The Vision - D&C 76

[theplains]

On 19/02/2017 at 1:08 AM, JLHPROF said:

No idea other than to fulfill a law.  Beyond that we have no information.

What law would be fulfilled in Heavenly Father requiring 'many' wives?

Thanks, 
Jim

[theplains]

On 18/02/2017 at 11:07 PM, RevTestament said:

He is the first/"only begotten" Son. He is our "fellow" according to the scriptures. We are His brothers and sisters.

And BTW, Luke calls Him the son of the highest/Most High.

So let me understand you correctly ... do you believe Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents as is taught
by the LDS Church? How is Heavenly Father of planet Earth considered the Most High in the LDS pantheon of
Gods supposedly in existence?

Thanks,
Jim

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

So let me understand you correctly ... do you believe Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents as is taught
by the LDS Church? How is Heavenly Father of planet Earth considered the Most High in the LDS pantheon of
Gods supposedly in existence?

Thanks,
Jim

First off, LDS do not have a pantheon of Gods. The Father is the Most High, and as Jesus said is the only true God/El of this world. None other had his el/power. The miracles performed by Yeshua were performed by the power of the Father - not by Yeshua's own power. Yeshua is His authorized agent through His office as the only begotten Son of the Father. Together they are both YHWH Elohim. See Gen 3:22. Jesus is the "first Son" or only Begotten Son of the Father. He was begotten of the Father by following Him spiritually, rather than by being born physically of his loins or something like that. Their relationship is a covenantal relationship - not a physical one. When LDS talk about gods we are using the English equivalent of the Hebrew "elohim." Elohim means something like family of immovable forces/stone, and as such was sometimes used by God with disdain towards stone idols telling the people that these stone idols neither hear, nor speak, nor walk. However, in several places El Elyon referred to the Hebrews as Elohim - in other words they are His family who follow Him. 

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, theplains said:

What law would be fulfilled in Heavenly Father requiring 'many' wives?

Thanks, 
Jim

D&C 132:31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

[theplains]

On 20/02/2017 at 5:22 PM, RevTestament said:

First off, LDS do not have a pantheon of Gods.  

According to Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, page 573 - "Gods, those who are exalted will
be, 52, 221–22, 481, 531"

Grand Council - According to Joseph Smith, this was the place where “in the beginning, the head of the Gods
called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349).

Jim

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

According to Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, page 573 - "Gods, those who are exalted will
be, 52, 221–22, 481, 531"

Grand Council - According to Joseph Smith, this was the place where “in the beginning, the head of the Gods
called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349).

Jim

You could call this a "pantheon" if you like, but even with all those God's out there we only have one we worship and pray to.
Even Jesus, a member of the Godhead, taught us we should pray only to the Father, one God.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

According to Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith, page 573 - "Gods, those who are exalted will
be, 52, 221–22, 481, 531"

Grand Council - According to Joseph Smith, this was the place where “in the beginning, the head of the Gods
called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349).

Jim

I am giving you my interpretation of this in light of Hebrew scripture. The Lord used the word "gods" in talking to Joseph Smith. The Lord seemed to use traditional King James language in the Book of Mormon. But when you check that against Hebrew scripture, the word gods refers to "Elohim." Elohim is not the plural of El/Power. It is the plural of Eloah. Eloah is not used a whole lot in scripture, but is used mostly in regard to being the rock of our salvation or the stone/rock of Israel.  Therefore it seems pretty natural to read its plural as referring to the family of immovable force/power/rock. Indeed the Lord also uses it in referring to fake stone idols.

I am merely trying to show how the word "gods" is used in Hebrew as Elohim. The English "gods" really has no equivalent in Hebrew. The English word is derived from a Germanic root "Gaut": which was used in reference to the pagan gods of the germanic peoples at one time. I am merely trying to show how God ie the Most High El uses it. Here are some examples:

Deut 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods/Elohim, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Now does God mispeak? Is He saying he is a God of idols? Or is He saying He is an El of a family of immovable followers?

Here is a more famous example:

Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods/elohim; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

 Now your "side" typically tries to dismiss this as referring to bad human judges, but for one thing the Hebrew word for judges is shoftim - not elohim, so again "orthodox" are discounting God's own words as if He doesn't know what He is referring to when Yeshua also says this is the LAW and cannot be broken:

John 10: 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Now if Elohim was referring to judges here, how could Yeshua even make this argument? It would make no sense. Yet, orthodox still insist on doing it, because they do not appreciate what the word really refers to, and the truth does not correspond to their traditional teachings. It is important to note that Psalms 82 distinguishes these elohim from El Elyon by saying these elohim are children of El Elyon, the Most High. So here you see that El Elyon is NOT the same as elohim.  Over and over in scripture He says I am YHWH your Elohim. What He is saying is that He is the life/word of their family of immovable forces. The English Bible uses the various words as equivalent when they are not. The NT says the same thing. That we who believe the Son will be the sons and daughters of God - His family. That is all the word "gods" is referring to.

So the council of "gods" is merely referring to the council of the family of El Elyon. It does not mean that Elohim themselves are El Elyon. There is only one El Elyon to this world as Jesus taught.

[theplains]

On 22/02/2017 at 1:38 AM, RevTestament said:

That we who believe the Son will be the sons and daughters of God - His family. That is all the word "gods" is referring to.

The term "gods" is a reference to "deities".  That is why the article mentioned "It outlined varying degrees
of glory divided into three kingdoms as the inheritances for the vast majority of God’s children; revealed that
consignment to eternal punishment would be the fate of only a small few; and explained that the righteous
would receive the Father’s fulness: “Wherefore as it is written they are Gods even the sons of God wherefore
all things are theres."   (i.e. exaltation).  Even the 1997 version of Gospel Principles taught, "All good things
come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god."

Thanks,
Jim

[Ahab]

The most supreme God is not only one person, in my understanding.  The most supreme God is a reference to EVERY person who is God.

Given the fact that there is no son without a Father and every Father is the son of some other Father...because none of them just sprang up from out of nowhere... every perfectly glorified God person is just as perfect as every other perfectly glorified God person and thus there is nobody with ultimate preeminence although to each son there is one they may revere more than any other while that person's father is more of a backup.  A grand daddy God person, or a great grand daddy God person, however great and grand he may be.  But the Father is the one every child considers as the most important God person, even though other perfectly glorified God person is just as great and grand (wonderful) as he is.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

The term "gods" is a reference to "deities".  That is why the article mentioned "It outlined varying degrees
of glory divided into three kingdoms as the inheritances for the vast majority of God’s children; revealed that
consignment to eternal punishment would be the fate of only a small few; and explained that the righteous
would receive the Father’s fulness: “Wherefore as it is written they are Gods even the sons of God wherefore
all things are theres."   (i.e. exaltation).  Even the 1997 version of Gospel Principles taught, "All good things
come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him—a god."

Thanks,
Jim

I guess that depends what you mean by deities Plains.  If you mean spirits that have their own power, and are in charge of their own earthly elements, etc, no. Members of the family are one because they followed the teaching. They listened to the message. Read John 17.

If you are telling me the LDS belief that there are different kingdoms of glory, and Elohim are in the Celestial kingdom, then yes, I agree completely.

Did not Jesus say in His Father's house were many rooms? Heaven is not one giant room Plains. Even the Celestial kingdom has different degrees of glory.

I am just showing you what the scriptures teach Plains. You are not familiar with it because the truth was lost in a church which strayed from the scriptures. These truths remained burried until Joseph Smith was appointed to restore them. The truth is all over the scriptures.

Acts 7:49

49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Luke 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

Luke 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

What is his house Plains? Will you be in HIs House? Who is in His House? Would that be His family - His sons and daughters? Scripturally, the words are synonymous. His House is referring to His family - His spiritual sons and daughters who followed His teaching. In the OT His children were called Elohim - same thing Plains. Why do you think He called them His chosen? Do you think God plays favorites? He says He doesn't - He is no respecter of persons. So how come He seems to only have spoken to the children of Abraham? - one branch of Shem, and one branch of Noah? Is it because at some point they chose to follow HIm? What about the rest of the world?

Deuteronomy 23:18

18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

What is a vow Jim? Is that a covenant? He doesn't let in sinners who don't follow Him Jim.

Edited February 24, 2017 by RevTestament

[theplains]

On 24/02/2017 at 10:15 AM, RevTestament said:

I guess that depends what you mean by deities Plains.

According to that quote in the 1997 Gospel Principles manual, is Heavenly Father a god in the sense of
a 'deity'?

Acts 7:49
49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Luke 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

Luke 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

What is his house Plains?

This is a reference to those who thought man could build an earthly temple for God to reside in.

Deuteronomy 23:18

18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

What is a vow Jim? Is that a covenant?

That is a reference to a promise made in the Old Testament to something someone planned to offer in the OT
temple.

Thanks,
Jim

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, theplains said:

According to that quote in the 1997 Gospel Principles manual, is Heavenly Father a god in the sense of
a 'deity'?

I don't use the word deity, Jim. It is a Latin-derived word, which has no biblical meaning for me. Heavenly Father is the Most High El or if you insist deity. But I really don't know what deity means - biblically. El means something like power, so Heavenly Father is the Most High power. That is his title or office. His name is YHWH. Like Yeshua, He is often referred to as YHWH Elohim in the scriptures. I imagine Eloah is another title for Him. El Gibbor is another title for Him, which means the Mighty Power. Orthodoxy has incorrectly adopted the Jewish idea that El Shaddai refers to the Father, but it does not. It refers to the Son, our Savior, and means something like "the power which weans us" rather than "the Almighty God."

Quote

This is a reference to those who thought man could build an earthly temple for God to reside in.

Yeshua is the one asking for others to come into His house. I really don't understand how you reach your conclusion. Do you agree that Yeshua's house consists of His followers and not an earthly building?

Quote

That is a reference to a promise made in the Old Testament to something someone planned to offer in the OT
temple.

I think you will find that the Jews considered their vows to be covenants with God - do you believe there is a difference?

Edited February 27, 2017 by RevTestament

[theplains]

On 27/02/2017 at 6:43 PM, RevTestament said:

I don't use the word deity, Jim. It is a Latin-derived word, which has no biblical meaning for me. Heavenly Father is the Most High El or if you insist deity. But I really don't know what deity means - biblically.

Yeshua is the one asking for others to come into His house. I really don't understand how you reach your conclusion. Do you agree that Yeshua's house consists of His followers and not an earthly building?

I think you will find that the Jews considered their vows to be covenants with God - do you believe there is a difference?

The 1997 Gospel Principles says, "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children
become like him—a god."

How is Heavenly Father a god?

The house you provided the quote for earlier is a reference to the Old Testament temple. The body of Christ, the church,
are believers.  We are the temple in the New Testament.

I don't see any difference in a vow you make with God and equating that vow with a covenant
or agreement with God.

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, theplains said:

The 1997 Gospel Principles says, "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children
become like him—a god."

How is Heavenly Father a god?

Heavenly Father is a God because he obeyed all the laws and ordinances pertaining to that office.
Christ is a God for the same reason, specifically for doing only the Father's will and doing the same as he saw the Father do.
If we follow the sames laws and ordinances and do the will of Christ and the will of the Father there is no reason we will not be Gods as well.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

The 1997 Gospel Principles says, "All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children
become like him—a god."

How is Heavenly Father a god?

He is the Most High power - that's how. More powerful than our Savior. According to Christ Himself, He is greater than Himself.

Quote

The house you provided the quote for earlier is a reference to the Old Testament temple. The body of Christ, the church,
are believers.  We are the temple in the New Testament.

I don't see any difference in a vow you make with God and equating that vow with a covenant
or agreement with God.

Thanks,
Jim

Christ talked about His house. He told us "In my Father's house are many rooms. I go to make a place for you."  Sounds like the Father's house to me. I don't think that you understand that the temple represented the followers, and does in the NT as well. We are the temple, and always have been. 

Yep, as for a vow, it is usually in response to a promise from God, so it becomes a two-way covenant.

[theplains]

On 02/03/2017 at 3:32 AM, RevTestament said:

We are the temple, and always have been. 

I would agree with this. This is why we don't build physical temples like Latter-day Saints do.

Jim

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, theplains said:

I would agree with this. This is why we don't build physical temples like Latter-day Saints do.

Jim

So why did the Lord have the Jews build a temple?

[mfbukowski]

On 2/15/2017 at 4:12 PM, theplains said:

I had a question about this article

It said:

“The Vision,” as it became known, contained a sweeping description of what awaited humankind after 
death. It outlined varying degrees of glory divided into three kingdoms as the inheritances for 
the vast majority of God’s children; revealed that consignment to eternal punishment would be the 
fate of only a small few; and explained that the righteous would receive the Father’s fulness: 
“Wherefore as it is writen they are Gods even the sons of God wherefore all things are theres."

Let's assume, for the simplicity of math, that Heavenly Father had a total of 9 billion spirit
children.  From what I have read in LDS theology, 3 billion of them followed Lucifer and became 
angels of the devil (if I used the correct phrase).

When it says above that "consignment to eternal punishment would be the fate of only a small 
few," what is a small few?  Only those who once accepted the gospel and turned away from Christ
and followed another religion, but not counting those other 3 billion spirits?

Thanks,
Jim

Haven't read the thread

Note that one must have first accepted Christ, known him about as well as is possible for humans to know Christ and THEN turned away totally and denied him

It is said that it would be like staring directly at the sun and then denying its brightness.  It would be hard to understand the motivation of such people- perhaps they feel they get some kind of better deal form satan or something inconceivable to me.  Perhaps a level of worldly pleasure and power unknowable to most people, I don't have a clue.

But anyway, VERY few people even know Christ well enough to qualify for that depth of voluntary degradation.

If it is a few thousand who end up in outer darkness, I would be surprised that the number is that high.  That is my understanding of the doctrine after nearly 40 years of studying it

[theplains]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So why did the Lord have the Jews build a temple?

That was the Old Testament.  The tabernacle was where God met the high priest in the temple (in the Holy of
Holies). In the New Testament, the temple is each individual believer, where the Holy Spirit comes to indwell.
That is why Christians do not build temples like Latter-day Saints.  See Hebrews chapters 9 and 10.  With
Christ's atonement, women (and men) do not need to visit a physical temple.  They only need to rely on one
Priest ... they do not need earthly priests.  Both men and women are priests in the royal priesthood (1 Peter
2:5,9).

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, theplains said:

That was the Old Testament.  The tabernacle was where God met the high priest in the temple (in the Holy of
Holies). In the New Testament, the temple is each individual believer, where the Holy Spirit comes to indwell.
That is why Christians do not build temples like Latter-day Saints.  See Hebrews chapters 9 and 10.  With
Christ's atonement, women (and men) do not need to visit a physical temple.  They only need to rely on one
Priest ... they do not need earthly priests.  Both men and women are priests in the royal priesthood (1 Peter
2:5,9).

The purpose of the temple is for man to be able to converse with the Lord face to face, as in the tabernacle.
The same as Eden was a temple, for Adam talked with God face to face.
The same as Sinai was a temple, for Moses talked with God face to face.
The same as the wilderness was a temple, where Abraham and Jacob and Christ met God face to face.
The same as the sacred grove served as a temple where Joseph Smith met God face to face.

That is why when the New Jerusalem descends there will be no need for a temple, because the Lord will be present, constantly before us.

Temples are the place where man can enter God's presence and converse with him face to face.  They aren't the only place, but they are the place designated.
Even with Christ breaking the barrier allowing us to return to God's presence, without a temple we cannot converse with the Lord face to face and we are left to our own devices.
 

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, theplains said:

That was the Old Testament.  The tabernacle was where God met the high priest in the temple (in the Holy of
Holies). In the New Testament, the temple is each individual believer, where the Holy Spirit comes to indwell.
That is why Christians do not build temples like Latter-day Saints.  See Hebrews chapters 9 and 10.  With
Christ's atonement, women (and men) do not need to visit a physical temple.  They only need to rely on one
Priest ... they do not need earthly priests.  Both men and women are priests in the royal priesthood (1 Peter
2:5,9).

Thanks,
Jim

There is nothing in 1 Peter 2:5 to suggest women are priests. You are backtracking on your agreement that even in the OT the people were the temple. The physical temple was a type for the spiritual. The people didn't get that even when the Lord told them He was full of their sacrifices and feasts, and wanted a broken heart and contrite spirit.

The reason for the modern-day temple is that the Lord made a new covenant with the Gentiles, and He wanted a house for those ordinances to be performed in. But at one time they were done without the physical temple. The physical temple is really not important. It is just a symbol for the holiness of the work done therein.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.  It would be hard to understand the motivation of such people- perhaps they feel they get some kind of better deal form satan or something inconceivable to me.  Perhaps a level of worldly pleasure and power unknowable to most people, I don't have a clue.

More likely hate, imo.  They hate him because he is different from them and if they wish to flourish, it is not him who comes to them in humility, but them having to repent and honor and worship their Lord, their God.  Perhaps they see themselves as reduced to his slave.  

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

More likely hate, imo.  They hate him because he is different from them and if they wish to flourish, it is not him who comes to them in humility, but them having to repent and honor and worship their Lord, their God.  Perhaps they see themselves as reduced to his slave.  

Maybe a tiny element of that is found here in those who have left the church but cannot leave it alone.  I think you get a gold star for that idea.

You have guys like Dawkins, Bill Mahr (spelling?- i am not going to bother ) etc who make a career out of atheism as well.

[Calm]

I on rare occasion go to hate for the behaviour of those who attack others, more often I go to fear (though I think that is the root of anger and hate).  I don't feel comfortable applying the extreme emotion I see hate as to people I don't know well.  Hopefully I don't know any SoP, but there I am arguing based on general human behaviour and what I imagine Hell/OD to be...and I don't see people crippled by loss of agency having power or pleasure, but perhaps self delusion stills operates and they think they will.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[theplains]

On 06/03/2017 at 7:25 PM, JLHPROF said:

Temples are the place where man can enter God's presence and converse with him face to face.  They aren't the only place, but they are the place designated.
Even with Christ breaking the barrier allowing us to return to God's presence, without a temple we cannot converse with the Lord face to face and we are left to our own devices.

From what I know, Latter-day Saints do not converse with God face to face in their temples. They only converse with
people with a veil between them. In the Old Testament, the priests could not withstand the appearance of God’s glory
in the temple. And the non-priests even saw the glory of the Lord (examples - Exodus 24:17; 40:34-35; Leviticus 9:23-24;
Numbers 14:10; 16:9; 1 Kings 8:10-11; 2 Chronicles 5:14; 7:2).

Thanks,
Jim