Exaltaion requirements

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No not everyone, just Christians.. Paul was giving Timothy instructions on who should be in Church leadership.. This teaching is only for the Church that Jesus adds to daily those who are being saved, not for churches that require the authority of a man to join. This is not the way any nonchristian church needs to be set up.. All such churches can be organized however they want.. IHS jim

YOu mean for instance, those "church leaders" taht took this authroity unto themsleves by attending a seminary or college? Or that claimed that bible gives them authority? Jesus church was set up with prophets and apostles and 70's. Does your church have them James? We thy ordained as was Aaron?

It is nice that you choose to go this route with meaningless opinion, but you have not shown from scripture that you even understand what Christ's church even looked like. Let alone preisthood authority.

[Jason]

No not everyone, just Christians.. Paul was giving Timothy instructions on who should be in Church leadership.. This teaching is only for the Church that Jesus adds to daily those who are being saved, not for churches that require the authority of a man to join. This is not the way any nonchristian church needs to be set up.. All such churches can be organized however they want.. IHS jim

I don't see any of that in the book of 1st Timothy.

So, again, how do you know when it applies and to whom, when the text doesn't specify any of that?

What about the idea that the bishop has to have a good report of them that are without? (1 Tim. 3:7) Does that mean that who is qualified as a bishop is subject to the opinion of the unbelievers? Always and under all circumstances?

[kamenraider]

Must a person be a polygamist (At least in heart) to receive exaltation

Brigham Young said they do. I believe that a person needs to accept all of God's laws and commandments in order to be in harmony with Him. Joseph Smith said: "The devil has no power over us only as we permit him. The moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power." (TPJS pg. 181)

I saw a BYU-produced television program recently that had some professors talking about D&C 132. Professor Bott said that he always gets asked every time he teaches about D&C 132 if living plural marriage is necessary for exaltation. You know that none of the students had that idea taught to them by faculty members there, so I'm left to conclude that they must be getting that idea from reading D&C 132 itself. Bro. Bott always assures them that it is not necessary now due to D&C 132 mentioning a man and a wife. (Bro. Bott has evidently overlooked that this verse mentions them being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, which necessitates further obedience and ordinances beyond just a single temple marriage sealing.) So what I get from that is that it is found to be necessary to assure students that D&C 132 doesn't really mean what it seems to be saying (when was the last time that all of YOU have read D&C 132?).

There is a subtle difference between believing that being sealed in a celestial monogamous marriage means being destined for exaltation in a temporary sense (conditioned upon further obedience and ordinances) and believing that it means being permanently destined for exaltation, conditioned only upon enduring to the end. Once the Church stopped practicing and preaching plural marriage (and, largely, stopped believing in it), the line between the two notions was blurred and even erased. Very few people notice this now. Celestial marriage was redefined from including plural marriage to meaning only monogamous temple marriage -- both Carmon Hardy and Tom Alexander, both reputable historians, have mentioned this.

[Jason]

I saw a BYU-produced television program recently that had some professors talking about D&C 132. Professor Bott said that he always gets asked every time he teaches about D&C 132 if living plural marriage is necessary for exaltation. You know that none of the students had that idea taught to them by faculty members there, so I'm left to conclude that they must be getting that idea from reading D&C 132 itself.

Must they? They couldn't, for example, be getting it from anti-Mormon or fundamentalist websites out there that insist that D&C 132 mandates polygamy?

(when was the last time that all of YOU have read D&C 132?).

Oh, about a month ago.

[James Banta]

If Jesus is "God" then "God" has a body of flesh and bone, or would that mean that God has 2/3's Spirit and 1/3 body. It is easy to see why the (Christian) "Trinitarian" view of God does not hold water. (as a body would).

I am delighted that I get to talk to you again.. This post I found to be wonderfully delightful..

Jesus is God and He is all the God there is therefore God is 100% a being of flesh and bone..

The Holy Spirit is God He is all the God there is and therefore God is 100% Spirit

And the Father is Spirit he is all the God there is and therefore God is a Spirit..

God is not 1/3 the Father, 1/3 Jesus, and 1/3 Holy Spirit.. Each Person is Wholly (Holy too ) God.. We have to look at the context to see which if not all the Persons of God that are being discussed in the passage being studied.. IHS jim

[thesometimesaint]

James Banta;

I have only one question for you. Do you go on other websites, and tell others what we believe?

[James Banta]

I don't see any of that in the book of 1st Timothy.

So, again, how do you know when it applies and to whom, when the text doesn't specify any of that?

What about the idea that the bishop has to have a good report of them that are without? (1 Tim. 3:7) Does that mean that who is qualified as a bishop is subject to the opinion of the unbelievers? Always and under all circumstances?

I know this doesn't apply to nonchristian Churches because Paul had no authority over such churches.. Gnostic churches denied Paul's authority as an Apostle.. These nonchristian churches wouldn't believe Paul anyway.. My post was simplistic.. Like asking who is buried in Grant's tomb...

Why is having a good reputation from people on the outside of the church allowing nonbelievers to choose who will lead the church? I find Pres Monson to be a fine man.. Because I think that he is such I am the one who allowed him to be the new President of your church? Can you see this as nonsense yet? Just because a man has a good reputation in the world doesn't mean the world is selecting him as the leadership of the church.. This is merely an indication of his character.. So always and in all circumstances a Bishop (Elder) of the Church MUST be a man of sparkling reputation.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

James Banta;

I have only one question for you. Do you go on other websites, and tell others what we believe?

Individually no... The question I asked at the beginning of this thread Yes.. However one of the Mormons on that other site has reported individual opinions he has seen here.. But even then he hasn't used names.. Is this a problem? IHS jim

[Jason]

I know this doesn't apply to nonchristian Churches because Paul had no authority over such churches.. Gnostic churches denied Paul's authority as an Apostle.. These nonchristian churches wouldn't believe Paul anyway.. My post was simplistic.. Like asking who is buried in Grant's tomb...

Alright. Granted, no one who isn't a Christian is going to accept Paul as being at all authoritative.

So how do we know that Paul's advice on what bishops should be like is a commandment that applies to all Christian bishops everywhere for the rest of time?

[Jason]

Why is having a good reputation from people on the outside of the church allowing nonbelievers to choose who will lead the church? I find Pres Monson to be a fine man.. Because I think that he is such I am the one who allowed him to be the new President of your church? Can you see this as nonsense yet? Just because a man has a good reputation in the world doesn't mean the world is selecting him as the leadership of the church.. This is merely an indication of his character.. So always and in all circumstances a Bishop (Elder) of the Church MUST be a man of sparkling reputation.. IHS jim

What if the world believes that a man cannot be a good man if he speaks out against homosexual behavior? Since that ruins his reputation in the world, doesn't that disqualify him as a Church leader, according to what Paul said to Timothy?

[thesometimesaint]

James Banta:

Don't play coy.

Do you tell others what the LDS believe?

[tsubotsubo]

I voted yes. The poll reminded me of that quote that anti-mormons like to quote to me, from Brigham Young. It goes something like:

"Only if you practice polygamy, at least in your heart, can you inherit the Celestial Kingdom"

although the anti-mormons like to leave out the last part, and leave it as:

"Only if you practice polygamy...can you inherit the Celestial Kingdom"

I may be wrong about this, but my understanding was that we had to be prepared to accept to practice of polygamy, if God to to re-allow it, to be worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Not just polygamy, however. We have to accept ALL of the commandments to enter there.

[James Banta]

Mercyngrace said:

The Bible contradicts itself, James, and is wide open to interpretation otherwise Christianity would be unified. Some truths are esoteric and are only discovered by reading all the teachings in concert.

While I don't see anything in most of your post that need comment. You could see where we can agree and were such agreement is not possible.. That's fine I totally agree with your right to see thing in a different way than I do..

This last comment is bothersome... Are you saying that God gave us contradictory revelation? This I can not accept..God is perfect, the message He gave us is His word therefore is perfect.. I am not saying that fallible men can't misunderstand, but God is NOT imperfect. Not in His character, not in His ways, and not in His word.. When God give a promise like "heaven and earth will both pass away but His word will never pass away" that is a promise in stone. God will see to it..

I worship with many different Christian from many different dominations.. I find no problem in their doctrine.. That goes for Good Shepard Lutheran, and another from Pentecostal church.. The message is the same.. Jesus and His work for our salvation.. They center on Jesus not on their church, their authority, or their leaders.. As long as the Jesus of the Bible is lifted up a Christian can worship with that group. I like a church that is quiet and reserved.. AG churches are a fine place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.. I also don't like liturgical structure. Again they are interesting to visit but what can I say I'm a Conservative Baptist.. That style of worship suits me.. God is gracious to allow all Christians to have the kind of church home that allows them to worship Him in a way that gives them the best spirit in that worship.. IHS jim

[mercyngrace]

Mercyngrace said:

The Bible contradicts itself, James, and is wide open to interpretation otherwise Christianity would be unified. Some truths are esoteric and are only discovered by reading all the teachings in concert.

While I don't see anything in most of your post that need comment. You could see where we can agree and were such agreement is not possible.. That's fine I totally agree with your right to see thing in a different way than I do..

This last comment is bothersome... Are you saying that God gave us contradictory revelation? This I can not accept..God is perfect, the message He gave us is His word therefore is perfect.. I am not saying that fallible men can't misunderstand, but God is NOT imperfect. Not in His character, not in His ways, and not in His word.. When God give a promise like "heaven and earth will both pass away but His word will never pass away" that is a promise in stone. God will see to it..

I didn't say that God contradicts Himself. I said the Bible contradicts itself and I meant that such is the case when one takes every phrase in the Bible literally and without proper context.

Just as a quick example, the New Testament says that never has a man spoken with God and the Old Testament says God spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am delighted that I get to talk to you again.. This post I found to be wonderfully delightful..

Jesus is God and He is all the God there is therefore God is 100% a being of flesh and bone..

The Holy Spirit is God He is all the God there is and therefore God is 100% Spirit

And the Father is Spirit he is all the God there is and therefore God is a Spirit..

Huh?

[SilverKnight]

James Banta:

Don't play coy.

Do you tell others what the LDS believe?

Of course he does.

This person seems to believe he is under direct orders from Jesus himself to preach against all false heresies which could result in the damnation of souls. It puts him in some good company for sure.

For crying out loud, the guy ends each post with "IHS"

[James Banta]

I didn't say that God contradicts Himself. I said the Bible contradicts itself and I meant that such is the case when one takes every phrase in the Bible literally and without proper context.

Just as a quick example, the New Testament says that never has a man spoken with God and the Old Testament says God spoke with Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

I said that the Bible is God's word.. If it is that then either God contradicted Himself or the Bible is not His word which is it? The LDS creed (Creed is defined as: any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.) says:

AofF 8

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...

Not making a comment of it's translation this section of LDS creed says that the Bible is God's word..

Ok let's look at:

Exodus 33:11

And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

I am going to ask you to set it in your mind that God doesn't lie, ok? And As you to believe that God's word is truth, is that too much to ask?

If we look at the complete chapter and not try to make this one verse a whole religion we can see how figurative it is.. I has to mean that Moses and God were on intimate terms like a father is with his child. It can't mean that moses was actually looking into God's face. Look at the rest of the chapter, the very same context of Exodus 33:11..

Exodus 33:18-23

And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

See right there is the same context it says that Moses can't see God's face.. Verse 11 them must be a metaphor for the special place in which God held Moses. A personal, intimate, position of privileged that no other man has ever been so blessed to have known.. Can you see that? IHS jim

[Deborah]

A doctrine is a belief of a church.

Doctrine is a particular principle, position, or policy taught. The doctrine as I said is distinguished from the way we practice. Plural marriage was a practice and some in that day may have referred to it as a doctrine but it is not a practice today, but the doctrine regarding Celestial Marriage is still in place.

In any case it doesn't matter because we believe in living prophets.

[Deborah]

God is not 1/3 the Father, 1/3 Jesus, and 1/3 Holy Spirit.. Each Person is Wholly (Holy too ) God..

So if the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit came to dinner how many places would you set?

[James Banta]

I voted yes. The poll reminded me of that quote that anti-mormons like to quote to me, from Brigham Young. It goes something like:

"Only if you practice polygamy, at least in your heart, can you inherit the Celestial Kingdom"

although the anti-mormons like to leave out the last part, and leave it as:

"Only if you practice polygamy...can you inherit the Celestial Kingdom"

I may be wrong about this, but my understanding was that we had to be prepared to accept to practice of polygamy, if God to to re-allow it, to be worthy to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Not just polygamy, however. We have to accept ALL of the commandments to enter there.

President Young said:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 268)

I have been criticized for quoting that saying that I took this statement out of context.. That Pres Young made it clear that a person must be at least a polygamist of the heart in order to become God even a Son of God. I don't see much difference it the two myself but if it helps someone else feel that they have won a point so be it.. I have never seen polygamy being a subject that Jesus taught as a saving ordinance of the Church. So I trying to show some members of the LDS church on another posting board that such a belief is NOT the doctrine of the LDS church came here to ask a selection of proper LDS men and women what their beliefs on the matter are.. If you believe that this is Pres Young commands a Yes vote was correct for you to offer and I thank you for making that selection.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

James Banta:

Don't play coy.

Do you tell others what the LDS believe?

Ok, I'm lost.. I told you that I was sharing the results of my question with others, Yes.. Do you mean, do I tell other people wondering about what the church believes when the ask me? Not on here but other places, yes I do.. I hope that answers your question.. I really did think you meant just about this subject sorry... IHS jim

[Deborah]

I find this whole discussion of accepting something "in your heart", even though it is something condemned today, to be an exercise in futility. In our hearts today we will accept what the current prophet has said is right. To accept something in our hearts that is neither required and in fact is subject to church discipline if practiced is not following the prophet.

It's ridiculous to even expect people to answer a hypothetical. Remember the early saints did not want to practice plural marriage and many of them were repulsed by it. It was only after thoughtful prayer that they knew it was a commandment for them. We are in the same position where if the Lord commands something, it is incumbent on us to get our own spiritual confirmation. So it's ridiculous to feel we have to screen people as to their feelings on plural marriage, when if it were again a part of the practice, we would do the same thing the early saints did and follow the prophet after a confirmation of the spirit.

[James Banta]

Alright. Granted, no one who isn't a Christian is going to accept Paul as being at all authoritative.

So how do we know that Paul's advice on what bishops should be like is a commandment that applies to all Christian bishops everywhere for the rest of time?

Maybe because Paul was called directly by Jesus (God)as an Apostle to teach the Church and expand the Kingdom of God on earth... IHS jim

[Deborah]

Maybe because Paul was called directly by Jesus (God)as an Apostle to teach the Church and expand the Kingdom of God on earth... IHS jim

So was Joseph Smith.

[James Banta]

What if the world believes that a man cannot be a good man if he speaks out against homosexual behavior? Since that ruins his reputation in the world, doesn't that disqualify him as a Church leader, according to what Paul said to Timothy?

As I have said I disagree with most of President Monson belief and statements to the world but I respect him as an honest man.. I have nothing bad to say about his character.. Just because other disagree with what you stand for doesn't mean they hold you as a person of low reputation.. Standing up for ones beliefs when other are screaming for your hide shows great character.. Running away from your enemies avoiding an attack shows the weakness that is disrespected.. No disagree on the issue of homosexuality would not disqualify anyone as a Church leader. Not loving and caring about the sinners would.. IHS jim