Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a fun but of LDS doctrinal speculation.  There are teachings that imply our family units were formed in the premortal existence and a ton of questions that idea would raise.

 

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes. But Jesus was God before he entered mortal life. Thus exalted.  Was he married before his mortal life?

Andrew Skinner wrote a paper on the Premortal Godhood of Christ that is pretty interesting and relevant to your discussion.  Here is one small part of it--

"Premortal Godhood

Because Jesus Christ was indeed the firstborn of heavenly parents and is, as pertaining to our first estate, our “elder brother,” that means He also possessed a spirit body that had a definite birth or time of organization just like every other spirit child of God. Elder McConkie taught that implicit in Jesus’ birth as a spirit child is the fact that “he had a beginning; there was a day when he came into being as a conscious identity, as a spirit entity, as an organized intelligence.” And yet, as scripture and modern prophets teach, He “is himself also the Eternal One.” [6] In other words, Jesus Christ’s spirit body had a beginning, but He is also an eternal being without beginning, who is coexistent with God, and, more importantly, was Himself God in our premortal realm.

President Joseph Fielding Smith stated emphatically that Jesus Christ was “a God before he was born into this world.” [7] He was like His Father. Analogous to family organization and family roles described in Old Testament culture, we might say that as the Firstborn, Jesus possessed all the rights, interests, and inheritance of the Father. He was the Birthright Son. He was in premortality the inheritor and rightful heir of all the Father possessed. He was the Father’s agent and executor, the “Word,” or “messenger of salvation” (D&C 93:8). Thus, Latterday Saints believe that the words of John’s introduction to his Gospel should be taken literally, at face value:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1–3)

To say that Jesus was Himself God—even “the Eternal God” as the Book of Mormon title page puts it—but that He was also born as a son of God, having a beginning, is no contradiction when one understands the true nature and order of existence as revealed by enlightened prophets; and any confusion over this matter may be tied to the false notion of creation ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the word create used in the scriptures beginning with Genesis 1:1 (Hebrew bam”) more correctly has the meaning of “organize,” and thus, creation was an organizing of existing matter.

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say He created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the [Hebrew] word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end. [8]

That the original meaning of the Hebrew phraseology in Genesis 1:1 conveyed the notion of God organizing matter rather than creating something out of nothing (the former true doctrine losing out to the later Christian idea of ex nihilo) is confirmed not only by ancient rabbinic thought but also the grammar of the Hebrew text itself. As one well-known commentary states:

Does this verse [Genesis 1:1] speak of creation ex nihilo? Yes, if the rendering of the RSV (cf. KJV) is correct: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the Hebrew bereshith seems to mean “in the beginning of rather than in the beginning, and this requires that vs. 1 should be taken with vs. 3 . . . and rendered, “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth, God said, etc.”.. . Vss. 4, 5, indeed, imply that when God said, “Let there be light” (vs. 3), there was already darkness in existence, and vss. 6, 9 presuppose the existence of waters with land already formed beneath them. [9]

The Prophet Joseph Smith further taught that the idea of Deity organizing eternally existent matter also applied to the spirits of God’s children as well. He stated, “The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.” [10] Indeed, the Lord revealed to the Prophet in 1833 that “man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can it be. . . . For man is spirit. The elements are eternal” (D&C 93:29–30, 33). In 1839 Joseph taught, “The Spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from Eternity & will exist to eternity. . . . & earth, water, &c.—all these had their existence in an elementary State from Eternity.” [11] On another occasion, he said, “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.” [12] In other words, the substance from which the spirit bodies of God’s children were formed is eternal just as God is eternal. As one scholar said, “Creation is never totally original; it is always a combination of prior realities.” [13] Thus, in terms of time, Christ was coeternal with God; in terms of space, he was coexistent with God.

Given what we know about the true nature of both creation and procreation in our premortal existence, one might ask if there was ever a time when Jesus was not God. Mortal minds cannot conceive of such a time, and the scriptures themselves do not explicitly speak of such a time—only of Christ’s obedience to the Father as well as His greatness and glory. The Savior Himself prayed to His Father on the eve of Gethsemane, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). We are reminded, however, that prophets have taught that, as with all spirit children, Christ Himself had a beginning; that the principles of agency, obedience, and progression operated in the premortal state of our existence; and that the Savior honored and followed these foundational concepts of the Father’s plan until He stood like unto God. Thus, the answer to our question is yes. But perhaps a far more important question to ask for our purposes is how or in what ways did Jesus manifest His godhood before He came to earth as the mortal Messiah? Let me suggest at least three significant ways."

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes. God. Thus exalted.

I have no idea what this means. But Jesus was God. God, or a god, before he was born.  See this passage:

Philippians 2:6-11 NABRE

Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Obedience and Service in the World.

 

Yes thank you.  YOu bollster mhy point. Jesus was God before his mortal life God's are exalted. Thus Jesus was exalted before his mortal life. WIthout a body and without a wife.

The fact that you totally misunderstand the crystal clear meaning of the passages in Philippians 2 is quite something to behold, and amply demonstrates that without the Spirit of God it’s impossible to understand the things of God. The verses quoted testify that God the Father did not exalt Christ (as a resurrected being, that is) until after he had come to earth to take on a body, live a life of holiness, work out the infinite and eternal atonement, and be resurrected into the fulness of eternal glory.

As far as Christ’s premarital Godhood is concerned, please read Bluebell’s excellent post just above this one.

Edited April 16, 2022 by teddyaware

[filovirus]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a fun but of LDS doctrinal speculation.  There are teachings that imply our family units were formed in the premortal existence and a ton of questions that idea would raise.

Jonah 3:10. Joseph Smith corrected this verse. 

“And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”

 

Edit: Also Gen 6:6

Edited April 16, 2022 by filovirus

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The fact that you totally misunderstand the crystal clear meaning of the passages in Philippians 2 is quite something to behold, and amply demonstrates that without the Spirit of God it’s impossible to understand the things of God. The verses quoted testify that God the Father did not exalt Christ (as a resurrected being, that is) until after he had come to earth to take on a body, live a life of holiness, work out the infinite and eternal atonement, and be resurrected into the fulness of eternal glory.

As far as Christ’s premarital Godhood is concerned, please read Bluebell’s excellent post just above this one.

Are you this confrontationally self-righteous in person?

[mrmarklin]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes. But Jesus was God before he entered mortal life. Thus exalted.  Was he married before his mortal life?

The fact that Christ is Jehovah should be understood along with the doctrine of fore ordination.  It is very clear in the scriptures that Christ had not achieved perfection until He had resurrected and ascended to heaven. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by mrmarklin

[MrShorty]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

Does the question of whether a temple-married couple who is sexually incompatible inherit exaltation warrant prophetic revelation? I think we already understand the answer to be, of course, if they live by God’s grace. Marriage does not hinge on sexual compatibility, and similarly, does not hinge on sexual orientation (one consideration for compatibility).

I'm not sure I agree that marriage success does not hinge on sexual compatibility. I can agree that sexual compatibility is one aspect of making a marriage work. From what I've seen in my own life and others in sexless (and similar) marriages, sexual incompatibility is difficult to overcome in marriage, and I don't think many succeed (unless they find sexual compatibility in the process).

Apart from that disagreement, though, I agree overall with your sentiment. I have long thought we need a a "comprehensive theology" of sexuality. It often seems to me that we have a sexual theology for singles and youth, a theology for married, and a theology for LGBTQ+. I agree that we would benefit from something (whether specifically called revelation or not seems less necessary) that brings it all together under one umbrella.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure I agree that marriage success does not hinge on sexual compatibility. I can agree that sexual compatibility is one aspect of making a marriage work. From what I've seen in my own life and others in sexless (and similar) marriages, sexual incompatibility is difficult to overcome in marriage, and I don't think many succeed (unless they find sexual compatibility in the process).

Apart from that disagreement, though, I agree overall with your sentiment. I have long thought we need a a "comprehensive theology" of sexuality. It often seems to me that we have a sexual theology for singles and youth, a theology for married, and a theology for LGBTQ+. I agree that we would benefit from something (whether specifically called revelation or not seems less necessary) that brings it all together under one umbrella.

I think that if sexual compatibility is one aspect of making a marriage work, it is also one aspect of making a marriage fail (“where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”). Ultimately, I believe charity and grace unite a couple and bring their marriage to Christ, and onward to exaltation.

I apologize, my first sentence or two were a tongue-in-cheek way of introducing the idea that these revelations are of a personal, not general, nature since everyone is so intimately different. I believe the marriage covenant was revealed to Adam and Eve and consistently practiced (as we define it today) under the keys in each dispensation.

Why would The Family: A Proclamation not provide that general umbrella? What other human capacity, identity and activity is currently given the level of comprehensive theology that might be arranged for the subject of sexuality?

Edited April 17, 2022 by CV75

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The fact that you totally misunderstand the crystal clear meaning of the passages in Philippians 2 is quite something to behold, and amply demonstrates that without the Spirit of God it’s impossible to understand the things of God. The verses quoted testify that God the Father did not exalt Christ (as a resurrected being, that is) until after he had come to earth to take on a body, live a life of holiness, work out the infinite and eternal atonement, and be resurrected into the fulness of eternal glory.

As far as Christ’s premarital Godhood is concerned, please read Bluebell’s excellent post just above this one.

That is pretty funny because the rest of Christianity and seen some Latter day Saints understand it exactly the way I outlined. 

 

You contradict yourself by the way.  It is easy but you cannot understand it unless someone is special enough, like you I guess, to have the spirt of God.  Do you talk to people like this in your real life?

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The fact that Christ is Jehovah should be understood along with the doctrine of fore ordination.  It is very clear in the scriptures that Christ had not achieved perfection until He had resurrected and ascended to heaven. 

Is it clear?  How so?

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

Andrew Skinner wrote a paper on the Premortal Godhood of Christ that is pretty interesting and relevant to your discussion.  Here is one small part of it--

"Premortal Godhood

Because Jesus Christ was indeed the firstborn of heavenly parents and is, as pertaining to our first estate, our “elder brother,” that means He also possessed a spirit body that had a definite birth or time of organization just like every other spirit child of God. Elder McConkie taught that implicit in Jesus’ birth as a spirit child is the fact that “he had a beginning; there was a day when he came into being as a conscious identity, as a spirit entity, as an organized intelligence.” And yet, as scripture and modern prophets teach, He “is himself also the Eternal One.” [6] In other words, Jesus Christ’s spirit body had a beginning, but He is also an eternal being without beginning, who is coexistent with God, and, more importantly, was Himself God in our premortal realm.

President Joseph Fielding Smith stated emphatically that Jesus Christ was “a God before he was born into this world.” [7] He was like His Father. Analogous to family organization and family roles described in Old Testament culture, we might say that as the Firstborn, Jesus possessed all the rights, interests, and inheritance of the Father. He was the Birthright Son. He was in premortality the inheritor and rightful heir of all the Father possessed. He was the Father’s agent and executor, the “Word,” or “messenger of salvation” (D&C 93:8). Thus, Latterday Saints believe that the words of John’s introduction to his Gospel should be taken literally, at face value:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1–3)

To say that Jesus was Himself God—even “the Eternal God” as the Book of Mormon title page puts it—but that He was also born as a son of God, having a beginning, is no contradiction when one understands the true nature and order of existence as revealed by enlightened prophets; and any confusion over this matter may be tied to the false notion of creation ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the word create used in the scriptures beginning with Genesis 1:1 (Hebrew bam”) more correctly has the meaning of “organize,” and thus, creation was an organizing of existing matter.

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say He created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the [Hebrew] word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end. [8]

That the original meaning of the Hebrew phraseology in Genesis 1:1 conveyed the notion of God organizing matter rather than creating something out of nothing (the former true doctrine losing out to the later Christian idea of ex nihilo) is confirmed not only by ancient rabbinic thought but also the grammar of the Hebrew text itself. As one well-known commentary states:

Does this verse [Genesis 1:1] speak of creation ex nihilo? Yes, if the rendering of the RSV (cf. KJV) is correct: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the Hebrew bereshith seems to mean “in the beginning of rather than in the beginning, and this requires that vs. 1 should be taken with vs. 3 . . . and rendered, “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth, God said, etc.”.. . Vss. 4, 5, indeed, imply that when God said, “Let there be light” (vs. 3), there was already darkness in existence, and vss. 6, 9 presuppose the existence of waters with land already formed beneath them. [9]

The Prophet Joseph Smith further taught that the idea of Deity organizing eternally existent matter also applied to the spirits of God’s children as well. He stated, “The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.” [10] Indeed, the Lord revealed to the Prophet in 1833 that “man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can it be. . . . For man is spirit. The elements are eternal” (D&C 93:29–30, 33). In 1839 Joseph taught, “The Spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from Eternity & will exist to eternity. . . . & earth, water, &c.—all these had their existence in an elementary State from Eternity.” [11] On another occasion, he said, “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.” [12] In other words, the substance from which the spirit bodies of God’s children were formed is eternal just as God is eternal. As one scholar said, “Creation is never totally original; it is always a combination of prior realities.” [13] Thus, in terms of time, Christ was coeternal with God; in terms of space, he was coexistent with God.

Given what we know about the true nature of both creation and procreation in our premortal existence, one might ask if there was ever a time when Jesus was not God. Mortal minds cannot conceive of such a time, and the scriptures themselves do not explicitly speak of such a time—only of Christ’s obedience to the Father as well as His greatness and glory. The Savior Himself prayed to His Father on the eve of Gethsemane, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). We are reminded, however, that prophets have taught that, as with all spirit children, Christ Himself had a beginning; that the principles of agency, obedience, and progression operated in the premortal state of our existence; and that the Savior honored and followed these foundational concepts of the Father’s plan until He stood like unto God. Thus, the answer to our question is yes. But perhaps a far more important question to ask for our purposes is how or in what ways did Jesus manifest His godhood before He came to earth as the mortal Messiah? Let me suggest at least three significant ways."

That is a great paper. THanks for sharing.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/14/2022 at 4:05 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations.

(Scott Lloyd quoting General Handbook)

I will not quote the source, but the source speaks now of "under God's law" instead of simply "lawfully wedded"

Big difference 

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

(Scott Lloyd quoting General Handbook)

I will not quote the source, but the source speaks now of "under God's law" instead of simply "lawfully wedded"

Big difference 

Ironically almost full circle back to the original.  Almost.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/16/2022 at 2:09 PM, bluebell said:

 

Andrew Skinner wrote a paper on the Premortal Godhood of Christ that is pretty interesting and relevant to your discussion.  Here is one small part of it--

"Premortal Godhood

Because Jesus Christ was indeed the firstborn of heavenly parents and is, as pertaining to our first estate, our “elder brother,” that means He also possessed a spirit body that had a definite birth or time of organization just like every other spirit child of God. Elder McConkie taught that implicit in Jesus’ birth as a spirit child is the fact that “he had a beginning; there was a day when he came into being as a conscious identity, as a spirit entity, as an organized intelligence.” And yet, as scripture and modern prophets teach, He “is himself also the Eternal One.” [6] In other words, Jesus Christ’s spirit body had a beginning, but He is also an eternal being without beginning, who is coexistent with God, and, more importantly, was Himself God in our premortal realm.

President Joseph Fielding Smith stated emphatically that Jesus Christ was “a God before he was born into this world.” [7] He was like His Father. Analogous to family organization and family roles described in Old Testament culture, we might say that as the Firstborn, Jesus possessed all the rights, interests, and inheritance of the Father. He was the Birthright Son. He was in premortality the inheritor and rightful heir of all the Father possessed. He was the Father’s agent and executor, the “Word,” or “messenger of salvation” (D&C 93:8). Thus, Latterday Saints believe that the words of John’s introduction to his Gospel should be taken literally, at face value:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1–3)

To say that Jesus was Himself God—even “the Eternal God” as the Book of Mormon title page puts it—but that He was also born as a son of God, having a beginning, is no contradiction when one understands the true nature and order of existence as revealed by enlightened prophets; and any confusion over this matter may be tied to the false notion of creation ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that the word create used in the scriptures beginning with Genesis 1:1 (Hebrew bam”) more correctly has the meaning of “organize,” and thus, creation was an organizing of existing matter.

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say He created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the [Hebrew] word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end. [8]

That the original meaning of the Hebrew phraseology in Genesis 1:1 conveyed the notion of God organizing matter rather than creating something out of nothing (the former true doctrine losing out to the later Christian idea of ex nihilo) is confirmed not only by ancient rabbinic thought but also the grammar of the Hebrew text itself. As one well-known commentary states:

Does this verse [Genesis 1:1] speak of creation ex nihilo? Yes, if the rendering of the RSV (cf. KJV) is correct: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the Hebrew bereshith seems to mean “in the beginning of rather than in the beginning, and this requires that vs. 1 should be taken with vs. 3 . . . and rendered, “In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth, God said, etc.”.. . Vss. 4, 5, indeed, imply that when God said, “Let there be light” (vs. 3), there was already darkness in existence, and vss. 6, 9 presuppose the existence of waters with land already formed beneath them. [9]

The Prophet Joseph Smith further taught that the idea of Deity organizing eternally existent matter also applied to the spirits of God’s children as well. He stated, “The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end.” [10] Indeed, the Lord revealed to the Prophet in 1833 that “man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can it be. . . . For man is spirit. The elements are eternal” (D&C 93:29–30, 33). In 1839 Joseph taught, “The Spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from Eternity & will exist to eternity. . . . & earth, water, &c.—all these had their existence in an elementary State from Eternity.” [11] On another occasion, he said, “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle.” [12] In other words, the substance from which the spirit bodies of God’s children were formed is eternal just as God is eternal. As one scholar said, “Creation is never totally original; it is always a combination of prior realities.” [13] Thus, in terms of time, Christ was coeternal with God; in terms of space, he was coexistent with God.

Given what we know about the true nature of both creation and procreation in our premortal existence, one might ask if there was ever a time when Jesus was not God. Mortal minds cannot conceive of such a time, and the scriptures themselves do not explicitly speak of such a time—only of Christ’s obedience to the Father as well as His greatness and glory. The Savior Himself prayed to His Father on the eve of Gethsemane, “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). We are reminded, however, that prophets have taught that, as with all spirit children, Christ Himself had a beginning; that the principles of agency, obedience, and progression operated in the premortal state of our existence; and that the Savior honored and followed these foundational concepts of the Father’s plan until He stood like unto God. Thus, the answer to our question is yes. But perhaps a far more important question to ask for our purposes is how or in what ways did Jesus manifest His godhood before He came to earth as the mortal Messiah? Let me suggest at least three significant ways."

How could there be "a day" before there were days, as recorded in Genesis where daylight and darkness define what "a day" is?

How could there be a beginning before a beginning?

I believe on faith that Christ is the Eternal God, and that these men were spiritual GIANTS yet that doesn't mean their words are logical or not subject to semantic error.  Neither is scripture written in natural languages.

So we need not be too literal, and look at the concepts here, not the words of men mingled with scripture 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

(Scott Lloyd quoting General Handbook)

I will not quote the source, but the source speaks now of "under God's law" instead of simply "lawfully wedded"

Big difference 

Elaborate, please. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elaborate, please. 

I am not sure of the exact wording, and would not quote it if I did, in a very recent temple visit.

So much for ssm.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure of the exact wording, and would not quote it if I did, in a very recent temple visit.

So much for ssm.

I think I know what you’re referring to, and if so, I would agree that the current wording makes more explicit what would have been universally understood without question before the secular legal meaning of marriage was radically redefined with the Obergefell SCOTUS decision. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

On 4/17/2022 at 5:29 PM, mfbukowski said:

(Scott Lloyd quoting General Handbook)

I will not quote the source, but the source speaks now of "under God's law" instead of simply "lawfully wedded"

Big difference 

In this context is "under God's law" defined somewhere?

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In this context is "under God's law" defined somewhere?

I would think the standard works define it.   And yes, it is ambiguous.

Welome to finding your own testimony.   Ask your bishop if you care to, bishop. 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/18/2022 at 10:14 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I know what you’re referring to, and if so, I would agree that the current wording makes more explicit what would have been universally understood without question before the secular legal meaning of marriage was radically redefined with the Obergefell SCOTUS decision. 

Exactly!

A few years ago, the rule would be obvious and unambiguous, but as we learned, language changes and Latin became the Vulgate and then French, Italian, Roumanian, Spanish,  and then from French, mix in a little generous dash of Germanic languages, and, voila!  English!  

Dang

Just can't keep these words and ideas from wiggling out of grasp, can we?    But yes, that's what did it!

God gave us The Word and we have been messing with it ever since Babel.  Change one word and suddenly the world changes.

That's one of the reasons I hate dictionaries and are the only person who NEVER starts a church talk with "Webster defines _____ as _____"

Dictionary writers really are not preaching the Word of God, contrary to popular belief!   I take the Babel story allegorically- we didn't need a tower and all that sweat to confound language and create confused notions of who God is!   

And we're still doing it!  

Yet again, Tolerance for Ambiguity.  !!  

[The Nehor]

On 4/16/2022 at 4:34 PM, teddyaware said:

The fact that you totally misunderstand the crystal clear meaning of the passages in Philippians 2 is quite something to behold, and amply demonstrates that without the Spirit of God it’s impossible to understand the things of God. The verses quoted testify that God the Father did not exalt Christ (as a resurrected being, that is) until after he had come to earth to take on a body, live a life of holiness, work out the infinite and eternal atonement, and be resurrected into the fulness of eternal glory.

As far as Christ’s premarital Godhood is concerned, please read Bluebell’s excellent post just above this one.

It is so blatantly clear that any idiot should understand it and simultaneously also requires the intervention of God for anyone to understand it?

[teddyaware]

On 4/23/2022 at 12:26 AM, The Nehor said:

It is so blatantly clear that any idiot should understand it and simultaneously also requires the intervention of God for anyone to understand it?

Haven’t I been saying all along that the things of the Spirit can only be understood if one has the Spirit? My point is that the inability of some to understand even the most easy to understand passages of scripture powerfully validates the Apostle Paul when he testified that… 

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

[Orthodox Christian]

On 4/6/2022 at 6:53 PM, JLHPROF said:

He was working on translating the old testament and asked the Lord how he justifed his prophets being polygamists.
He said he received revelation(s) answering the questions.  Most revelations came in answer to questions.

By some, not by all.

Hello, can you clarify a little? Did Joseph Smith have access to the original manuscripts while translating or do you mean he was merely revising what was already translated? I fail to see how anyone who has no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic and without laying his eyes on the originals could translate anything. Also on the question of polygamy, what did God reply?

The original intent of God was one man one wife as set out in Genesis. The first recorded polygamist was Lamech son of Cain. This man was a murderer and part of that world of sin which so angered God that he destroyed it by the flood saving only Noah, his sons and their wives. And once again he reestablished the original principle, one man and one woman, male and female and that principle was mirrored by his command was that the animals  were two by two, male and female of each saved species. There were only 8 adults saved, 4 couples, as testified in 1 Peter 3. So the new replenishing of the earth was to be by monogamy, as in the beginning. 

More importantly our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, reiterated God's intention by once again endorsing one, man and one woman marriage, and He should know. Then there were the epistles of Saint Paul who spoke on more than one occasion of the one man one woman principle of Christian marriage. It seems to me that anyone justifying polygamy would have to set aside what God has clearly laid down as His intention for marriage, no matter what men did in the OT. In order to reestablish polygamy then the  scriptures that uphold monogamy have to be ignored, and as Christians, to reinstitute polygamy is in direct opposition to His clear teachings which echo the Genesis account. And if polygamy was instituted by God as I believe LDS believe, then why were no other Christian traditions practicing it? And why doesn't your church practice it today? 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Orthodox Christian

[filovirus]

1 hour ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Hello, can you clarify a little? Did Joseph Smith have access to the original manuscripts while translating or do you mean he was merely revising what was already translated? I fail to see how anyone who has no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic and without laying his eyes on the originals could translate anything. Also on the question of polygamy, what did God reply?

The original intent of God was one man one wife as set out in Genesis. The first recorded polygamist was Lamech son of Cain. This man was a murderer and part of that world of sin which so angered God that he destroyed it by the flood saving only Noah, his sons and their wives. And once again he reestablished the original principle, one man and one woman, male and female and that principle was mirrored by his command was that the animals  were two by two, male and female of each saved species. There were only 8 adults saved, 4 couples, as testified in 1 Peter 3. So the new replenishing of the earth was to be by monogamy, as in the beginning. 

More importantly our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, reiterated God's intention by once again endorsing one, man and one woman marriage, and He should know. Then there were the epistles of Saint Paul who spoke on more than one occasion of the one man one woman principle of Christian marriage. It seems to me that anyone justifying polygamy would have to set aside what God has clearly laid down as His intention for marriage, no matter what men did in the OT. In order to reestablish polygamy then the  scriptures that uphold monogamy have to be ignored, and as Christians, to reinstitute polygamy is in direct opposition to His clear teachings which echo the Genesis account. And if polygamy was instituted by God as I believe LDS believe, then why were no other Christian traditions practicing it? And why doesn't your church practice it today? 

How do you explain away Exodus 21:7-11? This is part of the Covenant Code that supposedly Moses received directly from God while on top of Mount Sinai.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

Hello, can you clarify a little? Did Joseph Smith have access to the original manuscripts while translating or do you mean he was merely revising what was already translated? I fail to see how anyone who has no knowledge of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic and without laying his eyes on the originals could translate anything. Also on the question of polygamy, what did God reply?

The original intent of God was one man one wife as set out in Genesis. The first recorded polygamist was Lamech son of Cain. This man was a murderer and part of that world of sin which so angered God that he destroyed it by the flood saving only Noah, his sons and their wives. And once again he reestablished the original principle, one man and one woman, male and female and that principle was mirrored by his command was that the animals  were two by two, male and female of each saved species. There were only 8 adults saved, 4 couples, as testified in 1 Peter 3. So the new replenishing of the earth was to be by monogamy, as in the beginning. 

More importantly our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, reiterated God's intention by once again endorsing one, man and one woman marriage, and He should know. Then there were the epistles of Saint Paul who spoke on more than one occasion of the one man one woman principle of Christian marriage. It seems to me that anyone justifying polygamy would have to set aside what God has clearly laid down as His intention for marriage, no matter what men did in the OT. In order to reestablish polygamy then the  scriptures that uphold monogamy have to be ignored, and as Christians, to reinstitute polygamy is in direct opposition to His clear teachings which echo the Genesis account. And if polygamy was instituted by God as I believe LDS believe, then why were no other Christian traditions practicing it? And why doesn't your church practice it today? 

Are you aware that we regard Joseph Smith as the final prophet sent to the world in the last "dispensation" to give us more scripture like the Book of Mormon- more correct than the Bible, is the belief, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and various other sermons and practices we regard as "God-given"? 

This includes a kind of sideline- the revision of the Bible which was not completed.   Yes he used the word 'translated' but the meaning was different then.

1828 Webster's Dictionary   https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/translate

Quote

 

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

 

But in addition to all those of volumes, we believe we MUST "ASK GOD" about the justifiability of every doctrine taught and make our own decisions.   See James 1:5 and Moroni 10 3-5 and various other references.

This is what you are missing!  As you can see, these definitions are VASTLY different than how we use the word today, and easily include the revisions made by Joseph.

AND the bottom line is that we see Joseph as another Moses-like figure who had the right to "restore" the gospel the way it ought to be taught today, for today's people

AND we justify all this because we all individually (supposedly, but like all religions, we have folks raised in it who have not) MUST pray to God for ourselves to KNOW that these principles are true.

So your objection is reasonable until you understand us a little more and realize that if the Holy Ghost has not spoken to YOU directly that Joseph WAS INDEED what he claimed to be, it will all be nonsense, and you will not have the standing to criticize anything. 

And even then, God gives us the best path we need to find out these truths, and the path varies.  You might have been called here to explore it all for your self, so don't be surprised if, after you have studied it out in your mind and prayed about it, that you find yourself on that path also.

Or not.  But this particular question is quite easy- 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Orthodox Christian said:

More importantly our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, reiterated God's intention by once again endorsing one, man and one woman marriage, and He should know. Then there were the epistles of Saint Paul who spoke on more than one occasion of the one man one woman principle of Christian marriage. It seems to me that anyone justifying polygamy would have to set aside what God has clearly laid down as His intention for marriage, no matter what men did in the OT. In order to reestablish polygamy then the  scriptures that uphold monogamy have to be ignored, and as Christians, to reinstitute polygamy is in direct opposition to His clear teachings which echo the Genesis account. And if polygamy was instituted by God as I believe LDS believe, then why were no other Christian traditions practicing it? And why doesn't your church practice it today? 

We don't practice it because the US declared it illegal, primarily and our members were imprisoned for practicing it.  That kind of puts a damper on what might have been.

Also it is not right for these times, I believe.

Yes continuing revelation shows us that the gospel changes as the cultures of men and their technological progression changes.  The Old Testament was a preparation for Christ.

In our times things are different.  At times God needs to build up the population who are taught the gospel from birth, nowadays we are in an age of "democracy" in which we all make our own decisions, and polygamy might be seen as opressive.

Either way works, in different times and seasons- and that is why we have continuing revelation.   There is no need for one alleged 'truth" that does not change except for moral principles like committing murder, and the commandments etc.  Those are always right because they apply to all humanity