InCognitus

Yep, they used to be much more willing to post speculation in church magazines back then as well as all sorts of advice (just check out the table of contents). Reasonable speculation following from what has been revealed, but it might still be inaccurate because of misinterpretation of what has been revealed imo. I agree, and the purpose of the church magazines has evolved through time as well. The old Improvement Era magazine (1897 to 1970) was much more informal and seemed to have a Utah/United States church as the target audience, and it even contained advertisements for Utah based business (like this one for Le Voy's on page 59 of the April 1970 Improvement Era, which is quite dated and humorous to me). Why don't the critics start claiming that these ads are "Mormon doctrine" too? The April 1971 New Era magazine article posted above (written by a BYU professor and not a church leader) is in a transitioning phase of the church magazine evolution. While the New Era no longer contained advertisements, it still had a similar relaxed approach to what was published. Today I think the church magazines are aimed at a world wide church with perhaps more consideration for what gets published.

Christians becoming or being one like the Father and Jesus being one does not mean we become God or a Godhead. Do you believe Jesus and his Father are "one" in the way that Jesus defined it in John 17:11, 20-23? Or some other way? (It sounds like some other way since you didn't answer the question). As for the disciples of Christ who become "one" with Jesus and his Father in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, they definitely become one with them and each other, so much so that Jesus says that to receive one of his disciples that he sends out is the same as receiving Jesus and his Father. That's exactly why receiving Jesus is the same as receiving his Father, as well.

Many things have been taught that are not supported by scripture. Of course (like the doctrine of a homoousious Father and Son, or the doctrine of God creating all things out of nothing [creatio ex-nihilo], or that there is such a thing as a nature of angels, or that angels have wings, or that God created the spirits of men, to name just a few). But the earliest Christians based their teachings on scripture and on the verbal teachings of the apostles that they received from them (some of them were taught by the apostles directly). Who do you think would be more likely to interpret the scriptures correctly, the same way as Jesus and the apostles? Those who lived the closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles and were either taught directly by them or by someone else who had had been taught directly by them, or those who live 2000 years later and are influenced by dozens of creeds and are bound to supporting the unbiblical doctrines that I listed above? Where did you get that idea?

Hopefully not as much as others. It draws from a wide variety of ancient sources, including Classical Greek Literature. Since my copy of the book is in Utah, and I'm in Arizona, I will rely on Google AI to provide a summary as follows: "Walter Bauer's authoritative work, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (commonly known by the abbreviation BDAG in its third English edition), does not draw from a single, simple list of sources. Instead, it is a comprehensive dictionary that draws from a vast body of Greek literature across several periods to provide context for New Testament word usage. The sources for the lexicon include: The New Testament: All occurrences of words in the New Testament are categorized and referenced. Early Christian Literature: A broad range of writings from early Christian authors is used. Classical Greek Literature: References from classical authors are included to show the broader linguistic context of words. Intertestamental Literature: Writings from the period between the Old and New Testaments are referenced. Papyri and Epigraphs: The lexicon incorporates evidence from non-literary sources like ancient papyrus documents and inscriptions, which provide a "panoramic view of the world of Jesus and the New Testament". Modern Literature (Scholarly): The third edition, specifically, adds over 25,000 references to modern scholarly literature to reflect current research and understanding. The specific, full list of abbreviations and sources used in the lexicon itself is extensive and provided in the front matter of the physical and digital editions of the book, such as the widely used third edition published by the University of Chicago Press." I'm going to double check the definitions when I get back home because I don't remember if I checked everything I posted against the BDAG book. I have used it to check some of the Classical Greek sources. I also try to use a concordance to the Septuagint for Greek words to get Old Testament usage in context as well.

I used Strong's concordance to aid in differentiating the words for the post (the Strong's numbers are really handy for doing that), but I used Walter Bauer's: A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature for looking up the word meanings. I'm in Arizona, and my Lexicons are in Utah, so I don't have that available at the moment unfortunately, so I just copied what I had written in my prior post. The advantage of Walter Bauer's lexicon is for providing a lot of other usages of the word outside of the New Testament, including the Septuagint and early Christian literature.

I really wish I had more time to read this thread (I don't!), so forgive me if I post something that someone has already said, but there are at least three distinct words in Greek that people sometimes mix together. I explained it in better detail in a thread on the meaning of false apostles, in a post on 07/04/2023, where this group was claiming that "apostles" are common in Christianity today and fulfills the idea spelled out in Ephesians 4:11-14 that apostles and prophets (etc.) will continue until all are in the unity of the faith. The first two Greek words (shown below) are the words used for the official title of a commissioner of Christ, while the last word is the common meaning of "set apart" or "sent out". I color coded the words in my other post and included the Strongs numbers for better clarity because the Greek words look similar. I'm just cutting and pasting parts of my other post here. These are the three main words: ἀπόστολος, apóstolos ; g652 From ἀποστέλλω {g649} Mean a delegate specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ [“apostle”] (with miraculous powers) KJV apostle, messenger, he that is sent TGL (PDF) 68 TGL (IMG) 68 (Α ἀπόστολος–ἀπόστολος TGL (IMG)) ἀποστολή, apostolḗ ; g651 From ἀποστέλλω {g649} Mean commission, i.e., (specifically) apostolate KJV apostleship TGL (PDF) 68 TGL (IMG) 68 (Α ἀποστολή–ἀποστολή TGL (IMG)) ἀποστέλλω, apostéllō ; g649 From ἀπό {g575} and στέλλω {g4724} Mean set apart, i.e., (by implication) to send out (properly on a mission) literally or figuratively KJV put in, send (away, forth, out), set [at liberty] TGL (PDF) 67 TGL (IMG) 67 (Α ἀποστέλλω–ἀποστέλλω TGL (IMG)) Only the first two words listed above, apostolos, (g652) and apostole, (g651) are used in application to the apostles of Jesus Christ that were appointed offices in his church. And even though both words are derived from the third word, apostello (g649), the latter word doesn't convey the same meaning as the appointed church office. The latter word apostello (g649) merely means to set apart and send out, and it isn't special in the sense of having divine appointment, because it is used in verses like: Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth [apostello (g649)], and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem". Matthew 14:35 "And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out [apostello (g649)] into all that country round about, and brought unto him all that were diseased". But the same word is also used by Jesus and religious leaders, like when it says he shall send forth [apostello (g649)] his angels (Matthew 13:41). So the latter word may or may not have any religious application. The bottom line is that the common word for "sent" (apostello - g649) doesn't work as a replacement for the appointed apostles of Jesus Christ (apostolos - g652), and it is the latter word that is used in Ephesians 4:11-14. And, Paul says not all in the church are apostles (apostolos g652 - 1 Corinthians 12:29). Many others may be "sent" (apostello - g649 - including the people Herod sent out to kill the babies), but that's not the same thing as having the apostolic office. I wish I had more time to give my opinion on the Junia controversy. (The phrase "who are of note among the apostles" just seems rather ambiguous to me). The but I may change my opinion if I can get my hands on the two references mentioned at the end of Dan McClellan's video posted earlier in the thread (I watched that video while I was sitting with my dad in the hospital yesterday, while he was asleep). It's an interesting topic.

I drove back to Arizona again today (I'm visiting my dad in the hospital again), and coincidently I had this Interpreter Foundation article on my MP3 play list and listened to it today: An Analysis of the Financial Incentives in Attacking the Restoration, by Ron C. Rhodes. It was published in 2024, and it is reporting on 2022 tax filings, so it may not reflect current trends. The article dives into two Youtube channels that are raking in the dough by attacking the church, and one of them is Mormon Stories. The article reports the financial filings of Mormon Stories as follows: The article also discusses their merchandise sales, "including hats, mugs, and t-shirts—that mock our views on God and Jesus Christ, or denigrates the sacred temple ceremony, including the tokens of the Holy Priesthood". And the article notes, "It is evident... that prominent critics are profiting in multiple ways from the doubt and lost faith of Church members. Indeed, the more faith they shake, the more money they make."

So? As we have discussed, this was also an early Christian teaching as well. Why don't other Christians (other than the Latter-day Saints) teach what the earliest Christians taught on this subject? So? The earliest Christians also implied this in their teachings (i.e. "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?"). So what's the point?

So "one" in the way that Jesus defined it in John 17:11, 20-23? Or some other way?

Spirits are eternal, they aren't created. They are the same "kind" of being as God, as the Bible says. So that part is a given. But how exactly we become spirit children of God is also not defined. We just know that God is the "Father of spirits" (as the Bible teaches as well). Whatever that process is, we have "heavenly parents" and we have submitted ourselves to and covenanted with them. I don't know for sure if heavenly mother was involved in the physical creation process. I only know that scripture says that they created in their image and likeness both "male" and "female".

Here is one other reason I like President Nelson. He gave this awesome talk at the end of the October 2024 General Conference, "The Lord Jesus Christ Will Come Again", and quoted Isaiah 45:5 twice in his talk, and the second time was when he said: "I bear my solemn witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I am His disciple. I am honored to be His servant. At His Second Coming, 'the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.' That day will be filled with joy for the righteous!" And then he picked THIS as the closing song: What a way to close that talk and that conference!

I guess that really depends on your "goal" And you are right, the important thing is to apply the scriptures to our lives today so we can come to an understanding of what God wants us to do now. But knowing what the original author intended and how his audience may understood the words is helpful too, in my opinion, since that gives us insight into their lives and teachings. We aren't in a situation where we are about to be invaded by ancient Babylon because of our bad behavior, for example, but knowing that context can help us understand Jeremiah better and how those same principles can apply to our environment today. I think trying to understand the ancient context helps us put ourselves in their situation which makes the scriptures more real to us here and now so that we can liken them unto us. It can also help us know how to interpret some things, like whether we should take all of Genesis literally or whether or not it matters if the book of Job was about a literal ancient person (as more examples).

I absolutely agree. The goal, of course, is to try to understand the scriptures in the way that they were originally intended by the original author and audience. But we can also find ways of applying the scriptures to us to help us today, even though it may not have been the original intended meaning. If you are saying that the act of getting married does not occur after the resurrection, then that may be the case, and that might be one way of interpreting what Jesus was saying there. I don't think that's exactly what Jesus was saying in those passages (although many people interpret it that way), because I think Jesus was addressing his comments specifically to the unbelieving Sadducees (at least for them, they won't have marriage). I don't have a hard set opinion on that, however. Good question. I don't know how that works for resurrected beings, so I don't have a firm answer to this question. But some of the Jewish Rabbis that were quoted in the Dummelow Bible commentary that I mentioned definitely believed that procreation would continue. And I'm sorry for being vague on some of these answers, I just don't like to make firm assertions about things where we have limited information. Great post, by the way.

I don't know if this is any different than looking up the word meanings in the original languages for clarification. President Nelson was big on teaching using the meaning of Hebrew words for some of the concepts in the Bible for example. And, there are footnotes all through the LDS version of the KJV for Greek and Hebrew word meaning And there are definitely some passages in the KJV that can be misleading to modern readers, or are awkwardly worded. So it's awesome that this is part of the official instruction now.

The same for Jesus and the Holy Ghost? Probably, but not a lot of information has been revealed in that area.

I like the way you said that.

I am interested. I'm looking forward to see where you are going with this. I, of course, disagree with you on this point (at least on the idea that those accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are teaching that marriage is for this age only). I've commented on those passages elsewhere (here, and here are two examples), and I won't challenge you on that in this thread unless you want to get into that I'm interested in what you mean by this point. Can you elaborate on what that means?

If you are talking about Christmas music in the 70's, I instantly think of this one:

I get your viewpoint, and I definitely agree with you that not all Evangelicals I've encountered think the same way that it is portrayed in the "AI overview", but I think a lot of LDS members have encountered that point of view. And perhaps they are also influenced by the experience of Joseph Smith regarding the death of his brother Alvin, where at his funeral the preacher "all but said Alvin had gone to hell, using his death to warn others of what would happen unless God intervened to save them" (Saints, Volume 1, Chapter 3). We discussed this topic in our Gospel Doctrine class last week while studying Doctrine and Covenants section 137, which was Joseph Smith's vision where he saw Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom of God. The Come Follow Me lesson for that section says the following about the events related to Alvin's death, "Alvin Smith, the Prophet Joseph’s beloved brother, passed away six years before God restored the authority to baptize. The common understanding among some Christians in 1836 was that if a person died without being baptized, that person could not go to heaven." When we discussed that part of the lesson last week, one person in the class commented about attending a funeral for a relative who had a wife that was a member of another Christian denomination (she mentioned the denomination, but I forget what it was), and said that the minister of that denomination that was overseeing the funeral said something very similar about the death of their relative. So that "strawman" point of view is a real thing, but it certainly can't be painted with a broad brush across all Evangelical Christianity.

The quote, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being" is Paul making a direct quote from Epimenides, another Greek poet writing about the Greek god Zeus. It's the same source from which Paul gets his quote, "The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies" in Titus 1:12. As the Wikipedia source shows, in the poem, Minos addresses Zeus thus: They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one, Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies. But you are not dead: you live and abide forever, For in you we live and move and have our being. As for Paul's other quote from Aratus (another Greek poet) where he taught that we are all the "offspring of God", the Greek word génos that he uses simply can’t mean “creation”. The word means “kind” of being. The Latin Vulgate Bible translates the verse to say that humans are the “genus” of God, the same word which is used in modern times to define the binomial species of a living organism. The Bible is plainly teaching that humans are the same kind of being as God! And making that word mean "creation" totally destroys Paul's argument. But you already know this, because we have discussed it. Paul’s argument to the Athenians can’t possibly work if Paul really meant we are merely God’s creations. It only works if Paul means that we are the same kind of being as God. Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God [the same kind of being as God], we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” If Paul really meant that God created us (instead of what the Bible is actually teaching there), then his argument is meaningless. God created gold, silver, and stone. God created us. Since humans and gold, silver, and stone are all creations, and God created gold, silver, and stone, then why couldn’t divinity be “gold, or silver, or stone”? There is no relationship except that we share a common creation. And why didn't Paul just say we are creations of God instead of saying we are the génos of God, the very same kind of being as God? Why make it confusing for his pagan audience? You are wresting the Bible to try to make it fit your theology instead of relying on the Bible to define your theology. And as you said, “The pagans understood ‘offspring’ in the sexual case of literal reproduction for the Greek gods; like that which occurs between male and female.” If Paul’s audience understood him that way, then why why why did Paul lie to them if he really meant that we are only creations of God? Paul was very well informed in Jewish theology. So why do you think Paul taught the Athenians that we are the offspring of God instead of saying we were created by God? You said exactly the same thing when posting as theplains: It looks like you are getting your user names mixed up. Since I have prepared a full response to that post (I've been holding off on posting it to see how things went this week), I will say the same thing here: Matthew 3:9 is referring to a physical creation of the body (God is able to raise up children from stones, the physical), not their eternal spirits that come from the presence of God (the same kind of being as God). And remember, God is the “Father of spirits”. And why are you so determined to eliminate women from the creation process? God doesn't need to be a female to create a human female. Let me know how you feel heavenly mother was involved to create Eve. But the text has God speaking in the plural, "Let US make man in OUR image after OUR likeness", to look like them, and they were created "male and female". Did the spirits of the prophets in Doctrine and Covenants 138:36-37 (I believe you also counted women among that group here on Dec 8) have an office in the Old Testament? As pointed out before, the line of thought started in Doctrine and Covenants 138:36 continues through verse 57, and many individuals (named and unnamed) are included in the work, including "Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God" (verse 39). I think it's rather ironic that you (telnetd, AKA theplains, AKA marineland, AKA GotCeltics) continue to bring up the need to include of women, but deny that women have any part in the works of God in heaven. Something is wrong with this picture.

This is not a university, but the School of Rock (which I see mostly offering courses for children and young adults, but it looks like they have courses for adults too) has locations throughout North America, Europe, and many other places. I really like their Youtube channel, as some of the performances are quite good.

I already answered that. That would likely refer to the European nations and modern states of the world.

Only if you imagine that spirit beings come into existence (and didn't exist previously) through procreation of a male and female, and that they are born possessing all other attributes that are required to be "God" as explained previously. Do you really imagine that spirit children of heavenly parents emerge as the Creators, Rulers, and Preservers of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge? Those attributes are all part of the biblical definition of "God", and you are ignoring that part. Spirit beings are eternal, they co-exist with God. They become children of heavenly parents in some way that is not explained, and that sets them up with the potential to gain the attributes of God (Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things, being perfect, and having all power and knowledge) assuming they keep God's covenants and follow the plan that God set up for them to do that. I know you don't believe the Bible when it says we are the offspring of God, but that's exactly what it says. Shouldn't we should be basing our doctrines on what the Bible teaches instead of trying to reinterpret it (or ignore it) to fit what we want to believe? These verses both support the fact that spirits are eternal and co-exist with God. They have origin from God himself indeed, for we are his "offspring", and God is the "Father of spirits". So this doesn't help your position. And God putting into Adam his spirit is an indication that the creation of man (his physical body which was formed from the dust of the earth) is completely separate from the origin of his spirit. You are adding "God's creative will". That's not indicated in this verse. Yes, God is the "Father of spirits". But you are trying to interpret this in some figurative way, when the context of the verse is comparing our literal earthly fathers (fathers of our flesh) with our Heavenly Father (the Father of our spirits). This supports what I was saying above and doesn't show that God "created" spirits. This says nothing about God forming the inner person. You added that. God shapes us and forms us by drawing us to follow him and his plan. Here is the ESV translation of Psalm 104:4, "he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire.". Here's the ESV translation of Hebrews 1:7, "Of the angels he says, 'He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.'" This isn't talking about God creating the spirits, it's talking about how God uses spirits (or "winds") as his messengers (angels) and "flaming fire" to serve him and assist in his work. And Hebrews 1:13-14 says, "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" God organizes the spirits of men to serve as his "angels" (messengers). This doesn't say anything about God creating them. God created the position of "angels" (his messengers) for the spirits of men that he called into that service, along with his "hosts", which (biblically speaking) are the stars and objects in the sky. So this doesn't help your claim either. That verse says nothing about Jesus creating Lucifer. The "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" are the governing forces, as it is explained in Titus 3:1, "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work". (Titus 3:1) Hebrews 2:14-17 doesn't say what you are claiming about the redemption of Christ, above. So really there is no biblical support for the idea that spirits are created, and the first two verses you quoted prove the opposite. Our spirits are co-eternal with God and we originated from God.

I have to agree, that was very impressive.

No particular reason. I just don't interpret offspring in the same way you do. How you interpret what Paul was teaching is not important to how Paul meant it and how his listeners would understand him. Paul wasn't trying to trick them into converting to Christianity, he was teaching them about the true God of the Bible. What did Paul really mean when he used the Greek word génos, what does that word really mean and how would his listeners understand it? You keep trying to change the meaning of the word génos into something that fits with the modern Christian view of man's relationship to God (in a way that doesn't work with Paul's overall argument) and aren't looking at it from Paul's perspective and the perspective of his Greek audience. Why not just go with what the Bible says? Are you sure about that? Scripture says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27). Paul was teaching them about the true God of the Bible, not about any Athenian gods. You know that. So quit trying to make Paul teach Greek mythology. Why wouldn't all Christians interpret "offspring" in Acts 17 that way? To "prophecy" is a gift of the spirit. God doesn't limit that to men (as you know from the Old Testament usage). But be a "prophet" to Israel or as an office in the New Testament Christian church is a different matter.