cool of Catholic Defender to be so kind and o...Very cool of Catholic Defender to be so kind and open-minded. His wife is lucky! CD, if you have kids, they're lucky, too. Curious - do you?Conan the Librariannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1259464196434783952009-05-26T17:35:01.261-05:002009-05-26T17:35:01.261-05:00CD I would like to say that while we don't always ...CD I would like to say that while we don't always see eye to eye I appreciate your defense of our church against attack as Coffey mentioned.bunkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09091655088509351675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6306896763885233962009-05-26T10:37:21.760-05:002009-05-26T10:37:21.760-05:00Hi Mormon Coffey,
Actually most of my family and ...Hi Mormon Coffey,<br /><br />Actually most of my family and my wife's family is Catholic. My wife and our children are LDS. I'm a bit of an anomaly among Catholics and Mormons, largely because I'm not as rigid in my thinking that I'm right about my doctrine. What I believe is right for me, might be right for others, but not necessarily for all. We each have our own path to follow. <br /><br />For me its about a promise I made on my wedding day to support my wife in all endeavours, even ones I may not agree with her on. I'll keep that promise because its a promise I made, to do any less would be dishonourable. I draw on Romans 12 through 15 which talks about supporting each other in our faith, and I try to live by that counsel as much a possible. It ain't easy. <br /><br />In my own faith journey I've explored Hinduism and Buddhism, and Tsaoism along the way. There are some great principles from those teachings that we as Christians could incorporate in our practises. Ultimately though, those teachings are missing the one element that separates us as Christians, Jesus Christ. I still come back to Catholocism as being the closest to the truth. That said, I do wish you well on your own spiritual journey.<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20736833305128126912009-05-26T10:09:53.413-05:002009-05-26T10:09:53.413-05:00CD - You said "Your position about JS assumes that...CD - You said "Your position about JS assumes that folks were in fact confused at that time."<br /><br />These aren't my words but those of the man who lived during that timeframe: <br /><br />"for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." Sounds like confusion to me! (<A HREF="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/12#12" REL="nofollow">JSH 1:12</A>)<br /><br />That's okay if you do not believe Joseph Smith to have been a prophet. I completely understand your POV on the entire church being false if Joseph Smith was false as well.<br /><br />Then again millions of good religious people (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) believe Christ to have been no more than a man and not the Son of God too. <br /><br />Just let it be known that we solemnly declare that Christ runs this Church through His prophets on the earth today. Mortal interpretation and education level are great for somethings, but they will only get you so far. Sometimes faith and a sincere desire to know weigh heavier. <br /><br />You're a great Christian CD, and I was shocked to learn your family are members. I hope only the best for you and yours!Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18770416318643263982009-05-26T09:46:25.720-05:002009-05-26T09:46:25.720-05:00Hi Mormon Coffey,
I'm going to preface this c...Hi Mormon Coffey,<br /><br />I'm going to preface this comment by saying that it may come out sounding a bit offensive, but isn't meant to be...sometimes the english language does not write as well as it might sound when spoken. <br /><br />Your position about JS assumes that folks were in fact confused at that time. From my vantage point, there really isn't any confusion about the interpretation of that scripture from Malachi...its quite obvious what Malachi is saying, is exactly the way I'm interpreting it. I could be wrong, I don't believe that I am, but from my vantage point the scripture is unambiguous and the interpetation make sense. I reach that conclusion by first reading that scripture, analyzing it in the context of when it was written, looking at other interpretations, drawing on my own education levels, and praying about it. Many of the same things that you likely do. The conclusion I have is that Malachi is not talking about a literal building, and never was. <br /><br />I believe its very possible that God would reveal doctrine to a very young boy in a grove in the middle of nowhere. That's very possible, it has happened to many saints over the years, St, Bernadette of Lourdes comes to mind immediately. So I don't discount the possibility. <br /><br />The real question for me is did God do it with this young boy Joseph Smith Jr. In order to draw the conclusion that God did, one has to be able to believe JS when he says it happened. There are a great many things documented about JS that cause doubt, some of those things are true, some of those things are obvious distortions designed to either paint the LDS Church in a bad light (Anti-LDS)or paint the LDS Church in an overly positive light (Pro-LDS). I pointed this out in another posting, so I won't rehash it, but for me some of the most compelling information that JS isn't telling the truth comes from the information sanctioned directly from your church leaders in Salt Lake. <br /><br />To me, there are just enough inconsistencies in doctrine and statements from your own leaders that cause me to have serious doubts about the veracity of JS. And, if JS isn't credible, then all the rest of your church's doctrine must fall, because ultimately any teachings and interpretations about the temple, and the BOM, or POGP, or D & C all come down to the credibility of one small 14 year old boy praying in a grove in Palmyria New York. If he's lying about seeing Christ in that grove, then everything else he ever wrote or spoke is tainted by that lie. I believe that JS probably did go into that grove with an intention of finding answers, I just don't believe that he got the answers he said he got. And I do base that on my own heartfelt prayers to know, and my own experiences with and knowledge about God. That said, I do think that it is a mistake to paint your church as unchristian...I tend to see you in the same light that I see protestants....that is as being misguided and misinformed, but doing the best you can to live your life as Christ would have you. In the end that is what's asked of all of us regardless of the place we might say our prayers.<br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38210287130009143722009-05-26T09:11:54.363-05:002009-05-26T09:11:54.363-05:00CD - and for that very reason (confusion among rel...CD - and for that very reason (confusion among religious sects derived from various interpretations of the same scripture passages) a young boy from New York was confused as to which religion was correct. So in 1820 he went into a grove of trees, knelt down and poured out his soul to God, sincerely believing God would answer his prayer.<br /><br />He said: "I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"<br /><br />This really happened CD, and the fullness of the Gospel <B>HAS</B> been restored to the Earth. Prophets do exist. How wonderful it is to know Christ is at the helm of this Church. No longer does man need to wander aimlessly, walking after their own interpretations of crucial doctrine. How wonderful it is to have current revelation, and additional scriptures revealed through His prophets (Amos 3:7).<br /><br />It is not "Tony's" interpretation of Malachi 3, CD, it is modern-day scripture and revelation that has 'clarified' earlier scripture (3 Nephi 24:1, D&C 133:2).<br /><br />One thing that's great about modern day scripture is that they are in harmony with the teachings of the Bible & clarify and reaffirm key doctrinal points that are the subject of so much confusion and strife between various sects.<br /><br />If you want to know, this event has already been fulfilled, when Christ appeared in the Kirtland temple to both Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on April 6, 1836 (D&C 110), but that doesn't stop Him from coming to any one of His 129 temples in operation.<br /><br />These are not the musings of men, CD, prophets <B>DO</B> guide this Church under direction from Christ Himself. It's such a wonderful message to share with the world. <br /><br />Also, thanks for defending our Christian values to the misinformed and often critical people of the world.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-74313294206378823192009-05-26T07:30:49.521-05:002009-05-26T07:30:49.521-05:00Hi Tony,
Nice scripture, but, how can you be so s...Hi Tony,<br /><br />Nice scripture, but, how can you be so sure you're interpreting it correctly? As I see it, you are interpreting it to mean that Christ and God will appear in the literal temple; that they will be present in an actual physical building. But, that same scripture can be interpreted to mean a metaphorical temple...not an actual tangible building but something much bigger, and more profound...the temple that is to be present in your heart. <br /><br />Additionally, consider the message. Behold I will send my messenger...John the Baptist...and he will prepare the way. John's ministry was one of preparing the way for his cousin, Jesus, to begin his work here on the earth. And the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple...Jesus coming to earth, and preaching to the masses...Jesus is both the Lord whom ye seek, and the messenger of the covenant in whom we delight. And as prophesied by Malachi, John came and prepared the way, then Christ came and suddenly the Lord was here among us bringing his new covenant. <br /><br />In your passage Malachi is fortelling of the coming of Christ and the coming of a new plan. Not of the importance of temples. He isn't even talking about the physical building. He's talking about something greater, and of much more importance and significance.<br /><br />Sincerely<br /><br />Catholic Defendercatholic defenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18161360870245850585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48523626810646433472009-05-22T14:28:12.303-05:002009-05-22T14:28:12.303-05:00Just to add on some scriptural references to Latte...Just to add on some scriptural references to Latter-day temples:<br /><br />Malachi 3<br />"1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts."<br /><br />I'm done.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960519151863517265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31593557173213040542009-05-21T20:58:01.725-05:002009-05-21T20:58:01.725-05:00jackg - I failed to write one thing that I want yo...jackg - I failed to write one thing that I want you to remember... when I wrote about faith and works I hope you gathered the fact that Mormons believe that:<br /><br />even though we do all these good, Christian things, all these things to help our fellowmen, NONE of them will help us get into heaven - now read carefully, you don't need to respond since you jumped off the merry-go-round - except through the GRACE OF JESUS CHRIST of NAZARETH.<br /><br />Do you get it yet? Mormons believe that it is only through the grace of Christ that we can get back to heaven. He is the only one that made it possible (through the Atonement).<br /><br />It's not by how many times one goes to the temple, not by how many baptisms you were a part of, not by how many times you did your home teaching, not by how many kids you sent on a mission, like its some type of award system. <B>It's only through the grace of Christ.</B>But that still doesn't mean we can sit idly by and not follow Christ and do as He would have us do .. be Christians to each other (a.k.a. 'works').<br /><br />I hope you understand that better now. <br /><br />Once again, it's another topic that we both agree on, you just had a misconception of an LDS concept.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15614251381369432202009-05-21T20:22:01.951-05:002009-05-21T20:22:01.951-05:00Usually a 'no answer' tends to mean they agree and...Usually a 'no answer' tends to mean they agree and can't find anything else to rebuttal with. <br /><br />I just hope that he understands correct Mormon theology better now, just hoping to clear up misinformation that either others have spread or one has assumed (usually a result of not reading the entire scripture in context or article/discourse - as I assume occurred in this case). <br /><br />As the Apostles have said, it is our duty as members of the church to defend truth and clarify misconceptions of the church. We already have enough attackers (if it wasn't true would we have soooo many attackers?) that we don't need people spreading lies and false info.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31465636654567867762009-05-21T19:26:51.178-05:002009-05-21T19:26:51.178-05:00Hey, he doesn't need to answer. That's OK. We've a...Hey, he doesn't need to answer. That's OK. We've all got lives to live - and some of us need a lot of extra time to cram for that advanced theology quiz that we have to pass to gain eternal life. He's probably reading Spinoza now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13253522909463601112009-05-21T18:19:28.551-05:002009-05-21T18:19:28.551-05:00"Sorry, guys, but I'm not getting back on the merr..."Sorry, guys, but I'm not getting back on the merry-go-round with this thread. I'll be looking for other threads, though. I haven't commented on the alcohol one in a while, but clearly agree with Jeff that we just put way too much value on liquor.<br /><br />Peace and Grace!"<br /><br />In other words......no answer?bunkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09091655088509351675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77908744027722067772009-05-21T17:48:12.000-05:002009-05-21T17:48:12.000-05:00Sorry, guys, but I'm not getting back on the merry...Sorry, guys, but I'm not getting back on the merry-go-round with this thread. I'll be looking for other threads, though. I haven't commented on the alcohol one in a while, but clearly agree with Jeff that we just put way too much value on liquor. <br /><br />Peace and Grace!jackgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41494123785356415262009-05-21T17:27:44.020-05:002009-05-21T17:27:44.020-05:00Some more info....In the Doctrine and Covenants, s...Some more info....In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 93, it says—<br /><br />'Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.'<br /><br />Mormons are accused of diminishing the greatness of God the Father by 1) introducing these elements of the Plan of Salvation, and 2) by stating that men and women can become like God. To the contrary, Latter-day Saint philosophy reveals that God the Father has dedicated all of His power for eternity to the single goal of bringing all who exist to a point where they can be equal with Him in glory and joy. Hence, Latter-day Saints claim a more expansive view of God the Father than any other religion. <br /><br />Most non-LDS think this is rubbish and hogwash, but without the firm belief of latter-day revelation, that God still reveals things to His children, if they are ready to listen and understand "with and eye single to His glory," then sadly they will never have an understanding of these wonderful principles in this life.<br /><br />God has always been your God Jack. He has always been my God. He will NEVER stop being my God, nor your God.<br /><br />I think we can now agree that you and LDS agree on this principle. I hope you have been enlightened just a tad more on correct Mormon teachings, although as deep as they may be. (For the LDS reading this, I hate going into doctrine such as this but always feel the need to correct incorrect beliefs so folks like Jackg don't go spreading misinformation that Mormons don't believe God has always been God. So I apologize for the deep doctrine,, but hopefully Jackg has been enlightened).Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-79152883245776963352009-05-21T17:19:02.552-05:002009-05-21T17:19:02.552-05:00Jackg - want to know some more Mormon doctrine?? G...Jackg - want to know some more Mormon doctrine?? God has always been God. Our spirits have always existed. It's a deep concept that agrees with your principle but is far too deep to go into unless one completely understands and has a testimony of the basic principles of Mormonism. <br /><br />You said "there was never a time when God did not exist" and us Mormons will be the first to jump in line and agree with you! So before you go around making claims that "we have different presuppositions" check your Mormon facts first. <br /><br />Some critics complain that believing God was once mortal means that LDS theology teaches that "God has not always been God," but such is not true. Why? Because all men have an incomplete understanding of the nature of the eternities. Moses spoke to God face to face, being quickened to be able to stand in His presence. The Lord said,"Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease." (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:3,4). But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them....And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:35-39). That God the Father has moved through stages of existence, yet has always been God, is easier to comprehend when those stages are explained. The Prophet Joseph Smith, who was taught constantly through revelation from On High, explained that we have all existed eternally, first as intelligences, then as God-fathered spirits, then as mortal beings, then as resurrected and immortal beings. Evidently, the intelligence of God the Father is so great, that He has been able to guide and rule all the other innumerable intelligences toward eternal glory. Joseph Smith explained these philosophies: The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their [deceased] relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth. I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits. (King Follet Discourse)<br /><br />So brother Jack, We agree! God has always been God! Hallelujah! Peace, and grace, and joy, and happiness, and charity, and love unfeigned be to you and yours!Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178403692114327318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88058831666183252532009-05-21T16:55:30.159-05:002009-05-21T16:55:30.159-05:00"We have to remember that we are talking about the..."We have to remember that we are talking about the ontology of God and the nature of Jesus Christ. If we get that wrong, then we cannot be defined as Christians."<br /><br />Ah, the old ontology quiz that one must pass with at least a B+ score in order to be saved. Believing in Christ, worshipping Him, seeking to follow Him - these are not enough. There is an ontology exam that one must also pass. Get more than a few questions wrong, and no matter how sincerely you believe in Christ, it's not enough. You're doomed. <br /><br />For example, as for the ontological relationship of the Father and the Son, which of the following is most correct?<br /><br />a) the Son is the Father in an ontologically framework<br />b) the Son is one with and fully represents the Father but is ontologically distinct<br />c) the Son proceeds from the Father, but in full ontological unity<br />d) the Son is one with the Father but a distinct Being<br />e) the Son is ontologically compounded with and essentially consubstantial with the Father while still subordinate<br />f) the Son is ontologically compounded with and essentially consubstantial without subordination<br /><br />Get that wrong, and it's an eternity of suffering for you. Pity those early disciples of Christ who held to primitive ideas about God and Christ, much like us Mormons, so utterly unworthy of modern Christianity.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-28121894334436024092009-05-21T14:42:51.093-05:002009-05-21T14:42:51.093-05:00Seth,
To get into the argument of my theology is ...Seth,<br /><br />To get into the argument of my theology is better than your theology really misses the point. I think we have all gone as far as we can go in this conversation. There is no need to stay on the merry-go-round until one of us or both of us gets sick and pukes all over the place. I think we have all done a good job to discuss things without becoming disrespectful. You and the other Mormons have comported yourselves, well, and I only hope that I have done the same. We have different beliefs, but we all want to see each other saved in the Kingdom of God. You, as a Mormon, believe I need to join the LDS Church, get baptized, and go the temple to enter into the Celestial Kingdom. I don't begrudge you that sentiment. I, as a non-Mormon, believe you need to leave Mormonism to be saved in God's Kingdom. Like I said before, we are all driven by the same motive. <br /><br />Anyway, the merry-go-round is not slowing down, so I need to jump off. Here I go....<br /><br />Peace and Grace!jackgnoreply@blogger.com