Question For Our LDS Members; Who is Satan? [Archive]

Nosnomis

October 2nd 2005, 08:22 PM

A question directed at LDSTrue, or any other of our distinguished LDS guests who'd like to chime in. (Or John Mormon, who hasn't given me a beating for a while) I would like to get some contemporary LDS perspective on this.

I'm not necessarily looking for footnoted answers only, opinion would also be appreciated.

1) Who is Satan?

More specifically, exactly what kind of a being is he? Is he a God? What powers does he possess? Is he an omni-being? i.e. Omni-present, Omniscient, Omnipotent etc.

2) What is his origin?

Where did he originate? Was there a time when he didn't exist? How was he brought into being? (If at all)

3) What is his relationship to God?

Is he a son of God? Does he have access to the throne of God? What kind of a relationship does he maintain with Jesus?

4) What is his current scope of influence?

Does he personally cause all anger, warfare, calamity, poverty, hatred etc. that we find in the world today?

5) What will be his final destiny?

Will he roast in the fires of hell eternally? Does he have a shot at redemption? Is his fate sealed already?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Before I give my personal beliefs regarding Satan, let me provide a few Church sites about him.

Found in the Bible Dictionary (http://scriptures.lds.org/bdd/devil)
Found in a book I enjoy called True to the Faith. (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm)
Found at Mormon.org (http://mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-1371-16,00.html)

Now that I have given what the Church teaches about Satan, I will now give my personal beliefs regarding him.

1. No Satan is not a god, nor will he ever become one in the near eternities. He is a spiritual being, and I am pretty sure he is not omni-anything. I don't think he is omni-present or omniscient but he does have a number of fallen angels serving him equal to half of all mankind that has lived on the earth, is living on the earth right now, and will ever live on the earth, which does make for a decent enough taskforce for spreading his influence throughout the earth. As for his powers (and those of his followers,) I believe that he is only capable of inciting people to wickedness (temptation,) and some weak counterfeits of God's power (i.e. he can appear as an angel of light, but he doesn't have any of the Glory that God and His angels have.) If Satan commanded that a person die of something, and a Priesthood (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) holder using God's authority command that the person live, the person would live.

2. He was a spirit son of God, as we all are spirit sons and daughters of God. When God taught us the Plan of Salvation (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) Satan, or Lucifer as he was then known, rebelled and came up with a different plan, a plan that he claimed would save everyone, but at the loss of our Agency (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) , and also required that God give up His throne to him. This led to the War in Heaven (which I personally believe to be a war of words and beliefs rather than a war of weapons and killing.) Satan lost, upon which he and all those who supported him were cast out of Heaven. I guess you could say there was a time when he didn't exist as Satan, before he rebelled against God. If you are asking whether there was a time that the spirit now know as Satan did not exist, that is a complicated answer best left to another thread, another time.

3. Yes, he was a son of God, just as we all are spirit children of God. I don't know if he has access to God's throne, as he was cast out from Heaven. There are those who say that he does have access, based on Job 1, and there are those who say no, based on the scripture that a wicked person would be more comfortable in Hell than with God. Even though Satan is a spirit brother of Christ, I think that Satan hates Him with all his being, as Christ is crucial to the Plan of Salvation, which Satan opposed, and Christ may also be a reminder of what Satan has lost. I state this as Satan is always doing everything he can to destroy the Christ's Church. There is a saying that I heard once, "While good will not willingly tolerate the presence of evil, evil cannot tolerate the presence of good." Every time wicked people meet good people, the person who is wicked is more aware of his wickedness.

4. I believe he is indirectly responsible for most of those mentioned in the Question. I say this, as I don't believe he sends natural disasters, as I believe natural disasters to be one of God's ways of chastening His people for wickedness, or one of His ways to teach us Humility. If someone is in poverty through no act of their own, (such as being laid off during a depression or something like that) I believe it to be another one of God's ways to teach people humility. If someone is in poverty because of their actions, (such as someone becoming a drug addict and wasting all their money) I believe it to be just a natural consequence of mis-using their agency. Note that in cases where the problem is because of the actions of the people, Satan is only responsible for providing the temptation, but we are even more responsible because of our choosing to follow that temptation. He has the power to tempt us to do evil things, but we have the power to resist temptation if we so choose. Many people however mistakenly think they will have a better time if they go along with the temptation, hence much of the wickedness found.

5. He will continue to have the power to tempt mankind until the Millenium (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) when he will be bound for a 1000 years. After the 1000 years are up he will be loosed for a small season (I don't have any idea how long that will be, the scriptures are kind of vague on that amount of time.) After the season, there will be one final battle, where Satan and his followers will fight against Michael (Adam) and his angels, a battle that Satan will lose, and he and his followers will be cast into Outer Darkness (read: into "the roasting fires of hell" for sake of simplification) forever. I don't think he has a chance at redemption, because when a person rebels against God, in the presence of God, I think they are so hardened of heart to reject even the thought of repentance. I think the author of Paradise Lost had a correct appraisal of Satan's attitude when the author said that Satan "would rather rule over Hell than serve in Heaven." And even if he does have a change of heart, he would still have all those sins that he encouraged people to do to repent of.

I hope this answers your questions.

May God be with you.

Trout

October 3rd 2005, 04:04 PM

Many thanks Jethreuel. :thumb:

Jethruel:
If Satan commanded that a person die of something, and a Priesthood (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) holder using God's authority command that the person live, the person would live.

Interesting, apart from priesthood intervention, Satan has the power to kill someone?

Jethreuel:
If you are asking whether there was a time that the spirit now know as Satan did not exist, that is a complicated answer best left to another thread, another time.

Does the answer have to do with the idea that intelligence is eternal?

Jethreuel:
4. I believe he is indirectly responsible for most of those mentioned in the Question.

So when there exists an evil dictator or evil spiritual leader you believe that Satan himself is responsible for providing the temptation to engage in such activities?

Jethreuel:
And even if he does have a change of heart, he would still have all those sins that he encouraged people to do to repent of.

But you do think that there is an extremely slim chance that Satan could be redeemed?

Jethreuel:
I hope this answers your questions.

Thank you very much.

Jethreuel:
May God be with you.

God bless you as well.

Nosnomis

October 3rd 2005, 04:32 PM

Many thanks Jethreuel. :thumb:

Interesting, apart from priesthood intervention, Satan has the power to kill someone?

Does the answer have to do with the idea that intelligence is eternal?

So when there exists an evil dictator or evil spiritual leader you believe that Satan himself is responsible for providing the temptation to engage in such activities?

But you do think that there is an extremely slim chance that Satan could be redeemed?

Thank you very much.

God bless you as well.

1. I was just using that as an example to show how the Priesthood is greater than Satan's power. I don't know whether Satan can kill or not.

2. Yes, and again I say that this is best left to another thread, another time.

3. Yes, and that they are responsible for giving into the temptation.

4. I don't know either way. It is not my place to say (even if it is my own opinion) whether someone is redeemed or not, or whether someone can be redeemed.

John Powell

October 3rd 2005, 07:26 PM

TROUT:
A question directed at LDSTrue, or any other of our distinguished LDS guests who'd like to chime in. (Or John Mormon, who hasn't given me a beating for a while) I would like to get some contemporary LDS perspective on this.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, I'll add my comments to those of Jethreuel even though Trout doesn't consider me to be distinguished.

TROUT:
I'm not necessarily looking for footnoted answers only, opinion would also be appreciated.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. I'll give my opinions. If you want the footnotes that will take more time.

TROUT:
1) Who is Satan?

JOHN MORMON:
Lucifer, a son of the morning. He's one of the first intelligences among us to become a spirit child of God and, so, one of the greatest intelligences among God's children. Currently he's in rebellion against God.

TROUT:
More specifically, exactly what kind of a being is he?

JOHN MORMON:
The same kind of being that we and Jesus were before being mortal: an intelligence housed in a body of spirit.

TROUT:
Is he a God?

JOHN MORMON:
Not to Mormons.

In pagan mythology, enemies to the good gods were often also considered gods, but to Mormons and other Christians, evil spiritual beings are considered things like demons or devils. In Mormonism, godhood is associated with living a life like God the Father lives, but not necessarily having an exalted body of flesh and bones. For example, the Holy Ghost is a God despite not being resurrected. Jesus was a God even before He was mortal.

TROUT:
What powers does he possess?

JOHN MORMON:
Great because of his great intelligence. Apparently he doesn't have the power to directly kill a mortal otherwise one would expect him to be doing it on a regular basis, but he has the power of communication. He can persuade mortals to kill themselves or to kill others. However, it's Mormon doctrine that only God can read minds. Apparently, Satan has to guess what people are thinking based on their behavior.

A Mormon priesthood holder is supposed to be able to dispel Satan. I suspect that's because Satan knows that Jesus will come personally if Satan doesn't leave rather than because the priesthood holder has that much power. Perhaps it's like a child or woman who screams might have the power to dispel an attacker.

When a priesthood blessing heals someone then I imagine that God responds to the request rather than that the priesthood holder did it on his own.

TROUT:
Is he an omni-being? i.e. Omni-present, Omniscient, Omnipotent etc.

JOHN MORMON:
No. Nobody is an omni being. It's a philosophical ideal which doesn't exist in reality. God the Father is very very great. Elohim is God because He was the greatest intelligence among the rest, not because He was infinitely intelligent.

TROUT:
2) What is his origin?

JOHN MORMON:
He was an especially great intelligence that became a spirit child of Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

TROUT:
Where did he originate?

JOHN MORMON:
Like the rest of us, he has always existed as something, as an intelligence. He became a spirit child of God shortly after Jesus did.

TROUT:
Was there a time when he didn't exist?

JOHN MORMON:
No. However, there was a time when he wasn't a spirit, but merely an intelligence.

TROUT:
How was he brought into being? (If at all)

JOHN MORMON:
His intelligence was not created, but is eternal. He became a spirit child of God by the process of spiritual procreation.

TROUT:
3) What is his relationship to God?

JOHN MORMON:
He is one of Elohim's first spirit sons. He is a younger sibling to Jesus, but a spiritual elder to almost all (if not all) the rest of us.

TROUT:
Is he a son of God?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes a spirit son of God, just like the rest of us. However, he isn't also a biological son as Jesus is.

TROUT:
Does he have access to the throne of God?

JOHN MORMON:
I would think so to a very limited extent. Even warring generals and mobsters have some access to each other.

TROUT:
What kind of a relationship does he maintain with Jesus?

JOHN MORMON:
One of constant conflict.

TROUT:
4) What is his current scope of influence?

JOHN MORMON:
Great, but not nearly as great as the influence of Elohim or Jesus. He can send ideas to the minds of mortals, appear as a being of light, and perhaps other things like what ghosts are thought to do such as moving small items.

TROUT:
Does he personally cause all anger, warfare, calamity, poverty, hatred etc. that we find in the world today?

JOHN MORMON:
No. Those result depending on how mortals respond to communcations from Satan. Mortals can do some good without God's direct influence and they can do some evil without Satan's direct influence. Even if Satan didn't exist there would still be evil on Earth, but to a lesser degree. In particular, I think warfare, in which good men kill other good men, would not exist if there were no Satan.

TROUT:
5) What will be his final destiny?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know. It's possible that he will eventually repent, but he probably won't.

TROUT:
Will he roast in the fires of hell eternally?

JOHN MORMON:
Probably. I think of "roasting in the fires" as a metaphor for feeling very badly because your progression is frustrated by being prevented from accessing God's benefits.

TROUT:
Does he have a shot at redemption?

JOHN MORMON:
I think so, but maybe not.

TROUT:
Is his fate sealed already?

JOHN MORMON:
I guess so, but only in the sense that it's highly unlikely that he'll change, not in the sense that it's impossible.

It's possible for God to become a devil, although highly unlikely.

TROUT:
Thanks in advance for your answers.

JOHN MORMON:
You're welcome.

John Powell

roddmann

October 3rd 2005, 07:52 PM

Why would you want the opinions of people? The source of the information is the Bible - what does the Bible say about Satan?

http://www.bible.com/answers/asatan.html

A question directed at LDSTrue, or any other of our distinguished LDS guests who'd like to chime in. (Or John Mormon, who hasn't given me a beating for a while) I would like to get some contemporary LDS perspective on this.

I'm not necessarily looking for footnoted answers only, opinion would also be appreciated.

1) Who is Satan?

More specifically, exactly what kind of a being is he? Is he a God? What powers does he possess? Is he an omni-being? i.e. Omni-present, Omniscient, Omnipotent etc.

2) What is his origin?

Where did he originate? Was there a time when he didn't exist? How was he brought into being? (If at all)

3) What is his relationship to God?

Is he a son of God? Does he have access to the throne of God? What kind of a relationship does he maintain with Jesus?

4) What is his current scope of influence?

Does he personally cause all anger, warfare, calamity, poverty, hatred etc. that we find in the world today?

5) What will be his final destiny?

Will he roast in the fires of hell eternally? Does he have a shot at redemption? Is his fate sealed already?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

John Powell

October 3rd 2005, 08:14 PM

Why would you want the opinions of people? The source of the information is the Bible - what does the Bible say about Satan?

POWELL (my current atheist self):
In that case, Roddmann, why would you think Trout would care what your opinion or the opinion of the webwriter is on the matter?

In fact, since apparently you don't want the opinions of people concerning such questions, why would you care what the opinion of the people who wrote the Bible was on the matter?

Perhaps you think ancient people living in Israel had more reliable opinions than modern people about such things.

JOHN MORMON (my former Mormon self):
If you're willing to restrict your knowledge of science to what ancient scholars wrote then it wouldn't surprise me that you're willing to restrict your knowledge of Satan to what ancient prophets wrote. Mormons are willing to accept more knowledge from God when God gives it.

John Powell

Trout

October 3rd 2005, 09:18 PM

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, I'll add my comments to those of Jethreuel even though Trout doesn't consider me to be distinguished.

No, I don't consider you a guest, you're more like the gatekeeper.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. I'll give my opinions. If you want the footnotes that will take more time.

If what you have said doesn't seem to align with LDS thought as I understand it, I may ask for a footnote.

JOHN MORMON:
Lucifer, a son of the morning.

A, "son of the morning"? What does that phrase mean?

John Mormon:
He's one of the first intelligences among us to become a spirit child of God and, so, one of the greatest intelligences among God's children.

Perhaps a little off subject; why would the earlier spirit children possess a greater intelligence?

JOHN MORMON:
No. Nobody is an omni being. It's a philosophical ideal which doesn't exist in reality. God the Father is very very great. Elohim is God because He was the greatest intelligence among the rest, not because He was infinitely intelligent.

It's my understanding that the LDS believe and teach the idea that God is an omni-being, perhaps here you could footnote.

JOHN MORMON:
Like the rest of us, he has always existed as something, as an intelligence. He became a spirit child of God shortly after Jesus did.

Was he an inherently evil intelligence? What quality does he possess that made him choose evil?

JOHN MORMON:
His intelligence was not created, but is eternal. He became a spirit child of God by the process of spiritual procreation.

So could there be an even greater Satan awaiting a spirit body?

JOHN MORMON:
appear as a being of light . . .

What do you mean by a "being of light".

JOHN MORMON:
Probably. I think of "roasting in the fires" as a metaphor for feeling very badly because your progression is frustrated by being prevented from accessing God's benefits.

Hmmm . . .John Powell's initials are JP . . . Things are starting to come together for me I believe.

John Mormon:
It's possible for God to become a devil, although highly unlikely.

Again, perhaps you might footnote that idea for me.

And it's good to see you here in the LDS forum again, welcome back.

Trout

mickiel

October 3rd 2005, 09:38 PM

.

1) Who is Satan?

More specifically, exactly what kind of a being is he? Is he a God? What powers does he possess? Is he an omni-being? i.e. Omni-present, Omniscient, Omnipotent etc.

The bible calls him the god of this world, so he is a god. Him being a god of this world, he has godly powers over this world. How much power, I really do not know. He has more power than all of humanity combined as well as authority over earth. That is power enough. He gets personal audience with God on his throne, that too is power.

2) What is his origin?

I think God created him evil from his beginning, as Jesus stated very clearly.

Where did he originate? Was there a time when he didn't exist? How was he brought into being? (If at all)

John 1:3, satan was brought into being by Christ, as was everything that lives.

3) What is his relationship to God?

He is submissive to God as is anythingelse.

Is he a son of God? Does he have access to the throne of God? What kind of a relationship does he maintain with Jesus?

Everything belongs to God. I don't think satan and Jesus get along at all.

4) What is his current scope of influence?

Don't know that for sure.

Does he personally cause all anger, warfare, calamity, poverty, hatred etc. that we find in the world today?

Yes.

5) What will be his final destiny?

I hope God wills him out of existance.

Will he roast in the fires of hell eternally? Does he have a shot at redemption? Is his fate sealed already?

I don't see God roasting anything for an eternity.
Why should he? You think God is insane?

Thanks in advance for your answers.[/QUOTE]

Nosnomis

October 4th 2005, 02:43 AM

First to John Powell.

Welcome back to this area of Tweb. It's been a while since you posted in this forum. I hope you have as great a time here as you do in Apologetics.

This is directed to Trout, in response to some of his questions to John Powell.

You asked what is meant by "a son of the morning." I don't know. I only know that he was referred to that in some scriptures. However I think it was sort of a rank of stature that he had attained as a spirit before he fell. I think this as it would explain why a third of all the hosts of heaven followed him when he challenged Heavenly Father and Christ. It would also explain why the heavens wept when he fell. If he was someone that had not risen so far, it would not have been that great of a loss for him to fall.

Since you all are so focused on intelligences, I will put in my opinion to answer your question. I don't think that it is a matter of earlier spirit children possessing greater intelligences, but rather the greater intelligences were organized into spirit children first, as they were more prepared to become spirit children than others were. Does that make sense?

I think the trait he had was a drive to excel, to be the best, the greatest, a feeling that may have eventually caused him to believe that he no longer needed Heavenly Father, and felt that he knew enough to take His reigns from then on. When we were organized into sentient spiritual beings, God gave us the gift of agency, as that is what truly is needed to be sentient, the ability to choose among choices, act on the choice, and learn from the consequences of that action.

It's possible, even though it is irrelevent to the discussion, as it won't apply to us in this timeline.

An angel from God, or a person of holiness. Note what I said in my earlier post. He may appear as an angel of light, but he won't have any of the Glory that accompany's such. I guess the term light is used as it symbolizes Truth, more specifically, the Absolute Truth that is associated with God.

What is JP supposed to mean?

John Powell

October 4th 2005, 12:49 PM

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, I'll add my comments to those of Jethreuel even though Trout doesn't consider me to be distinguished.

TROUT:
No, I don't consider you a guest, you're more like the gatekeeper.

JOHN MORMON:
Oh.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok. I'll give my opinions. If you want the footnotes that will take more time.

TROUT:
If what you have said doesn't seem to align with LDS thought as I understand it, I may ask for a footnote.

JOHN MORMON:
Fair enough.

JOHN MORMON:
Lucifer, a son of the morning.

TROUT:
A, "son of the morning"? What does that phrase mean?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know, but I suggest it means "an early spiritual son of God."

JOHN MORMON:
He's one of the first intelligences among us to become a spirit child of God and, so, one of the greatest intelligences among God's children.

TROUT:
Perhaps a little off subject; why would the earlier spirit children possess a greater intelligence?

JOHN MORMON:
Because they were better prepared to make the transition from mere intelligence to spirit + intelligence. Jesus was the first spirit son and the most intelligent of God's spirit children. It's not necessarily the case that the order of spiritual birth was exactly matched to the intelligence level of the entity, but that would seem to be a reasonable way for a God to do things. It would be fair. The more intelligent are given the opportunity first. Apparently, those intelligences that were too ignorant to be humans became things like animal spirits.

JOHN MORMON:
No. Nobody is an omni being. It's a philosophical ideal which doesn't exist in reality. God the Father is very very great. Elohim is God because He was the greatest intelligence among the rest, not because He was infinitely intelligent.

TROUT:
It's my understanding that the LDS believe and teach the idea that God is an omni-being, perhaps here you could footnote.

JOHN MORMON:
Let me first argue it. I'll give one reference below.

Most Mormons would agree that there are things that are logically possible to do but God is incapable of doing (such as annihilating Satan). If God could do anything logically possible then surely people like Satan would realize the futility of resisting God.

Probably most Mormons believe that God knows the future, but some Mormons like myself believe He merely makes very reliable predictions and has sufficient power to bring important things to be in line with His will. If God really knew everything then surely people like Satan would realize the futility of resisting God.

God is very very good, but it's logically possible for God to be more good than He actually is. For example, most Mormons would agree that God sometimes gets angry. Getting angry might be acceptable behavior for a God, but it's contrary to idealized good.

God does not exist everywhere, but He has influence everywhere.

In Abraham 3, God explains to Abraham why He is God. He gives Abraham an analogy about spinning bodies. Some bodies spin slower than other bodies. Those which spin slower are "higher" in that sense. The slowest spinning body in the universe is Kolob which takes a thousand years to spin. Similarly, some intelligences are more intelligent than others. God is the most intelligent like Kolob is the slowest spinner. For God to be "omniscient" the analogy should have equated God to a body which doesn't spin at all, one that takes infinity to spin once.

POWELL:
Joseph Smith's God betrays his astronomical ignorance by claiming that the month and year on the Moon is different than on Earth. They are the same for Earth and Moon. It is merely the day on the Moon that is longer than the day on Earth.

JOHN MORMON:
Like the rest of us, he has always existed as something, as an intelligence. He became a spirit child of God shortly after Jesus did.

TROUT:
Was he an inherently evil intelligence? What quality does he possess that made him choose evil?

JOHN MORMON:
No. Free agency / Free will. God has the same ability. Presumably, Lucifer's personality put him at greater risk of becoming the Devil than the personality of Jesus.

JOHN MORMON:
His intelligence was not created, but is eternal. He became a spirit child of God by the process of spiritual procreation.

TROUT:
So could there be an even greater Satan awaiting a spirit body?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes, but it's unlikely to be found among the intelligences to become sons of Elohim since presumably the most intelligent ones have already become spirits.

JOHN MORMON:
appear as a being of light . . .

TROUT:
What do you mean by a "being of light".

JOHN MORMON:
To appear to a human as a glowing personage, like an angel. Evil spirits inferior to Satan are generally unable to appear so glorious.

JOHN MORMON:
Probably. I think of "roasting in the fires" as a metaphor for feeling very badly because your progression is frustrated by being prevented from accessing God's benefits.

TROUT:
Hmmm . . .John Powell's initials are JP . . . Things are starting to come together for me I believe.

JOHN MORMON:
Surely, JP Holding's views on such things are not original.

JOHN MORMON:
It's possible for God to become a devil, although highly unlikely.

TROUT:
Again, perhaps you might footnote that idea for me.

JOHN MORMON:
An important passage is Alma arguing that God could cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22, 23, 25).

However, let me argue it without quoting specific passages.

If highly acclaimed people like Lucifer, Cain, Saul, and Judas fell then it's possible for others to have fallen even if they didn't. For Jesus to be tempted it must be that it's possible for Jesus to succumb to the temptation. For God to be properly considered good it must be possible for God to do otherwise. People aren't usually ethically praised for what they are unable to change.

If Lucifer fell then Michael / Adam and Jehovah / Jesus and even Elohim could have fallen. Fortunately for us they did not fall, but they held faithful to their callings.

TROUT:
And it's good to see you here in the LDS forum again, welcome back.

Trout

JOHN MORMON:
Thanks, but I probably won't stay for long. I've gotten busy with other things.

John Powell

Trout

October 4th 2005, 11:12 PM

Thanks for taking the time John Powell.

TROUT:
A, "son of the morning"? What does that phrase mean?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know, but I suggest it means "an early spiritual son of God."

Sounds reasonable. I was wondering if, "son of the morning" carried any special signifigance in LDS thought.

TROUT:
Perhaps a little off subject; why would the earlier spirit children possess a greater intelligence?

JOHN MORMON:
Because they were better prepared to make the transition from mere intelligence to spirit + intelligence. Jesus was the first spirit son and the most intelligent of God's spirit children. It's not necessarily the case that the order of spiritual birth was exactly matched to the intelligence level of the entity, but that would seem to be a reasonable way for a God to do things. It would be fair. The more intelligent are given the opportunity first. Apparently, those intelligences that were too ignorant to be humans became things like animal spirits.

And that wouldn't necessarily determine the order in which the en-spirited intelligences received human bodies, right? Who determines the order in which spirits receive human bodies?

TROUT:
It's my understanding that the LDS believe and teach the idea that God is an omni-being, perhaps here you could footnote.

JOHN MORMON:
Let me first argue it. I'll give one reference below.

Most Mormons would agree that there are things that are logically possible to do but God is incapable of doing (such as annihilating Satan). If God could do anything logically possible then surely people like Satan would realize the futility of resisting God.

Probably most Mormons believe that God knows the future, but some Mormons like myself believe He merely makes very reliable predictions and has sufficient power to bring important things to be in line with His will. If God really knew everything then surely people like Satan would realize the futility of resisting God.

God is very very good, but it's logically possible for gree that God sometimes gets angry. Getting angry might be acceptable behavior for a God, but it's contrary to idealized good.

God does not exist everywhere, but He has influence everywhere.

In Abraham 3, God explains to Abraham why He is God. He gives Abraham an analogy about spinning bodies. Some bodies spin slower than other bodies. Those which spin slower are "higher" in that sense. The slowest spinning body in the universe is Kolob which takes a thousand years to spin. Similarly, some intelligences are more intelligent than others. God is the most intelligent like Kolob is the slowest spinner. For God to be "omniscient" the analogy should have equated God to a body which doesn't spin at all, one that takes infinity to spin once.

Good footnote, John.

Is there room within the pale of Mormon orthodoxy for a member in good standing to hold such a seemingly contrary (Contrary to the classical LDS view) view of God? It would seem that holding it wouldn't be as great a difficulty as articulating it. I have heard that there are LDS scholars who are moving in the direction of a type of Open Theism, but I don't know how much traction they are getting.

Another criticism of an LDS omni-being would be that it doesn't seem logically possible for a being to start out as finite and acquire infinity.

POWELL:
Joseph Smith's God betrays his astronomical ignorance by claiming that the month and year on the Moon is different than on Earth. They are the same for Earth and Moon. It is merely the day on the Moon that is longer than the day on Earth.

I've heard it said that when the Book of Abraham speaks of set times, it is simply making distinctions between days, months and years. The day being the earthly perspective, the month - the moon, and the year - the sun.

TROUT:
Was he an inherently evil intelligence? What quality does he possess that made him choose evil?

JOHN MORMON:
No. Free agency / Free will. God has the same ability. Presumably, Lucifer's personality put him at greater risk of becoming the Devil than the personality of Jesus.

In the case of humanity, the story goes that an outside influence - Satan - played a large role in man's initial evil deed. Was there an outside influence at work in the life of Satan? Did Satan, have a "Satan"?

TROUT:
Hmmm . . .John Powell's initials are JP . . . Things are starting to come together for me I believe.

JOHN MORMON:
Surely, JP Holding's views on such things are not original.

Perhaps not, but he's the only one I've read who is currently offering such a view.

JOHN MORMON:
It's possible for God to become a devil, although highly unlikely.

TROUT:
Again, perhaps you might footnote that idea for me.

JOHN MORMON:
An important passage is Alma arguing that God could cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22, 23, 25).

However, let me argue it without quoting specific passages.

If highly acclaimed people like Lucifer, Cain, Saul, and Judas fell then it's possible for others to have fallen even if they didn't. For Jesus to be tempted it must be that it's possible for Jesus to succumb to the temptation. For God to be properly considered good it must be possible for God to do otherwise. People aren't usually ethically praised for what they are unable to change.

If Lucifer fell then Michael / Adam and Jehovah / Jesus and even Elohim could have fallen. Fortunately for us they did not fall, but they held faithful to their callings.

Very interesting.

I've had the same discussion with my Sunday School class regarding the temptation of Jesus. It's my position that Jesus could have been tempted without being tempted. i.e. Someone could tempt me with heroin, but I wouldn't be tempted by the heroin. But in a very real sense I had been tempted, even though I wasn't tempted.

TROUT:
And it's good to see you here in the LDS forum again, welcome back.

JOHN MORMON:
Thanks, but I probably won't stay for long. I've gotten busy with other things.

John Powell

Any time you can spare here is greatly appreciated, John.

John Powell

October 5th 2005, 09:16 AM

TROUT:
Thanks for taking the time John Powell.

TROUT:
A, "son of the morning"? What does that phrase mean?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know, but I suggest it means "an early spiritual son of God."

TROUT:
Sounds reasonable. I was wondering if, "son of the morning" carried any special signifigance in LDS thought.

JOHN MORMON:
The point I think is that "Wow, a son of the morning has become lost! Who would have thought someone so chosen would have fallen so far!"

There's a phrase "morning of the first resurrection" representing an early resurrection.

TROUT:
Perhaps a little off subject; why would the earlier spirit children possess a greater intelligence?

JOHN MORMON:
Because they were better prepared to make the transition from mere intelligence to spirit + intelligence. Jesus was the first spirit son and the most intelligent of God's spirit children. It's not necessarily the case that the order of spiritual birth was exactly matched to the intelligence level of the entity, but that would seem to be a reasonable way for a God to do things. It would be fair. The more intelligent are given the opportunity first. Apparently, those intelligences that were too ignorant to be humans became things like animal spirits.

TROUT:
And that wouldn't necessarily determine the order in which the en-spirited intelligences received human bodies, right? Who determines the order in which spirits receive human bodies?

JOHN MORMON:
God. However, God might allow for a lot of decision making by the individuals as they arrange which family lines they'll come through. There is a popular view that the convert and born-Mormon spirits coming to Earth today are among the greatest: Saturday's warriors.

TROUT:
It's my understanding that the LDS believe and teach the idea that God is an omni-being, perhaps here you could footnote.

JOHN MORMON:
Let me first argue it. I'll give one reference below.

Most Mormons would agree that there are things that are logically possible to do but God is incapable of doing (such as annihilating Satan). If God could do anything logically possible then surely people like Satan would realize the futility of resisting God.

Probably most Mormons believe that God knows the future, but some Mormons like myself believe He merely makes very reliable predictions and has sufficient power to bring important things to be in line with His will. If God really knew everything then surely people like Satan would realize the futility of resisting God.

God is very very good, but it's logically possible for God to be more good than He actually is. For example, most Mormons would agree that God sometimes gets angry. Getting angry might be acceptable behavior for a God, but it's contrary to idealized good.

God does not exist everywhere, but He has influence everywhere.

In Abraham 3, God explains to Abraham why He is God. He gives Abraham an analogy about spinning bodies. Some bodies spin slower than other bodies. Those which spin slower are "higher" in that sense. The slowest spinning body in the universe is Kolob which takes a thousand years to spin. Similarly, some intelligences are more intelligent than others. God is the most intelligent like Kolob is the slowest spinner. For God to be "omniscient" the analogy should have equated God to a body which doesn't spin at all, one that takes infinity to spin once.

TROUT:
Good footnote, John.

Is there room within the pale of Mormon orthodoxy for a member in good standing to hold such a seemingly contrary (Contrary to the classical LDS view) view of God? It would seem that holding it wouldn't be as great a difficulty as articulating it. I have heard that there are LDS scholars who are moving in the direction of a type of Open Theism, but I don't know how much traction they are getting.

JOHN MORMON:
I was able to be a member in good standing while holding to and teaching such ideas. However, I wasn't a Bishop or higher.

TROUT:
Another criticism of an LDS omni-being would be that it doesn't seem logically possible for a being to start out as finite and acquire infinity.

JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

God has more than enough power to produce the miracles experienced by people down through the ages even if He isn't philosophically omnipotent.

POWELL:
Joseph Smith's God betrays his astronomical ignorance by claiming that the month and year on the Moon is different than on Earth. They are the same for Earth and Moon. It is merely the day on the Moon that is longer than the day on Earth.

TROUT:
I've heard it said that when the Book of Abraham speaks of set times, it is simply making distinctions between days, months and years. The day being the earthly perspective, the month - the moon, and the year - the sun.

POWELL:
Please explain what you mean. I suspect you're speaking Mormon apologetic nonsense.

From the Earth the day is the time from, say, noon to noon. The month is the time from, say, new Moon to new Moon. The year is the time for the Sun to return to a particular constellation.

From the surface of the Moon the day would again be from, say, noon to noon, the month from, say, new Earth to new Earth, and the year would be the time for the Sun to return to a particular constellation.

It is NOT the case that the month is defined as 29.5 (or even 30/31) of whatever your days are and the year is defined as 12.4 (or even 12) of whatever your months are.

It looks to me like Joseph Smith thought that because the Moon spins more slowly than the Earth therefore the day is longer for the Moon (which happens to turn out to be true but doesn't follow necessarily since the spin is defined relative to the stars, while the day is defined relative to the Sun). However, he mistakenly concluded that the month and year for the Moon are longer too. On the contrary, the Earth goes through a complete set of phases as seen from the near side of the Moon in THE SAME TIME that the Moon goes through its phases as seen from Earth. Furthermore, the Earth and Moon are going together around the Sun so they take essentially THE SAME TIME to orbit and, so, it takes essentially the same time for the Sun to return to a particular constellation.

Perhaps this discussion can continue here provided there is no issue about the question of God, but only things like the prophetic role of Joseph.

TROUT:
Was he an inherently evil intelligence? What quality does he possess that made him choose evil?

JOHN MORMON:
No. Free agency / Free will. God has the same ability. Presumably, Lucifer's personality put him at greater risk of becoming the Devil than the personality of Jesus.

TROUT:
In the case of humanity, the story goes that an outside influence - Satan - played a large role in man's initial evil deed. Was there an outside influence at work in the life of Satan? Did Satan, have a "Satan"?

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps Satan was basing his proposed plan partly on criticisms earlier spirits had had about earlier plans.

My grandfather believed that without Satan's influence then Jesus would have been the first human, biological progenitor to all the rest of us, and certain failings of society, specifically warfare in which good men kill good men, would have been avoided. His view was that the Garden of Eden story is an allusion to events happening in the premortal existence in which he believes Satan got Eve to get Adam to agree to come down to Earth about 4000 years early because the human-like bodies were good enough. God agreed to the revised plan, but warned them of the consequences, that by coming down a little earlier the spirits would not be quite well enough prepared to avoid things like warfare.

TROUT:
Hmmm . . .John Powell's initials are JP . . . Things are starting to come together for me I believe.

JOHN MORMON:
Surely, JP Holding's views on such things are not original.

TROUT:
Perhaps not, but he's the only one I've read who is currently offering such a view.

JOHN MORMON:
I believed it before I ever participated here.

JOHN MORMON:
It's possible for God to become a devil, although highly unlikely.

TROUT:
Again, perhaps you might footnote that idea for me.

JOHN MORMON:
An important passage is Alma arguing that God could cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22, 23, 25).

However, let me argue it without quoting specific passages.

If highly acclaimed people like Lucifer, Cain, Saul, and Judas fell then it's possible for others to have fallen even if they didn't. For Jesus to be tempted it must be that it's possible for Jesus to succumb to the temptation. For God to be properly considered good it must be possible for God to do otherwise. People aren't usually ethically praised for what they are unable to change.

If Lucifer fell then Michael / Adam and Jehovah / Jesus and even Elohim could have fallen. Fortunately for us they did not fall, but they held faithful to their callings.

TROUT:
Very interesting.

I've had the same discussion with my Sunday School class regarding the temptation of Jesus. It's my position that Jesus could have been tempted without being tempted. i.e. Someone could tempt me with heroin, but I wouldn't be tempted by the heroin. But in a very real sense I had been tempted, even though I wasn't tempted.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps you could explain that a little bit more. I can understand that things can be temptations without requiring Satan adding to the issue. People would be evil even without Satan, but generally not as evil.

TROUT:
And it's good to see you here in the LDS forum again, welcome back.

JOHN MORMON:
Thanks, but I probably won't stay for long. I've gotten busy with other things.

TROUT:
Any time you can spare here is greatly appreciated, John.

JOHN MORMON:
Thanks.

John Powell

Trout

October 6th 2005, 12:30 AM

John Powell

October 6th 2005, 12:58 PM

TROUT:
Sounds reasonable. I was wondering if, "son of the morning" carried any special signifigance in LDS thought.

JOHN MORMON:
The point I think is that "Wow, a son of the morning has become lost! Who would have thought someone so chosen would have fallen so far!"

There's a phrase "morning of the first resurrection" representing an early resurrection.

TROUT:
I had always thought that, "son of the morning" was a reference to a star/planet that was visible even at sunrise.

POWELL:
That sounds correct and would refer to Venus. As I recall, "Lucifer" is derived from a word used by Jerome that comes from the same idea.

TROUT:
The use of the term in Isaiah was simply an anthropomorphism.

POWELL:
As I recall, it was in reference to a king who thought highly of himself, but who would be debased. Mormons interpret it as referring to the fall of one of God's spiritual sons.

TROUT:
And that wouldn't necessarily determine the order in which the en-spirited intelligences received human bodies, right? Who determines the order in which spirits receive human bodies?

JOHN MORMON:
God. However, God might allow for a lot of decision making by the individuals as they arrange which family lines they'll come through. There is a popular view that the convert and born-Mormon spirits coming to Earth today are among the greatest: Saturday's warriors.

TROUT:
I was taught that the en-spirited intelligences had also differing degrees of valiancy, determining the where of their earthly birth, I wasn't aware that their valiancy/lack thereof also could play a role in the when of their earthly birth.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, there were valiant ones sprinkled down through the ages (like Adam, Eve, Abraham, Sarah, etc.), but most of the valiant ones were left for the last days.

TROUT:
Good footnote, John.

Is there room within the pale of Mormon orthodoxy for a member in good standing to hold such a seemingly contrary (Contrary to the classical LDS view) view of God? It would seem that holding it wouldn't be as great a difficulty as articulating it. I have heard that there are LDS scholars who are moving in the direction of a type of Open Theism, but I don't know how much traction they are getting.

JOHN MORMON:
I was able to be a member in good standing while holding to and teaching such ideas. However, I wasn't a Bishop or higher.

TROUT:
If I might ask; how were those teachings received by your students? Or by those in authority over you?

POWELL:
Few argued with me about such things. The attitude of most of those around me seemed to be that if an answer to a mystery increased one's faith in Mormonism then it was ok. However, if the answer caused challenges to the faith then it should be rejected.

TROUT:
Another criticism of an LDS omni-being would be that it doesn't seem logically possible for a being to start out as finite and acquire infinity.

JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

God has more than enough power to produce the miracles experienced by people down through the ages even if He isn't philosophically omnipotent.

TROUT:
I haven't thought out all of the theological/logical/philosophical consequences of such an idea, but something about it scares me for some reason. There are many, indeed even here at Tweb, who have made the transition to that line of thinking. I'm still not willing to concede the idea of an Omni-being.

JOHN MORMON:
It's like the youth who comes to realize that his parents aren't perfectly great, but can still appreciate them for how great they are.

TROUT:
I've heard it said that when the Book of Abraham speaks of set times, it is simply making distinctions between days, months and years. The day being the earthly perspective, the month - the moon, and the year - the sun.

POWELL:
Please explain what you mean. I suspect you're speaking Mormon apologetic nonsense.

TROUT:
It didn't seem like nonsense at the time.

POWELL:
I did some surfing and have now seen something like that argument made by a Mormon astronomer.

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2004/truths.html

If that's what Joseph meant then he was even more confused than I had thought since that would imply by analogy that Kolob's thousand years would refer to how long it takes for Kolob to appear to go around the Earth. Rather, Kolob's "revolution" is equated with God's "day" where "day" would seem to be associated with spin. In technical terms revolution is associated with an orbit while rotation is associated with a spin, but the terms are interchangeable in less technical issues.

Furthermore, if the slower "moving" of the Moon refers to the orbit of the Moon rather than the spin then, in that sense, the Moon actually moves faster than the Earth because the Moon makes a big circle as it orbits the Earth-Moon center of gravity in a month while the Earth makes a tiny circle in the same time. It is the spin of the Moon that is slower than the Earth's spin.

Consequently, it seems to me the set times refer to the spin periods of the objects specified. So, the "set" time for the Earth would be the Earth's spin period (approximately the day), the "set" time for the Moon would be the Moon's spin period (approximately the month), and the "set" time for the Sun would be the Sun's spin period (also approximately one month).

POWELL:
From the Earth the day is the time from, say, noon to noon. The month is the time from, say, new Moon to new Moon. The year is the time for the Sun to return to a particular constellation.

TROUT:
I'm with you so far.

POWELL:
From the surface of the Moon the day would again be from, say, noon to noon, the month from, say, new Earth to new Earth, and the year would be the time for the Sun to return to a particular constellation.

TROUT:
I'm still here.

POWELL:
It is NOT the case that the month is defined as 29.5 (or even 30/31) of whatever your days are and the year is defined as 12.4 (or even 12) of whatever your months are.

TROUT:
If you are speaking about the month from a lunar perspective, I'm still with you.

POWELL:
It looks to me like Joseph Smith thought that because the Moon spins more slowly than the Earth therefore the day is longer for the Moon (which happens to turn out to be true but doesn't follow necessarily since the spin is defined relative to the stars, while the day is defined relative to the Sun). However, he mistakenly concluded that the month and year for the Moon are longer too. On the contrary, the Earth goes through a complete set of phases as seen from the near side of the Moon in THE SAME TIME that the Moon goes through its phases as seen from Earth. Furthermore, the Earth and Moon are going together around the Sun so they take essentially THE SAME TIME to orbit and, so, it takes essentially the same time for the Sun to return to a particular constellation.

TROUT:
I afraid it's time for me to betray my ignorance. As I understand it, there are measurements from two differing perspectives typically spoken of; a measurment of duration relative to the sun, and one relative to the constellations. The earth continues to orbit the sun, at the same time the moon passes through it's phases. So to go from one new moon to the next, the moon has to travel more than 360 degrees along its orbit. The duration of this month - relative to the sun - is about two days longer than the duration of the month in relation to the stars.

POWELL:
Yes, but so what?

The spin period of the Earth is 23 hours 56 minutes. However, the Earth is orbiting the Sun while it's spinning so the Earth has to spin an extra 4 minutes to line up with the Sun again (to reach noon), so the day is 24 hours long. Do you mean to quibble about 4 minutes out of 24 hours?

The spin period of the Moon is 27.3 days. However, the Earth and Moon are orbiting the Sun while the Moon is orbiting the Earth, so the Moon has to orbit 2 more days to get in line with the Sun again (to reach new Moon), so the month is 29.5 days long. Do you mean to quibble about 2 days out of 30?

TROUT:
The LDS apologist makes the claim that there is a third constant found in the "set times" spoken of in Abraham 3, I don't know exactly how it would work (I'm a farmer, not an astronomer) but it would be a measurement from some sort of a geocentric perspective. i.e. Since our solar system was created for life on planet earth, (From an LDS perspective) the fundamental unit of time in the solar system would be the earth's solar day.

So, the fact that modern astronomy is coming at the problem from either a sidereal or synodic perspective, misses that idea the there may be a third possible perspective in which the duration of the movements within the solar system could be harmonized with the book of Abraham from an earth solar day perspective.

That's how I remember it presented, but it's been a while.

POWELL:
This sounds like apologetic smoke. I don't see how this perspective change would reasonably explain the apparent error since the writer of the book of Abraham seems to be talking about the spin periods of things like the Earth, Moon, Sun, and Kolob.

I think most Mormon astronomers just file the passage away with a title "mystery" and ignore it because it seems to be incorrect but they don't want to deal with that fact.

POWELL:
Perhaps this discussion can continue here provided there is no issue about the question of God, but only things like the prophetic role of Joseph.

TROUT:
I think it can.

TROUT:
In the case of humanity, the story goes that an outside influence - Satan - played a large role in man's initial evil deed. Was there an outside influence at work in the life of Satan? Did Satan, have a "Satan"?

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps Satan was basing his proposed plan partly on criticisms earlier spirits had had about earlier plans.

My grandfather believed that without Satan's influence then Jesus would have been the first human, biological progenitor to all the rest of us, and certain failings of society, specifically warfare in which good men kill good men, would have been avoided. His view was that the Garden of Eden story is an allusion to events happening in the premortal existence in which he believes Satan got Eve to get Adam to agree to come down to Earth about 4000 years early because the human-like bodies were good enough. God agreed to the revised plan, but warned them of the consequences, that by coming down a little earlier the spirits would not be quite well enough prepared to avoid things like warfare.

TROUT:
Quite an original perspective, I haven't heard that theory offered before. Do you know how he arrived at 4000 years?

JOHN MORMON:
I think he believed that Jesus was born at the time He had originally planned, but in the new plan He would not be the progenitor of everyone, but of only a small population. My grandfather believed he was a descendant of Jesus.

TROUT:
Perhaps not, but he's the only one I've read who is currently offering such a view.

JOHN MORMON:
I believed it before I ever participated here.

TROUT:
JP was in good company.

TROUT:
Very interesting.

I've had the same discussion with my Sunday School class regarding the temptation of Jesus. It's my position that Jesus could have been tempted without being tempted. i.e. Someone could tempt me with heroin, but I wouldn't be tempted by the heroin. But in a very real sense I had been tempted, even though I wasn't tempted.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps you could explain that a little bit more. I can understand that things can be temptations without requiring Satan adding to the issue. People would be evil even without Satan, but generally not as evil.

TROUT:
Let me try:

Let's say that Trout doesn't have the slightest desire to eat donuts, in fact, Trout is repulsed at the thought of eating donuts.

Trout is approached by someone offering donuts saying, "Take one, eat it, you'll love it."

The person offering the donuts is, in every sense of the term, tempting me to eat donuts.

Even though I have been faced with the temptation to eat donuts, I really wasn't personally tempted to indulge in donut eating. Because it's my natural tendency to be repulsed by donut eating.

I believe it was much the same with the temptation of Jesus.

JOHN MORMON:
I think I understand.

I would characterize things as the following:

Although Bob tried to get Jimmy to eat mud, to tempt Jimmy to eat it, claiming it was yummy, Jimmy didn't expect it to be yummy. The temptation was too weak to warrant much risk that Jimmy actually would eat it. It wasn't much of a temptation. Consequently, Jimmy shouldn't expect much praise for overcoming the temptation.

Although Satan tried to get Jesus to turn stones to bread, claiming it would satisfy His need, Jesus felt a greater need to satisfy His spiritual need to hear the word of God. The temptation was too weak to warrant much risk that Jesus would actually do it. It wasn't much of a temptation.

Assuming you're right about that being the situation, Trout, then Jesus shouldn't expect much praise for overcoming the temptation. It's only if the temptation was great, if there was a significant risk that He would succumb, that Jesus should be praised for overcoming it.

John Powell

LDSTrue

October 6th 2005, 07:38 PM

A question directed at LDSTrue, or any other of our distinguished LDS guests who'd like to chime in. (Or John Mormon, who hasn't given me a beating for a while) I would like to get some contemporary LDS perspective on this.

I'm not necessarily looking for footnoted answers only, opinion would also be appreciated.

1) Who is Satan?

More specifically, exactly what kind of a being is he? Is he a God? What powers does he possess? Is he an omni-being? i.e. Omni-present, Omniscient, Omnipotent etc.

2) What is his origin?

Where did he originate? Was there a time when he didn't exist? How was he brought into being? (If at all)

3) What is his relationship to God?

Is he a son of God? Does he have access to the throne of God? What kind of a relationship does he maintain with Jesus?

4) What is his current scope of influence?

Does he personally cause all anger, warfare, calamity, poverty, hatred etc. that we find in the world today?

5) What will be his final destiny?

Will he roast in the fires of hell eternally? Does he have a shot at redemption? Is his fate sealed already?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Hey Trout,

It is good to hear from you. Sorry I haven’t responded until now, as I have been really busy at work and traveling to and from Salt Lake City. I didn’t notice your post until today. Please forgive me, as I would never intentionally ignore you.

How’s it going at the Rodeo? Your Avatar indicates that…

Am I going to see you in Las Vegas again this year at the National Finals Rodeo in December? It would be shocking and a surprise to see you there so soon. I don’t imagine you have taken the time necessary and required for a complete recovery.

That was some spill you took last year, it was awful. Did it hurt as bad as it looked? I must admit, you are on tough hombre!

You flew through the air like a rag doll for what seemed like 20 feet and then landed on your head. It was a miracle that Brahma Bull didn’t kill you on the spot. Have you seen the taped replay or is it still too soon?

The way you ran toward that open gate was impressive. Was it fear or deep-rooted self-preservation, or a combination of both that made you dash toward the open gate? BtC would say you were angry and reacted out of anger and not fear.

It certainly appeared that you were thinking self-preservation as you dropped your gun and headed for the open gate. It was obvious to all except BtC that you were trying to protect the others in the arena by distracting the Bull and have it focus on you.

You almost made it guy, too bad it got you in the back and then gored you in the chest as you were falling toward the open gate. You were the lucky one that day as others have not been as fortunate as you and didn’t make it out alive in similar situations.

If you ask me, you should continue to lay low as I heard that the animal rights persons are still looking for you. You are still on their 10 most wanted list for taking out those 2 other charging bulls hell-bent on goring you to death.

I’m on your side, as I believe you when you say it wasn’t anger but self-defense. Others might not defend you (Are your ears itching BtC?) but I do, and I understand your position and will continue to support you! You did the only logical thing anyone in your position could be expected to do.

QUOTE Trout:
A question directed at LDSTrue:

Trout, are you serious, what a silly question!:lol:

Who is Satan? Who is Satan you ask!

Trout,what possessed you to invent some silly cute little furry invisible character called Satan and then pretend not to know about him? You sly devil.

It is not my intention to disagree with all your intelligent friends posting herein but it seems that you hooked them and now I see that you’re reeling them in. You must be enjoying yourself as you read their posts while thinking, I got them to “swallow the bait hook, line, and sinker.”

Who is Satan?:rofl:

1) Who is Satan?

No, seriously though, as I was sitting down to answer you query, a voice inside my head whispered Trout is such a kidder. The voice said that Trout knows there is no Satan and that you, Trout, are just trying to trap me. Sure Trout I can just hear you now saying, WHO ME!:stunned:

That’s right Trout, you are trying to trap me into admitting that a figment of your imagination is real so that then you can show all your intelligent friends what a fool I am for believing in something you made up out of the blue.

You want me to look crazy and confused in front of all your friends here. Well it is not going to work Trout, don’t think you are going to spring your trap on me like you did the others. I refuse to bite, I’m heading for deep water!

The voice told me that Satan is a figment of our fertile imagination and that there is not such a person! Besides, have you ever seen Satan? NO, I didn’t think so. Prove he exists and show him to me. If you know him so well, at least well enough to ask all these pointed questions, then you should be able to produce him. No, just as I thought!

The voice told me there is no such thing as a Satan, evil, or sins. The voice said just because some people sometimes choose to use their free agency different from others that it does not automatically cause what you so easily call sin. A person has a right to do what they please and who are you to judge their actions and then blame your innocent made up invisible Satan for their course of action you may not agree with. Who appointed you judge and jurry? Satan???

From the beginning of time it has always been “if it feels good, do it” and we have gotten along just fine for thousands of years. We don’t need you spoiling the party with your invented, figment of your imagination, cute, fuzzy, huggable, little Satan-sin concept. Trout, come to the party without you little friend and we will let you in. The place is really rockin!

Trout, you may be enjoying reeling in the others you have fooled into thinking there is a Satan and who are busy responding to your inquiry but;

NOT ME!!! NO SIR, I AM NO FOOL!!! NOT ME AND NOT THIS TIME!!!

I refuse to fall for you insincere make-believe antics. Nice try, but not me, not here, not this time, and not this topic. Go back to the post drawing board and this time leave your silly thoughts and fertile imagination at the door! This is the place for serious topics to be discussed Trout, not your ...!

2) What is his origin?
VERY FUNNY! LOOK IN THE MIRROR, HE’S YOUR INVENTION!

3) What is his relationship to God?
AS IF!

4) What is his current scope of influence?
YOU SHOULD KNOW, HE IS YOUR CREATION! INVENT SOMETHING FOR HIM TO DO WHILE YOUR AT IT!

5) What will be his final destiny? YOU DREAMT HIM UP, WHY DON’T YOU TELL US! WILL YOU HAVE HIM LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER OR ROT IN HELL?:flaming:

QUOTE Trout: Thanks in advance for your answers.:eh:

What a kidder! Don’t expect me to play along with you or your imaginary friend any time soon. You owe the others an apology and the sooner the better.

Trout, you should really see a doctor about that bruise on your head, no one can take a fall on the head like that and then get kicked in the head by a bull without serious complications, contusions, and consequences. You know, hallucinations and the like. My concern for your stability is born out and justified by your silly questions above.

A Satan, yeah sure Trout, whatever you say pard! Now go and see the Doc!

The real and not make believe, invented or figment of imagination - LDSTrue!

(Disclaimer: Sorry Trout, Satan made me do it! I will deny, deny, deny, if repeated, copied or accused.)

Trout

October 6th 2005, 07:58 PM

Hey Trout,

Your answer makes me glad that I had invited other LDS voices to chime in as well.

The reason that I had mentioned you in the OP in particular was due to some of the claims you had made in the other thread directed at BtC. You seem to think that Satan has a great deal of power, almost as much power and influence as an omni-being.

Perhaps after reading those who have offered contemporary LDS thought on the issue, you might re-think how much power you attribute to Satan.

Trout

October 6th 2005, 11:52 PM

TROUT:
Sounds reasonable. I was wondering if, "son of the morning" carried any special signifigance in LDS thought.

JOHN MORMON:
The point I think is that "Wow, a son of the morning has become lost! Who would have thought someone so chosen would have fallen so far!"

There's a phrase "morning of the first resurrection" representing an early resurrection.

TROUT:
I had always thought that, "son of the morning" was a reference to a star/planet that was visible even at sunrise.

POWELL:
That sounds correct and would refer to Venus. As I recall, "Lucifer" is derived from a word used by Jerome that comes from the same idea.

You have a good memory, John:

Lucifer is a Latin word made up of two words, lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring), meaning light-bearer. Lucifer does not appear in Greek or Roman mythology; it is used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess. "Lucifer" is Jerome's direct translation in his Vulgate (4th century) of the Septuagint's Greek translation, as heosphoros, "morning star" or "Day Star," literally "bringer of the Dawn", of a phrase in from Isaiah 14:12 that originally intended no reference to Satan (see below). From the viewpoint of the Christian mythology that developed after Jerome, Lucifer came to be seen as having been second in command to God himself; he was the highest archangel in heaven, but he was motivated by pride and greed to rebel against God and was cast out of heaven by Archangel Michael. Lucifer was also followed by some angels. Then he became the Devil, and his followers were known as demons.

Modern astrologers identify the planet Venus as having been known by the name Lucifer in Roman astrology before being given its current name. See poetical instances below.

TROUT:
And that wouldn't necessarily determine the order in which the en-spirited intelligences received human bodies, right? Who determines the order in which spirits receive human bodies?

JOHN MORMON:
God. However, God might allow for a lot of decision making by the individuals as they arrange which family lines they'll come through. There is a popular view that the convert and born-Mormon spirits coming to Earth today are among the greatest: Saturday's warriors.

TROUT:
I was taught that the en-spirited intelligences had also differing degrees of valiancy, determining the where of their earthly birth, I wasn't aware that their valiancy/lack thereof also could play a role in the when of their earthly birth.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, there were valiant ones sprinkled down through the ages (like Adam, Eve, Abraham, Sarah, etc.), but most of the valiant ones were left for the last days.

Somedays it certainly doesn't seem as though the world is peopled with "valiant ones".

TROUT:
Good footnote, John.

Is there room within the pale of Mormon orthodoxy for a member in good standing to hold such a seemingly contrary (Contrary to the classical LDS view) view of God? It would seem that holding it wouldn't be as great a difficulty as articulating it. I have heard that there are LDS scholars who are moving in the direction of a type of Open Theism, but I don't know how much traction they are getting.

JOHN MORMON:
I was able to be a member in good standing while holding to and teaching such ideas. However, I wasn't a Bishop or higher.

TROUT:
If I might ask; how were those teachings received by your students? Or by those in authority over you?

POWELL:
Few argued with me about such things. The attitude of most of those around me seemed to be that if an answer to a mystery increased one's faith in Mormonism then it was ok. However, if the answer caused challenges to the faith then it should be rejected.

If someone were to come into our Sunday school class and begin teaching such a thing, they would not be allowed to continue in a teaching role.

And, after arguing with you about things, I can certainly understand why people would choose not to argue with you.

TROUT:
Another criticism of an LDS omni-being would be that it doesn't seem logically possible for a being to start out as finite and acquire infinity.

JOHN MORMON:
Exactly. As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

God has more than enough power to produce the miracles experienced by people down through the ages even if He isn't philosophically omnipotent.

TROUT:
I haven't thought out all of the theological/logical/philosophical consequences of such an idea, but something about it scares me for some reason. There are many, indeed even here at Tweb, who have made the transition to that line of thinking. I'm still not willing to concede the idea of an Omni-being.

JOHN MORMON:
It's like the youth who comes to realize that his parents aren't perfectly great, but can still appreciate them for how great they are.

But the parents wouldn't be that great if they'd told their children that the were omni-beings, when in reality they were just meticulously good planners.

On the other hand, my parents told me that Santa Claus was real and brought us gifts once a year. When I found out the truth, it didn't diminish my feelings toward my parents.

POWELL:
Yes, but so what?

The spin period of the Earth is 23 hours 56 minutes. However, the Earth is orbiting the Sun while it's spinning so the Earth has to spin an extra 4 minutes to line up with the Sun again (to reach noon), so the day is 24 hours long. Do you mean to quibble about 4 minutes out of 24 hours?

The spin period of the Moon is 27.3 days. However, the Earth and Moon are orbiting the Sun while the Moon is orbiting the Earth, so the Moon has to orbit 2 more days to get in line with the Sun again (to reach new Moon), so the month is 29.5 days long. Do you mean to quibble about 2 days out of 30?

No, it's not the math that the LDS apologist brings into question, it's the set times relative to the earth solar day. If the LDS astronomer can find a constant that would harmonize the spin rates of the planets mentioned, with the earth solar day, then his argument would perhaps be worth looking into.

TROUT:
The LDS apologist makes the claim that there is a third constant found in the "set times" spoken of in Abraham 3, I don't know exactly how it would work (I'm a farmer, not an astronomer) but it would be a measurement from some sort of a geocentric perspective. i.e. Since our solar system was created for life on planet earth, (From an LDS perspective) the fundamental unit of time in the solar system would be the earth's solar day.

So, the fact that modern astronomy is coming at the problem from either a sidereal or synodic perspective, misses that idea the there may be a third possible perspective in which the duration of the movements within the solar system could be harmonized with the book of Abraham from an earth solar day perspective.

That's how I remember it presented, but it's been a while.

POWELL:
This sounds like apologetic smoke. I don't see how this perspective change would reasonably explain the apparent error since the writer of the book of Abraham seems to be talking about the spin periods of things like the Earth, Moon, Sun, and Kolob.

I think most Mormon astronomers just file the passage away with a title "mystery" and ignore it because it seems to be incorrect but they don't want to deal with that fact.

You are probably correct. In my opinion, there are sufficient reasons to call into question the authenticity of the book of Abraham without trying to harmonize the set times of the planets in relation to the earth solar day. In fact, it seems moot to do so.

TROUT:
In the case of humanity, the story goes that an outside influence - Satan - played a large role in man's initial evil deed. Was there an outside influence at work in the life of Satan? Did Satan, have a "Satan"?

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps Satan was basing his proposed plan partly on criticisms earlier spirits had had about earlier plans.

My grandfather believed that without Satan's influence then Jesus would have been the first human, biological progenitor to all the rest of us, and certain failings of society, specifically warfare in which good men kill good men, would have been avoided. His view was that the Garden of Eden story is an allusion to events happening in the premortal existence in which he believes Satan got Eve to get Adam to agree to come down to Earth about 4000 years early because the human-like bodies were good enough. God agreed to the revised plan, but warned them of the consequences, that by coming down a little earlier the spirits would not be quite well enough prepared to avoid things like warfare.

TROUT:
Quite an original perspective, I haven't heard that theory offered before. Do you know how he arrived at 4000 years?

JOHN MORMON:
I think he believed that Jesus was born at the time He had originally planned, but in the new plan He would not be the progenitor of everyone, but of only a small population. My grandfather believed he was a descendant of Jesus.

Interesting, that does make the 4000 year mark make sense. Was your grandfather of pioneer descent?

Wasn't the notion that Jesus was married and had children prior to his death taught rather openly in early Mormonism?

JOHN MORMON:
I think I understand.

I would characterize things as the following:

Although Bob tried to get Jimmy to eat mud, to tempt Jimmy to eat it, claiming it was yummy, Jimmy didn't expect it to be yummy. The temptation was too weak to warrant much risk that Jimmy actually would eat it. It wasn't much of a temptation. Consequently, Jimmy shouldn't expect much praise for overcoming the temptation.

Although Satan tried to get Jesus to turn stones to bread, claiming it would satisfy His need, Jesus felt a greater need to satisfy His spiritual need to hear the word of God. The temptation was too weak to warrant much risk that Jesus would actually do it. It wasn't much of a temptation.

Trout:
That is a good analogy.

Powell:
Assuming you're right about that being the situation, Trout, then Jesus shouldn't expect much praise for overcoming the temptation. It's only if the temptation was great, if there was a significant risk that He would succumb, that Jesus should be praised for overcoming it.

Trout:
Don't we praise people all the time who simply have a natural ability for something? Their natural abilities don't necessarily diminish their accomplishments, they are in fact what set them apart.

John Powell

October 7th 2005, 11:28 AM

TROUT:
I had always thought that, "son of the morning" was a reference to a star/planet that was visible even at sunrise.

POWELL:
That sounds correct and would refer to Venus. As I recall, "Lucifer" is derived from a word used by Jerome that comes from the same idea.

TROUT:
You have a good memory, John:

from wikipedia
Lucifer is a Latin word made up of two words, lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring), meaning light-bearer. Lucifer does not appear in Greek or Roman mythology; it is used by poets to represent the Morning Star at moments when "Venus" would intrude distracting imagery of the goddess. "Lucifer" is Jerome's direct translation in his Vulgate (4th century) of the Septuagint's Greek translation, as heosphoros, "morning star" or "Day Star," literally "bringer of the Dawn", of a phrase in from Isaiah 14:12 that originally intended no reference to Satan (see below). From the viewpoint of the Christian mythology that developed after Jerome, Lucifer came to be seen as having been second in command to God himself; he was the highest archangel in heaven, but he was motivated by pride and greed to rebel against God and was cast out of heaven by Archangel Michael. Lucifer was also followed by some angels. Then he became the Devil, and his followers were known as demons.

Modern astrologers identify the planet Venus as having been known by the name Lucifer in Roman astrology before being given its current name. See poetical instances below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© source where applicable

POWELL:
I suggest that Jerome did not preserve "Heosphoros" in his Latin translation partly because of a question that future Christians might ask: Why didn't God's prophet realize that Venus in the morning was the same as Venus in the evening?

You see, Trout, the early Greeks (and everyone else of importance) thought that Venus seen in the morning was a different planet / God than Venus seen in the evening. To the early Greeks it was the god Heosphoros in the morning and the god Hesperus in the evening. When the later Greek astronomers realized that it was the same planet, the name was changed to Aphrodite (Venus is the Roman equivalent). Gradually, the rest of the world came to learn the truth.

There's a passage in Job that I suspect has suffered a similar revising to avoid exposing the astronomical ignorance of the Biblical writers.

TROUT:
I was taught that the en-spirited intelligences had also differing degrees of valiancy, determining the where of their earthly birth, I wasn't aware that their valiancy/lack thereof also could play a role in the when of their earthly birth.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, there were valiant ones sprinkled down through the ages (like Adam, Eve, Abraham, Sarah, etc.), but most of the valiant ones were left for the last days.

TROUT:
Somedays it certainly doesn't seem as though the world is peopled with "valiant ones".

JOHN MORMON:
It builds one's self confidence to realize (POWELL: to believe) that you are a choice child of God.

TROUT:
If I might ask; how were those teachings received by your students? Or by those in authority over you?

POWELL:
Few argued with me about such things. The attitude of most of those around me seemed to be that if an answer to a mystery increased one's faith in Mormonism then it was ok. However, if the answer caused challenges to the faith then it should be rejected.

TROUT:
If someone were to come into our Sunday school class and begin teaching such a thing, they would not be allowed to continue in a teaching role.

And, after arguing with you about things, I can certainly understand why people would choose not to argue with you.

JOHN MORMON:
It is a popular Mormon saying (taken from 3 Ne 11:29) that "contention is of the Devil."

TROUT:
I haven't thought out all of the theological/logical/philosophical consequences of such an idea, but something about it scares me for some reason. There are many, indeed even here at Tweb, who have made the transition to that line of thinking. I'm still not willing to concede the idea of an Omni-being.

JOHN MORMON:
It's like the youth who comes to realize that his parents aren't perfectly great, but can still appreciate them for how great they are.

TROUT:
But the parents wouldn't be that great if they'd told their children that the[y] were omni-beings, when in reality they were just meticulously good planners.

On the other hand, my parents told me that Santa Claus was real and brought us gifts once a year. When I found out the truth, it didn't diminish my feelings toward my parents.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps God technically exaggerated His attributes so that non philosopher readers would get the proper idea of His greatness. If God didn't claim omnipotence then common people would more readily conclude that God isn't powerful enough to say, save them from death or to give them a child in their old age or cure an incurable disease.

POWELL:
Yes, but so what?

The spin period of the Earth is 23 hours 56 minutes. However, the Earth is orbiting the Sun while it's spinning so the Earth has to spin an extra 4 minutes to line up with the Sun again (to reach noon), so the day is 24 hours long. Do you mean to quibble about 4 minutes out of 24 hours?

The spin period of the Moon is 27.3 days. However, the Earth and Moon are orbiting the Sun while the Moon is orbiting the Earth, so the Moon has to orbit 2 more days to get in line with the Sun again (to reach new Moon), so the month is 29.5 days long. Do you mean to quibble about 2 days out of 30?

TROUT:
No, it's not the math that the LDS apologist brings into question, it's the set times relative to the earth solar day. If the LDS astronomer can find a constant that would harmonize the spin rates of the planets mentioned, with the earth solar day, then his argument would perhaps be worth looking into.

POWELL:
I don't understand what you're thinking needs to be harmonized. What I see needs to be harmonized is:

1) the idea that Kolob's "revolution" is one "day" for God (suggesting spin) but it's equal to 1000 of our years with

2) the idea that the Moon is "above" the Earth in its reckoning because it "moves" more slowly than the Earth, also with

3) the association this progression of times has to the progression of intelligences.

The Mormon passage is most coherent I think if the writer is speaking of the differing spin rates of the bodies as being related to the differing intelligences of entities, but that makes the claim about the Moon having fewer months and years than the Earth mistaken. On the other hand, if the passage means to speak of the day, month, and year being the set times for the Earth, Moon, and Sun (which is reasonable if there wasn't the intelligence analogy) then the analogy with intelligence level breaks down. The year has a different value from different perspectives so that would suggest that intelligences have a different value from different perspectives. Spin is intrinsic to a body like intelligence is thought to be intrinsic to the entity.

TROUT:
The LDS apologist makes the claim that there is a third constant found in the "set times" spoken of in Abraham 3, I don't know exactly how it would work (I'm a farmer, not an astronomer) but it would be a measurement from some sort of a geocentric perspective. i.e. Since our solar system was created for life on planet earth, (From an LDS perspective) the fundamental unit of time in the solar system would be the earth's solar day.

So, the fact that modern astronomy is coming at the problem from either a sidereal or synodic perspective, misses that idea the there may be a third possible perspective in which the duration of the movements within the solar system could be harmonized with the book of Abraham from an earth solar day perspective.

That's how I remember it presented, but it's been a while.

POWELL:
This sounds like apologetic smoke. I don't see how this perspective change would reasonably explain the apparent error since the writer of the book of Abraham seems to be talking about the spin periods of things like the Earth, Moon, Sun, and Kolob.

I think most Mormon astronomers just file the passage away with a title "mystery" and ignore it because it seems to be incorrect but they don't want to deal with that fact.

TROUT:
You are probably correct. In my opinion, there are sufficient reasons to call into question the authenticity of the book of Abraham without trying to harmonize the set times of the planets in relation to the earth solar day. In fact, it seems moot to do so.

TROUT:
Quite an original perspective, I haven't heard that theory offered before. Do you know how he arrived at 4000 years?

JOHN MORMON:
I think he believed that Jesus was born at the time He had originally planned, but in the new plan He would not be the progenitor of everyone, but of only a small population. My grandfather believed he was a descendant of Jesus.

TROUT:
Interesting, that does make the 4000 year mark make sense. Was your grandfather of pioneer descent?

JOHN MORMON:
Yes.

TROUT:
Wasn't the notion that Jesus was married and had children prior to his death taught rather openly in early Mormonism?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know how common the belief was, but it was prevalent in my extended family. It went well with the Mormon doctrine that everyone has to be both baptized and sealed to obtain exaltation, so if Jesus had to be baptized He surely also had to be sealed.

JOHN MORMON:
I think I understand.

I would characterize things as the following:

Although Bob tried to get Jimmy to eat mud, to tempt Jimmy to eat it, claiming it was yummy, Jimmy didn't expect it to be yummy. The temptation was too weak to warrant much risk that Jimmy actually would eat it. It wasn't much of a temptation. Consequently, Jimmy shouldn't expect much praise for overcoming the temptation.

Although Satan tried to get Jesus to turn stones to bread, claiming it would satisfy His need, Jesus felt a greater need to satisfy His spiritual need to hear the word of God. The temptation was too weak to warrant much risk that Jesus would actually do it. It wasn't much of a temptation.

Trout:
That is a good analogy.

Powell:
Assuming you're right about that being the situation, Trout, then Jesus shouldn't expect much praise for overcoming the temptation. It's only if the temptation was great, if there was a significant risk that He would succumb, that Jesus should be praised for overcoming it.

Trout:
Don't we praise people all the time who simply have a natural ability for something? Their natural abilities don't necessarily diminish their accomplishments, they are in fact what set them apart.

JOHN MORMON:
I suppose. I suppose we'd praise God for creating the Earth even if it was a little thing to Him. We'd praise Him because it's beyond our abilities.

According to the Mormon view, when the time came to do it Jesus would have liked to have avoided taking on our sins but He went through with it.

D&C 19
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

John Powell

LDSTrue

October 7th 2005, 08:29 PM

Your answer makes me glad that I had invited other LDS voices to chime in as well.

The reason that I had mentioned you in the OP in particular was due to some of the claims you had made in the other thread directed at BtC. You seem to think that Satan has a great deal of power, almost as much power and influence as an omni-being.

Perhaps after reading those who have offered contemporary LDS thought on the issue, you might re-think how much power you attribute to Satan.

Hey Trout,

Please forgive me for submitting what some might consider an absurd post.

It was my first attempt at illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

I know, you are right and correct in thinking that I should leave absurdity to the professionals. I won’t argue with you there. Though I will admit it was fun, although it appears that it wasn’t appreciated.

SORRY!!! Please do not think that I was accusing you of being absurd because that was not my desire or intention. I was addressing the opinions of most in the World today who refuse to admit there is a Satan or Evil.

What was absurd you ask?

Well, if you are comfortable and have a few long minutes, I am eager to provide you with my opinion to your questions. Not that I can add one scintilla to what has already been expressed by your intellectual friends who have covered the topic quite professionally and thoroughly.

QUOTE Trout:
due to some of the claims you had made in the other thread directed at BtC. You seem to think that Satan has a great deal of power, almost as much power and influence as an omni-being.

Examples please! Specific examples please! Very specific examples please! Quotes please!

Please copy and paste the statements you are referring to and give me a chance to defend my comments. It would seem that you have gone to a lot of trouble when you could have simply asked me a direct question regarding a specific statement that I have made.

Trout, thank you for sharing with me the fact that you are concerned about my welfare. I now realize that part of your reason for this thread was a subtle attempt to correct my misguided comments concerning Satan. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate your concern and will attempt to return the favor, for I am concerned about your opinion of Satan and his powers as well.

I find it absurd and most disturbing that most in the world today do not recognize evil or understand Satan, his mission, nor the evil power and influence he tries to exert on the free will of man.

I may have been absurd and am guilty as charged.

However, I am not absurd enough, nor am I the one guilty of underestimating the power and influence of Satan. Lucifer is a very powerful spirit with billions of agents at his command, who’s sole aim and goal is to use anything and everything in their power to thwart our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children sent to Earth.

You must agree that Lucifer thinks he has considerable power as he insisted on a face-off with our Father God. Please take a minute and try to imagine that. Lucifer thinking he can challenge Almighty God to a knockdown, drag-out confrontation assuming he will win. Can you imagine waking up one morning and having the first thing on your to-do list;

1:Challenge Almighty God to a Standoff!

I didn’t say he was smart, maybe cunning, prideful, sly, slippery, egotistic, shrewd, disdainful, etc. Smart, no, not even!

Lucifer must think he has considerable power as he insisted on a “knockdown, drag-out confrontation” with our God Almighty. Fortunately for us, he was the one dragged out!

Unfortunately for us, he was able to convince on third of the host of Heaven to choose his side and fight with him. He must possess some kind of power to be able to convince billions of spirits to follow him in the face of our Father who is there making sure everyone involved understands the consequences of their decision. "You chose Lucifer, you loose"!

It appears this guy Lucifer is one silver-tongued smooth talking devil! Let’s see, do I stay with Father in Heaven for eternity or eternally rot in hell with Lucifer? Their decision was: We choose Lucifer???!!! He must of had some spiel!

For Lucifer to be able to convince billions to choose the later proves this guy is not your average stiff off the street. Nevertheless, he was able to convince one third of the host of Heaven to choose his side and fight with him whatever “a war in Heaven” connotes.

Imagine, how upset they all were (Billions) to be cast out of Heaven, never to return, for all eternity because Lucifer’s plan was not chosen and they wouldn’t leave it alone. Being cast out of Heaven, the only home they had ever known had to hurt and it is apparent it left a huge terrible scar.

Now, they are as mad as Hell and coming to get us!

That’s right, they want to get even with everyone who had anything to do with their expulsion from Heaven. What most don’t seem to realize is that they were on the side of Almighty God in Heaven and were partly responsible for Lucifer being cast out with his billions of followers.

That’s right Trout, your presence here on Earth proves that you are partly responsible for purging Heaven of them. It’s partly your fault and they know it! They remember you and you are not invisible to them.

The good news is, you chose Fathers’ and Jesus’ side in the war and helped defeat Lucifer. The bad news is, you now have Lucifer turned into Satan and his billions of invisible enemy agents here on earth as mad as all Hell and charging at you day and night. Scary thought!

Please allow me to repeat; I say you have a powerful invisible enemy coming at you hell bent on seeking revenge and determined to get their pound of retribution? If the sound of that doesn’t cause cold chills to run throughout your body then you are not properly appraised of exactly what their plan is for you and just how efficient and evil they really are.

Another way to put that is; Trout, Satan wants, and is certain if given enough time he will get, your hide nailed on the wall in his expansive trophy room. After all, you weren’t called “Lucifer, sun of the morning”, so what chance do you have against him. Did I hear you say help Jesus! Good!!!

You may have been under Lucifers' radar and skipped his detection in Heaven but you’re on Earth now with a bulls eye on you that glows in the day and night. In his mind, it is all your fault he is down here on this filthy Earth instead of strolling around “angel in charge” of and in Heaven. You know, the place where “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him”. Who wouldn’t be upset with the one that caused one to miss out on such a glorious reward? “Pain, lot’s and lot's of pain”!

Trout, just how upset would you be with the person that caused you to loose out on such a heavenly place for all time and eternity. I realize that none of us can comprehend the agony and frustration Satan and his agents must realize but you can imagine it would be accurate to say they are extremely angry, upset and hateful. They had a choice, Heaven or Hell and they chose Hell and now they get to watch us get nearer to Heaven.

Can you imagine the depth of seething anger and rage that they are harboring and consumed with as they look for a target and a clear shot. They are anxiously waiting and looking for every opportunity to unleash their form of destruction on the unsuspecting and/or those duped into thinking there is no evil or Satin. We are all responsible for their eternal loss and without Jesus on our side and the ability to repent, they win hands down, no contest.

They are evil, powerful, mad, hateful, deceivers, liars, falsifiers, deceitful, did I day evil, invisible enemies hell-bent on our destruction with 7,000 years of practice and success on their resume. Did I say mad and invisible!!!

If that doesn’t frighten you then you are without proper understanding of our adversary and their potential for evil and personal harm. Granted, the Bible calls him a serpent but nowhere does it stipulate that he will, or that he is required to, rattle before he strikes. There is only one cure for his venomous bite a few there be that find it. Please help us Jesus!

The very thing we all fought the war in Heaven for is at stake and in jeopardy, which IMAHO is, in a nut shell, you choose to be obedient to Father, come to earth, exercise your free agency and freely choose to remain obedient and loyal to Father throughout your sojourn here on Earth.

Not only are our adversaries invisible, but they also remember who they were and who we were in Heaven. That knowledge is very valuable to them and is lost to us for a season. They know who we were and are and they are invisible and unrecognizable to us. Not quite a fair fight is it. Help me Jesus!

Satan is getting a second shot at taking us down with him and he has proven he is quite capable of success as a third of the host of Heaven is in tow now and helping him. He now has a tremendous advantage here on Earth as it was visible verses visible in Heaven when we defeated him. Unfortunately, now it invisible armed to the teeth evil never sleeping verses unsuspecting visible standing in the bulls eye “if it feels good do it” slow moving targets.

Seems to me like he has a tremendous advantage. That’s right, the evil invisible one attacking us with 7,000 years of evil experience and billions of agents has the clear and distinct advantage. Did I say HELP ME JESUS!!!

Are you frightened now? I have been and still am! I try and stay nervous and scared, it keeps you alert and on your toes for those surprise attacks hurled at you when you least expect it. Satan is a coward and will kick you when you are down and stick it to you in the back while you are looking in the other direction so I advise you to always stay on guard and scared.

QUOTE Trout:
Perhaps after reading those who have offered contemporary LDS thought on the issue, you might re-think how much power you attribute to Satan

I will be happy to correct any misjudgments or misstatements I have made concerning Satan if you will please specifically point out the errors in my previous posts.

Trout, you don’t “seem to think that Satan has a great deal of power”.

Your comment quoted herein would lead one to believe Trout does not fear Satan nor respect his power to cause pain, suffering, death, disease, war, carnage, depression. false hopes, addictions etc.

It took the death of the Son of God to defeat him so you had better be shaken in your boots and stayn’ on guard at all times. Did I say at all times and in all places and when awake or asleep and happy or sad. Satan can get you when you are on guard and looking straight into his face.

My response today is what it is because of the consequences of being one of the fallen or captured of Satan. Don't take my word for it Trout, ask one of the third of the host of Heaven traveling with him how pleasant it is to be associated with and work for the father of lies, the evil one himself.

Trout, now that you have received “contemporary LDS thought on the issue” do I need to start a new thread to request your answers to the questions you submitted in your original post?

Will you of your own free will and choice exercise your God given free agency to choose and decide to provide us with your opinion on the same questions within your own thread?

I’m sure all us “contemporary LDS” would appreciate you expounding and enlightening us with our own specific views and opinions on the subjects you had us address. I read where you asked leading questions but have yet to see where you have expressed your opinion fully on any of your own questions. What does a Calvinist leaning Christian response read like?

You have been blessed to receive what some might consider the best “contemporary LDS” thought on the issue; so please reciprocate and show us the same curtsey and respond likewise.

I have not attempted to elaborate on each question as I cannot add much if anything to Jeths’ remarks and opinions. I thought an overview from me would be more helpful concerning your purpose where I was concerned.

Thank you Trout for this opportunity to share my knowledge with you! I hope you will respond likewise when possible.

Sincerely LDSTrue!

Trout

October 7th 2005, 11:46 PM

Hey Trout,

Please forgive me for submitting what some might consider an absurd post.

It was my first attempt at illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

I know, you are right and correct in thinking that I should leave absurdity to the professionals. I won’t argue with you there. Though I will admit it was fun, although it appears that it wasn’t appreciated.

SORRY!!! Please do not think that I was accusing you of being absurd because that was not my desire or intention. I was addressing the opinions of most in the World today who refuse to admit there is a Satan or Evil.

What was absurd you ask?

Well, if you are comfortable and have a few long minutes, I am eager to provide you with my opinion to your questions. Not that I can add one scintilla to what has already been expressed by your intellectual friends who have covered the topic quite professionally and thoroughly.

OK.

Trout:
due to some of the claims you had made in the other thread directed at BtC. You seem to think that Satan has a great deal of power, almost as much power and influence as an omni-being.

LDSTrue:
Examples please! Specific examples please! Very specific examples please! Quotes please!

Please copy and paste the statements you are referring to and give me a chance to defend my comments. It would seem that you have gone to a lot of trouble when you could have simply asked me a direct question regarding a specific statement that I have made.

It wasn't my desire to derail Crusader's thread with my question that would be an off-shoot of the topic that she presented. Especially when Tweb has plenty of room for new threads that narrow down the focus of the discussion.

And many of the assertions you make in the post address most of my concerns from the other thread.

LDSTrue:
Trout, thank you for sharing with me the fact that you are concerned about my welfare. I now realize that part of your reason for this thread was a subtle attempt to correct my misguided comments concerning Satan. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate your concern and will attempt to return the favor, for I am concerned about your opinion of Satan and his powers as well.

Perhaps we can both come to a better understanding of who and what Satan is.

LDSTrue:
I find it absurd and most disturbing that most in the world today do not recognize evil or understand Satan, his mission, nor the evil power and influence he tries to exert on the free will of man.

What would make you claim that,"most" in the world today do not recognize , "evil". I would think that the vast majority of those living on the earth today recognize the concept of evil.

LDSTrue:
However, I am not absurd enough, nor am I the one guilty of underestimating the power and influence of Satan.

Who is guilty of underestimating the power and influence of Satan?

LDSTrue:
Lucifer is a very powerful spirit with billions of agents at his command,

How does this hierarchy work? What would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

LDSTrue:
who’s sole aim and goal is to use anything and everything in their power to thwart our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children sent to Earth.

Where would I find this concept in LDS writings?

LDSTrue:
You must agree that Lucifer thinks he has considerable power as he insisted on a face-off with our Father God.

Please explain what you mean by that. Where and when did this face off take place? What kind of a record do you have of the proceedings?

LDSTrue:
Please take a minute and try to imagine that.

Is that where that concept originated, in the imagination? Or can you provide footnotes which verify that your understanding of what happened is what is currently taught by the LDS church.

LDSTrue:
Lucifer thinking he can challenge Almighty God to a knockdown, drag-out confrontation assuming he will win. Can you imagine waking up one morning and having the first thing on your to-do list;

1:Challenge Almighty God to a Standoff!

Where is this standoff recorded?

LDSTrue:
I didn’t say he was smart, maybe cunning, prideful, sly, slippery, egotistic, shrewd, disdainful, etc. Smart, no, not even!

What would lead you to believe that he isn't smart? According to the others in this thread, he was one of the greatest intelligences.

LDSTrue:
Lucifer must think he has considerable power as he insisted on a “knockdown, drag-out confrontation” with our God Almighty. Fortunately for us, he was the one dragged out!

Again, can you tell us where this occured in LDS writings?

LDSTrue:
Unofortunately for us, he was able to convince on third of the host of Heaven to choose his side and fight with him.

Fight? Where can I read about this fight?

LDSTRue:
He must possess some kind of power to be able to convince billions of spirits

Billions of spirits? Are you talking about angels?

LDSTrue:
to follow him in the face of our Father who is there making sure everyone involved understands the consequences of their decision. "You chose Lucifer, you loose"!

Where can I read the dialogue that took place?

LDSTrue:
It appears this guy Lucifer is one silver-tongued smoth talking devil! Let’s see, do I stay with Father in Heaven for eternity or eternally rot in hell with Lucifer? Their decision was: We choose Lucifer???!!! He must of had some spiel!

Are you making assumptions?

LDSTrue:
For Lucifer to be able to convince billions to choose the later proves this guy is not your average stiff off the street.

Again, that is an assumption, unless you can demonstrate that what you say transpired in fact did.

LDSTrue:
Nevertheless, he was able to convince one third of the host of Heaven to choose his side and fight with him whatever “a war in Heaven” connotes.

What do you think the, "host of heaven" means.

When do you think the war in heaven occurred? Revelation 12 seems to speak of an event that took place after Christs death.

LDSTrue:
Imagine, how upset they all were (Billions) to be cast out of Heaven, never to return, for all eternity because Lucifer’s plan was not chosen and they wouldn’t leave it alone. Being cast out of Heaven, the only home they had ever known had to hurt and it is apparent it left a huge terrible scar.

Again, I will assume that you are simply speculating about what happened until you can provide some proof-texts to support your position.

LDSTrue:
Now, they are as mad as Hell and coming to get us!

What makes you think that?

LDSTRue:
That’s right, they want to get even with everyone who had anything to do with their expulsion from Heaven. What most don’t seem to realize is that they were on the side of Almighty God in Heaven and were partly responsible for Lucifer being cast out with his billions of followers.

That’s right Trout, your presence here on Earth proves that you are partly responsible for purging Heaven of them.

How has that been proved?

LDSTrue:
It’s partly your fault and they know it! They remember you and you are not invisible to them.

You are assuming that I existed prior to my earthly birth.

You are assuming that I had some part in some war that happened.

LDSTrue:
The good news is, you chose Fathers’ and Jesus’ side in the war and helped defeat Lucifer. The bad news is, you now have Lucifer turned into Satan and his billions of invisible enemy agents here on earth as mad as all Hell and charging at you day and night. Scary thought!

Again, those are bald assertions, unless you can somehow footnote all the concepts you've presented.

LDSTrue:
Please allow me to repeat; I say you have a powerful invisible enemy coming at you hell bent on seeking revenge and determined to get their pound of retribution? If the sound of that doesn’t cause cold chills to run throughout your body then you are not properly appraised of exactly what their plan is for you and just how efficient and evil they really are.

Another way to put that is; Trout, Satan wants, and is certain if given enough time he will get, your hide nailed on the wall in his expansive trophy room.

Do you believe thatSatan has a trophy room, or are you making an illustration?

LDSTrue:
If that doesn’t frighten you then you are without proper understanding of our adversary and their potential for evil and personal harm. Granted, the Bible calls him a serpent but nowhere does it stipulate that he will, or that he is required to, rattle before he strikes. There is only one cure for his venomous bite a few there be that find it. Please help us Jesus!

The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

LDSTrue:
The very thing we all fought the war in Heaven for is at stake and in jeopardy, which IMAHO is, in a nut shell, you choose to be obedient to Father, come to earth, exercise your free agency and freely choose to remain obedient and loyal to Father throughout your sojourn here on Earth.

You have yet to establish that a war took place, you have asserted it as if it was a foregone conclusion.

LDSTrue:
Not only are our adversaries invisible, but they also remember who they were and who we were in Heaven. That knowledge is very valuable to them and is lost to us for a season. They know who we were and are and they are invisible and unrecognizable to us. Not quite a fair fight is it. Help me Jesus!

Again, that is pure conjecture until you are able to establish it with footnotes.

LDSTrue:
Satan is getting a second shot at taking us down with him and he has proven he is quite capable of success as a third of the host of Heaven is in tow now and helping him. He now has a tremendous advantage here on Earth as it was visible verses visible in Heaven when we defeated him.

Again, those are just assertions.

LDSTrue:
Unfortunately, now it invisible armed to the teeth evil never sleeping verses unsuspecting visible standing in the bulls eye “if it feels good do it” slow moving targets.

If it feels good do it? Kind of like a burning bosom concept?

LDSTrue:
Seems to me like he has a tremendous advantage. That’s right, the evil invisible one attacking us with 7,000 years of evil experience and billions of agents has the clear and distinct advantage. Did I say HELP ME JESUS!!!

7000 years? Where did you come up with that number?

LDSTrue:
Are you frightened now?

Of Satan? No.

LDSTrue:
I have been and still am! I try and stay nervous and scared, it keeps you alert and on your toes for those surprise attacks hurled at you when you least expect it.

That's too bad, your focus according to the Bible should be on God, and you should fear Him and Him alone.

LDSTrue:
Satan is a coward and will kick you when you are down and stick it to you in the back while you are looking in the other direction so I advise you to always stay on guard and scared.

Do you think Satan is a coward? You said that he wasn't a coward earlier in this post, when you said he engaged in a face off with God.

Trout:
Perhaps after reading those who have offered contemporary LDS thought on the issue, you might re-think how much power you attribute to Satan

LDSTrue:
I will be happy to correct any misjudgments or misstatements I have made concerning Satan if you will please specifically point out the errors in my previous posts.

Good, please start by better explaining and footnoting the positions you've asserted above.

LDSTrue:
Trout, you don’t “seem to think that Satan has a great deal of power”.

Please define what a great deal of power is.

Trout:
Your comment quoted herein would lead one to believe Trout does not fear Satan

You are correct.

LDSTrue:
nor respect his power to cause pain, suffering, death, disease, war, carnage, depression. false hopes, addictions etc.

I have not said one way or another how I feel about those issues.

LDSTrue:
It took the death of the Son of God to defeat him

Where does the LDS church teach that concept?

LDSTrue:
so you had better be shaken in your boots and stayn’ on guard at all times. Did I say at all times and in all places and when awake or asleep and happy or sad. Satan can get you when you are on guard and looking straight into his face.

When you say Satan can, "get me", what exactly are you talking about?

If Satan can get me while I'm on guard, why bother being on guard?

LDSTrue:
My response today is what it is because of the consequences of being one of the fallen or captured of Satan. Don't take my word for it Trout, ask one of the third of the host of Heaven traveling with him how pleasant it is to be associated with and work for the father of lies, the evil one himself.

Are you suggesting that I channel the spirit world?

LDSTrue:
Trout, now that you have received “contemporary LDS thought on the issue” do I need to start a new thread to request your answers to the questions you submitted in your original post?

A new thread would be the best way to proceed, that way this thread can remain on the idea of Satan in LDS thought.

LDSTrue:
Will you of your own free will and choice exercise your God given free agency to choose and decide to provide us with your opinion on the same questions within your own thread?

A new thread would be better, I think there would be many here who would like to join the discussion.

LDSTrue:
I’m sure all us “contemporary LDS” would appreciate you expounding and enlightening us with our own specific views and opinions on the subjects you had us address. I read where you asked leading questions but have yet to see where you have expressed your opinion fully on any of your own questions. What does a Calvinist leaning Christian response read like?

Feel free to ask and find out.

LDSTrue:
You have been blessed to receive what some might consider the best “contemporary LDS” thought on the issue; so please reciprocate and show us the same curtsey and respond likewise.

OK.

LDSTrue:
I have not attempted to elaborate on each question as I cannot add much if anything to Jeths’ remarks and opinions. I thought an overview from me would be more helpful concerning your purpose where I was concerned.

Jethreuel's remarks were good, in my opinion he has a good grasp of the LDS concept of Satan as far as I understand it. You however, have told a tale perhaps beyond the boundaries of LDS thought, I'm interested to see how you will footnote the claims you've made using LDS sources.

LDSTrue:
Thank you Trout for this opportunity to share my knowledge with you! I hope you will respond likewise when possible.

You're welcome.

And I look forward to seeing the thread you make.

Trout

October 8th 2005, 12:44 AM

POWELL:
I suggest that Jerome did not preserve "Heosphoros" in his Latin translation partly because of a question that future Christians might ask: Why didn't God's prophet realize that Venus in the morning was the same as Venus in the evening?

You see, Trout, the early Greeks (and everyone else of importance) thought that Venus seen in the morning was a different planet / God than Venus seen in the evening.

I didn't know that.

Powell:
To the early Greeks it was the god Heosphoros in the morning and the god Hesperus in the evening. When the later Greek astronomers realized that it was the same planet, the name was changed to Aphrodite (Venus is the Roman equivalent). Gradually, the rest of the world came to learn the truth.

There's a passage in Job that I suspect has suffered a similar revising to avoid exposing the astronomical ignorance of the Biblical writers.

Which passage in Job are you speaking of?

TROUT:
Somedays it certainly doesn't seem as though the world is peopled with "valiant ones".

JOHN MORMON:
It builds one's self confidence to realize (POWELL: to believe) that you are a choice child of God.

Easy now John, you're talking to a Calvinist. :wink:

POWELL:
Few argued with me about such things. The attitude of most of those around me seemed to be that if an answer to a mystery increased one's faith in Mormonism then it was ok. However, if the answer caused challenges to the faith then it should be rejected.

TROUT:
If someone were to come into our Sunday school class and begin teaching such a thing, they would not be allowed to continue in a teaching role.

And, after arguing with you about things, I can certainly understand why people would choose not to argue with you.

JOHN MORMON:
It is a popular Mormon saying (taken from 3 Ne 11:29) that "contention is of the Devil."

I've heard that statement many times, typically when an argument is being lost.

JOHN MORMON:
It's like the youth who comes to realize that his parents aren't perfectly great, but can still appreciate them for how great they are.

TROUT:
But the parents wouldn't be that great if they'd told their children that the[y] were omni-beings, when in reality they were just meticulously good planners.

On the other hand, my parents told me that Santa Claus was real and brought us gifts once a year. When I found out the truth, it didn't diminish my feelings toward my parents.

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps God technically exaggerated His attributes so that non philosopher readers would get the proper idea of His greatness. If God didn't claim omnipotence then common people would more readily conclude that God isn't powerful enough to say, save them from death or to give them a child in their old age or cure an incurable disease.

Trout:
I think the typical reason people gravitate toward Open Theism is the problem of evil, God can be excused from the evil that happens because He simply didn't have complete knowledge of future events. But I caould be mistaken. From there it can become a filter for a great many other things i.e. seemingly unfulfilled prophecy.

TROUT:
No, it's not the math that the LDS apologist brings into question, it's the set times relative to the earth solar day. If the LDS astronomer can find a constant that would harmonize the spin rates of the planets mentioned, with the earth solar day, then his argument would perhaps be worth looking into.

POWELL:
I don't understand what you're thinking needs to be harmonized. What I see needs to be harmonized is:

1) the idea that Kolob's "revolution" is one "day" for God (suggesting spin) but it's equal to 1000 of our years with

2) the idea that the Moon is "above" the Earth in its reckoning because it "moves" more slowly than the Earth, also with

3) the association this progression of times has to the progression of intelligences.

The Mormon passage is most coherent I think if the writer is speaking of the differing spin rates of the bodies as being related to the differing intelligences of entities, but that makes the claim about the Moon having fewer months and years than the Earth mistaken. On the other hand, if the passage means to speak of the day, month, and year being the set times for the Earth, Moon, and Sun (which is reasonable if there wasn't the intelligence analogy) then the analogy with intelligence level breaks down. The year has a different value from different perspectives so that would suggest that intelligences have a different value from different perspectives. Spin is intrinsic to a body like intelligence is thought to be intrinsic to the entity.

I understand what you are getting at now, there seems to be little way out. But, could the LDS apologist argue that the passage is figurative, as I've also heard offered. In fact I think it was Nibley who developed the symbolic concept of this passage.

He thought that Kolob might be a representation of Christ, not a literal throne upon which God sat at some specific address within the physical universe.

http://www.bibleman.net/Kolob_and_temples.htm

TROUT:
Wasn't the notion that Jesus was married and had children prior to his death taught rather openly in early Mormonism?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know how common the belief was, but it was prevalent in my extended family. It went well with the Mormon doctrine that everyone has to be both baptized and sealed to obtain exaltation, so if Jesus had to be baptized He surely also had to be sealed.

I have heard others speak of the idea also, I grew up in an area that had a large number of descendents from pioneer heritage, many of whom weren't ashamed to talk about Jesus being married and having children. I don't hear the concept much anymore, but perhaps it's because I don't live in an area with a large LDS population.

Trout:
That is a good analogy.

Powell:
Assuming you're right about that being the situation, Trout, then Jesus shouldn't expect much praise for overcoming the temptation. It's only if the temptation was great, if there was a significant risk that He would succumb, that Jesus should be praised for overcoming it.

Trout:
Don't we praise people all the time who simply have a natural ability for something? Their natural abilities don't necessarily diminish their accomplishments, they are in fact what set them apart.

JOHN MORMON:
I suppose. I suppose we'd praise God for creating the Earth even if it was a little thing to Him. We'd praise Him because it's beyond our abilities.

According to the Mormon view, when the time came to do it Jesus would have liked to have avoided taking on our sins but He went through with it.

Scripture Verse:

D&C 19
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

I think the Bible underscores that fact also:

And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. (ASV)

Again, thank you for your time, John.

Trout

John Powell

October 8th 2005, 10:54 AM

POWELL:
I suggest that Jerome did not preserve "Heosphoros" in his Latin translation partly because of a question that future Christians might ask: Why didn't God's prophet realize that Venus in the morning was the same as Venus in the evening?

You see, Trout, the early Greeks (and everyone else of importance) thought that Venus seen in the morning was a different planet / God than Venus seen in the evening.

TROUT:
I didn't know that.

POWELL:
Did you know that ancient people believed that the sky was blue because it was water held up there by a transparent dome?

Surely you knew the ancients thought the Earth was flat and didn't move. That's why references in the Bible reflective of that mistaken view are pointed out by Bible critics and defended by apologists.

POWELL:
To the early Greeks it was the god Heosphoros in the morning and the god Hesperus in the evening. When the later Greek astronomers realized that it was the same planet, the name was changed to Aphrodite (Venus is the Roman equivalent). Gradually, the rest of the world came to learn the truth.

There's a passage in Job that I suspect has suffered a similar revising to avoid exposing the astronomical ignorance of the Biblical writers.

TROUT:
Which passage in Job are you speaking of?

POWELL:
Job 9:9.

The Brenton's LXX (presumably based on a very old Hebrew text) calls the celestial objects: "Pleias", "Hesperus", "Arcturus", and "the chambers of the south";

Recall that I claimed that Hesperus is the name the early Greeks gave to the planet Venus in the evening since they thought it was two different planets.

The Douay Rheims Vulgate (presumably based on an old Hebrew text, but one newer than the LXX) calls the objects "Arcturus", "Orion", "Hyades", and "the inner parts of the south."

The KJV (based on the more recent Masoretic text) calls the celestial objects "Arcturus," "Orion," "Pleiades," and "the chambers of the south".

It appears to me that some Hebrew scribe(s) between the time of the LXX and the Hebrew text used by Jerome changed Hesperus to Orion (presumably to avoid the embarrasing question concerning Hesperus). Perhaps Orion was chosen because Job had used that constellation elsewhere.

I don't know what Jerome was doing in using Hyades instead of Pleiades. Maybe he didn't know the difference between them since they are both star clusters in the same constellation (Taurus) and put Hyades instead of Pleiades by mistake.

TROUT:
Somedays it certainly doesn't seem as though the world is peopled with "valiant ones".

JOHN MORMON:
It builds one's self confidence to realize (POWELL: to believe) that you are a choice child of God.

TROUT:
Easy now John, you're talking to a Calvinist.

JOHN MORMON:
It is a popular Mormon saying (taken from 3 Ne 11:29) that "contention is of the Devil."

TROUT:
I've heard that statement many times, typically when an argument is being lost.

POWELL:
As long as the Mormon believes he's being persuasive then there's no feeling of stress. I guess when those feelings of stress arise (because the arguments are being resisted) then that's Satan, see?

JOHN MORMON:
Perhaps God technically exaggerated His attributes so that non philosopher readers would get the proper idea of His greatness. If God didn't claim omnipotence then common people would more readily conclude that God isn't powerful enough to say, save them from death or to give them a child in their old age or cure an incurable disease.

TROUT:
I think the typical reason people gravitate toward Open Theism is the problem of evil, God can be excused from the evil that happens because He simply didn't have complete knowledge of future events. But I caould be mistaken. From there it can become a filter for a great many other things i.e. seemingly unfulfilled prophecy.

JOHN MORMON:
That's part of it.

TROUT:
No, it's not the math that the LDS apologist brings into question, it's the set times relative to the earth solar day. If the LDS astronomer can find a constant that would harmonize the spin rates of the planets mentioned, with the earth solar day, then his argument would perhaps be worth looking into.

POWELL:
I don't understand what you're thinking needs to be harmonized. What I see needs to be harmonized is:

1) the idea that Kolob's "revolution" is one "day" for God (suggesting spin) but it's equal to 1000 of our years with

2) the idea that the Moon is "above" the Earth in its reckoning because it "moves" more slowly than the Earth, also with

3) the association this progression of times has to the progression of intelligences.

The Mormon passage is most coherent I think if the writer is speaking of the differing spin rates of the bodies as being related to the differing intelligences of entities, but that makes the claim about the Moon having fewer months and years than the Earth mistaken. On the other hand, if the passage means to speak of the day, month, and year being the set times for the Earth, Moon, and Sun (which is reasonable if there wasn't the intelligence analogy) then the analogy with intelligence level breaks down. The year has a different value from different perspectives so that would suggest that intelligences have a different value from different perspectives. Spin is intrinsic to a body like intelligence is thought to be intrinsic to the entity.

TROUT:
I understand what you are getting at now, there seems to be little way out. But, could the LDS apologist argue that the passage is figurative, as I've also heard offered. In fact I think it was Nibley who developed the symbolic concept of this passage.

He thought that Kolob might be a representation of Christ, not a literal throne upon which God sat at some specific address within the physical universe.

http://www.bibleman.net/Kolob_and_temples.htm

POWELL:
Of course. Anytime scripture seems to be wrong when taken literally then the die-hard believer can take them to be figurative to avoid the problem. However, I see no good reason to think that Joseph didn't mean his readers to take those words literally except to avoid the problem that what he said was literally wrong which begs the question as to whether Joseph erred. It seems to me that Joseph thought he was describing the correct spin attributes of things like the Moon.

TROUT:
Wasn't the notion that Jesus was married and had children prior to his death taught rather openly in early Mormonism?

JOHN MORMON:
I don't know how common the belief was, but it was prevalent in my extended family. It went well with the Mormon doctrine that everyone has to be both baptized and sealed to obtain exaltation, so if Jesus had to be baptized He surely also had to be sealed.

TROUT:
I have heard others speak of the idea also, I grew up in an area that had a large number of descendents from pioneer heritage, many of whom weren't ashamed to talk about Jesus being married and having children. I don't hear the concept much anymore, but perhaps it's because I don't live in an area with a large LDS population.

JOHN MORMON:
I wasn't ashamed to teach it.

JOHN MORMON:
According to the Mormon view, when the time came to do it Jesus would have liked to have avoided taking on our sins but He went through with it.

D&C 19
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

TROUT:
I think the Bible underscores that fact also:

Matthew 26:39
And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt. (ASV)

JOHN MORMON:
Correct.

TROUT:
Again, thank you for your time, John.

Trout

JOHN MORMON:
Thank you for yours.

John Powell

Trout

October 8th 2005, 11:11 PM

LDSTrue

October 11th 2005, 04:03 AM

Hey Trout,

Just wanted to share a few thoughts with you if you have the time.

Quote Trout:
A question directed at LDSTrue. I would like to get some contemporary LDS perspective on this. I'm not necessarily looking for footnoted answers only, opinion would also be appreciated.

Trout, you said you would appreciate my opinions. I cooperated with your request and provided you with a copious amount of them. My opinions are the statements without the footnotes. They need no further justification as they are my educated guesses and opinions.

Quote Trout:
And many of the assertions you make in the post address most of my concerns from the other thread.

Good, mission accomplished! …which post? :wink:

Quote Trout:
Is that where that concept originated, in the imagination?

I guess you could say that. Satan had to first imagine his plan would succeed. Then he had to imagine we would all follow him. Imagine that!

Quote Trout:
What would lead you to believe that he isn't smart? According to the others in this thread, he was one of the greatest intelligences.

What good did his intelligence do him if he used it and got himself cast out of Heaven by Almighty God. How smart was that?! Since when does being intelligent exclude stupid thoughts, plans and actions? It was really stupid of him to not “fear God, nothing else.”

Quote Trout:
When do you think the war in heaven occurred? Revelation 12 seems to speak of an event that took place after Christs death.

Trout, if you combine events spoken of in Isaiah 14:6-32 with Revelation 12 you will get a clearer picture. IMHO, it seems to speak of our pre-mortal existence. Lucifer fell and became Satan way before Christ’s death. Wasn’t it satan tempting Christ at the beginning of His ministry after Jesus fasted 40 days and nights. Remember, …“stones be made bread”… etc.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Now, they are as mad as Hell and coming to get us!

Quote Trout:
What makes you think that?

Isaiah 14:6-32 and Revelation 12 COMBINED!

Quote Trout:
The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

Does your scientifically applied expert scripture exegesis really have you conclude that you should fear God, as in be terrified of Him. Not respect, love and honor but “fear”? There must be several ways to interpret or define the word “fear” used in this scripture quote? Hopefully your fear toward God our Father includes love for Him. God is love!

Quote:LDSTrue:
Unfortunately, now it invisible armed to the teeth evil never sleeping verses unsuspecting visible standing in the bulls eye “if it feels good do it” slow moving targets.

Quote Trout:
If it feels good do it? Kind of like a burning bosom concept?

My statement quoted above says nothing about “a burning bosom concept” nor does it hint at it. Now I know what a quantum leap looks like.

Trout, I am very disappointed and surprised to see that you too are on the mock-the-burning-bosom bus headed for serious trouble.

For some reason I had the impression that you were a cut above the fray herein. Several others here at Tweb have ridiculed and found delight in joining in the sport of mocking “a burning bosom”.

I’m surprised you are so readily willing to join in the chorus. May I add that it is to their shame as it only reveals their ignorance of one of the ways the Godhead confirms truth. You guys laugh all you want, I’m not any part of the Godhead and it is not my system of communication you’re mocking.

My first impression was to let it ride, you know, let it slide by. I was fully intent on ignoring your attempt at wit and ridicule like I have all the others.

However, the Holy Ghost will not let it rest. I can no longer ignore His promptings to correct your impression of “a burning bosom concept.”

Quote Trout:
If it feels good do it? Kind of like a burning bosom concept.

Allow me to direct you to a critically important scripture. All you “burning bosom” mockers have overlooked its significance and the important intent for its inclusion in the Scriptures.

Luke 24:32 “And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Do you really think that this scripture has no significance to ”a burning in the bosom”? I know that you have come across this scripture with that topic in mind and yet ignored the promptings you received.

Let me remind you that most of what you read in the Scriptures has been carefully placed there and would not be there if it was not intended to enlighten and edify the reader. If the reader will ponder and pray to know the truth, then the truth will be given him.

Luke 24:32 “And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

As you and the others should know Trout, this scripture was included within the New Testament for a specific reason. That specific reason was to indicate and provide a clue to those seeking truth that “our heart burn within us” or a “burning in the bosom” is one of the ways Jesus uses to confirm His words.

If the resurrected Lord is opening scripture to you, you may experience the same… “our heart burn within us” or in other words “a burning in the bosom.” Jesus is responsible for the sensation and you in the chorus stand and mock. All you mockers are out of tune with Jesus, not LDS!

The travelers that sat and conversed with Jesus saw Him and were looking into His face yet they did not recognize Him or perceive exactly who He was at the time. Nor did they understand that the scriptural truths He “opened to us” (revealed) at the time were being confirmed by one of the effects of the Holy Ghost. Their realization and confirmation of the truth was brought about by their remembrance of “did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” The Holy Ghost at work!

Would you not agree that the heart of man is in the bosom? Can your heart burn within your body and not effect the bosom? You have a solid scripture verse confirming and providing you with proof that there is an effect one can experience that feels like “our heart burn within us” or “a burning in the bosom.” Yet, you and your friends choose to ignore its existence and persist in mocking those who have received that sensation from the Holy Ghost.

Trout, this day will turn out to be a very important day for you and the others with like opinions after reading this statement. Will you choose to head the warning herein and repent of your misguided mocking of “a burning of in the bosom?”

You all have now been officially instructed according to scripture that it used by Jesus and the Holy Ghost for confirmation and are left without excuse. Now, will you and the others continue to mock all those who testify of its saving effect and positive impact on their lives. All of you have been blessed with your free agency to choose, and I am not here to limit or take away your freedom to choose for yourselves your actions, attitudes or opinions.

However, even though you are free to choose one or the other you are not free to choose the consequences. There are consequences if you persist in mocking those who have received communication and confirmation from our Savior and the way He has chosen to deliver it.

Your Savior sends the message and the Holy Ghost delivers it and it is the Holy Ghost that actually causes the “burning in the bosom.” It is one of the ways the Godhead has established to communicate with man and defeat satan. Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man.

The reason this day will turn out to be very important to you is that this will be the day you will either decide to heed the counsel herein or disregard it. You will either repent and be thankful you did at judgment, or you will remember this day at judgment and wish you would have ceased and repented, considering the consequences you will face if you persist to mock Jesus.

You remain in control of your thoughts and actions; however, you will have no control over the consequences the unrepentant will certainly face. Repent now while you still have a chance and cease mocking one of the ways the Godhead has ordained to confirm truth to man as recorded in Luke 24:32.

What I have said is of no private interpretation and is available to all. A “burning in the bosom” is sacred to me, so please don’t mock it.

Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Trying his best, LDSTrue!

Trout

October 11th 2005, 07:25 PM

LDSTrue:
Trout, you said you would appreciate my opinions. I cooperated with your request and provided you with a copious amount of them. My opinions are the statements without the footnotes. They need no further justification as they are my educated guesses and opinions.

Thank you for providing your opinions. Some of your opinions seem to be outside the pale of LDS, "orthodoxy". Perhaps you'd take the time to clarify some of the claims you've made.

LDSTrue:
You must agree that Lucifer thinks he has considerable power as he insisted on a face-off with our Father God. Please take a minute and try to imagine that.

Trout:
Is that where that concept originated, in the imagination?

LdsTrue:
I guess you could say that. Satan had to first imagine his plan would succeed. Then he had to imagine we would all follow him. Imagine that!

And that situation seems to be born out of your imagination, as the two passages you cite say nothing of this face off you have asserted. Nor do the passages speak of a pre-mortal existence, nor the idea that we were given some kind of a choice, nor the idea that we were participants in some kind of a war.

Also, a face off doesn't seem to describe the events surrounding the fall of Satan as I understand it in LDS thought, perhaps you could expound.

LDSTrue:
I didn’t say he was smart, maybe cunning, prideful, sly, slippery, egotistic, shrewd, disdainful, etc. Smart, no, not even!

Trout:
What would lead you to believe that he isn't smart? According to the others in this thread, he was one of the greatest intelligences

LDSTrue:
What good did his intelligence do him if he used it and got himself cast out of Heaven by Almighty God. How smart was that?! Since when does being intelligent exclude stupid thoughts, plans and actions? It was really stupid of him to not “fear God, nothing else.”.

So you do think that Satan is smart, you just imagine him not using his intelligence.

LDSTrue:
Nevertheless, he was able to convince one third of the host of Heaven to choose his side and fight with him whatever “a war in Heaven” connotes.

Trout:
When do you think the war in heaven occurred? Revelation 12 seems to speak of an event that took place after Christs death.

LDSTrue:
Trout, if you combine events spoken of in Isaiah 14:6-32 with Revelation 12 you will get a clearer picture.

The Isaiah passage doesn't connote a "war in heaven". It speaks of the destruction of an earthly king - the king of Babylon.

The passage in Revelation 12, doesn't seem to fit your 7000 year time line, unless you are saying that the war in heaven mentioned in Revelation 12 is an event that happened 7000 years ago. Which doesn't make any sense at all within the context of the passage.

LDSTrue:
IMHO, it seems to speak of our pre-mortal existence. Lucifer fell and became Satan way before Christ’s death.

That concepts don't seem to exist within the passages you've cited, perhaps you might explain how you came to those opinions.

LDSTrue:
Wasn’t it satan tempting Christ at the beginning of His ministry after Jesus fasted 40 days and nights. Remember, …“stones be made bread”… etc.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the point you've asserted.

LDSTrue:
Now, they are as mad as Hell and coming to get us!

Trout:
What makes you think that?

LDSTrue:
Isaiah 14:6-32 and Revelation 12 COMBINED!

There is no mention of angry, pre-existent, pre-tabernacled humans out to, "get us" in either passage. And the passage in Revelation 12 doesn't seem to fit your timeline.

LDSTrue:
If that doesn’t frighten you then you are without proper understanding of our adversary and their potential for evil and personal harm.

Trout:
The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

LDSTrue:
Does your scientifically applied expert scripture exegesis really have you conclude that you should fear God, as in be terrified of Him. Not respect, love and honor but “fear”? There must be several ways to interpret or define the word “fear” used in this scripture quote? Hopefully your fear toward God our Father includes love for Him. God is love!

Where in LDS teachings are we to fear Satan as in, "be terrified" of him? In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.

LDSTrue:
Unfortunately, now it invisible armed to the teeth evil never sleeping verses unsuspecting visible standing in the bulls eye “if it feels good do it” slow moving targets.

Trout:
If it feels good do it? Kind of like a burning bosom concept?

LDSTrue:
My statement quoted above says nothing about “a burning bosom concept” nor does it hint at it. Now I know what a quantum leap looks like.

The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how one "feels" about it, you seem to have implied that people living by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it." are targets for an evil, invisible army. The point being; you seem to think that spiritual truth is determinate upon how you feel about it, you are using the same system of determining the correct course of action as those whom you consider targets.

Don't you think that's hypocritical, LDSTrue, using the same system that you condemn?

LDSTrue:
Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man.

Can you provide a prooftext for that idea?

LDSTrue:
Lucifer is a very powerful spirit with billions of agents at his command,

Trout:
In your opinion, how does this hierarchy work? In your opinion, what would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

LDSTrue:
who’s sole aim and goal is to use anything and everything in their power to thwart our Heavenly Father’s plan for His children sent to Earth.

How did you come to this opinion, LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
Nevertheless, he was able to convince one third of the host of Heaven to choose his side and fight with him whatever “a war in Heaven” connotes.

How did you come to the opinion that, "host of heaven" means pre-tabernacled spirits?

LDSTrue:
Seems to me like he has a tremendous advantage. That’s right, the evil invisible one attacking us with 7,000 years of evil experience and billions of agents has the clear and distinct advantage. Did I say HELP ME JESUS!!!

7000 years? How did you come to that opinion?

LDSTrue:
Satan is a coward and will kick you when you are down and stick it to you in the back while you are looking in the other direction so I advise you to always stay on guard and scared.

Do you think Satan is a coward? You said that he wasn't a coward earlier in a prior post, when you said he engaged in a face off with God.

When you say that Satan will, "kick me" what exactly do you mean? Have you been kicked by Satan?

When you say that Satan will, "stick it to you" what exactly do you mean, LDSTrue? Has Satan stuck it to you?

LDSTrue

October 12th 2005, 04:22 AM

Hey Trout,

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I must confess, I love responding to responses.

Quote Trout: Thank you for providing your opinions. Some of your opinions seem to be outside the pale of LDS, "orthodoxy". Perhaps you'd take the time to clarify some of the claims you've made.

Trout, are you claiming to be orthodox LDS? You must first know and be in the inside of pale before you accuse one of being on the outside. I always thought you were on the outside of LDS looking in.

Are you attempting put my membership in jeopardy due to my unorthodoxy? Is that why you continue to probe when you think you already know the answers? Do you know where I live and who my Bishop is? Are you planning on holding my membership hostage? :eek:

Quote Trout: How did you come to the opinion that, "host of heaven" means pre-tabernacled spirits?

How did you come to the opinion that “host of heaven” doesn’t mean pre-tabernacled spirits? Prove me wrong if you can, I'm all ears.

Trout:
In your opinion, how does this hierarchy work? In your opinion, what would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

What would make you think he doesn’t? I can only assume Heaven is organized so it would stand to reason that while in Heaven satan was an astute student and learned how to organize.

He organized a third of the “host of heaven” and marched them out. If all who have ever came to Earth or will come to Earth represent the two-thirds that remained then the one third that left would be a considerable amount. Quite logically Billions!

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Seems to me like he has a tremendous advantage. That’s right, the evil invisible one attacking us with 7,000 years of evil experience and billions of agents has the clear and distinct advantage. Did I say HELP ME JESUS!!!

Quote Trout: 7000 years? How did you come to that opinion?

Why not 7,000 years? Ok then, 7 Biblical days if that makes you feel better.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man.

Quote Trout: Can you provide a prooftext for that idea?

Can you provide a proof-text against that idea?

Here is a proof-text that Jesus can. You provide a proof-text that satan has or can.
Luke 24:32 “And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Quote Trout: The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how one "feels" about it”,

Trout, I don’t remember seeing you in any Priesthood or General Conference sessions. Your name is not on the membership rolls of the Church and yet you think you know orthodox LDS and have the inside track on what we teach. Why and how is that?

There was a time the Russians had a very low opinion of the USA. If your only exposure to the USA was Russian anti-USA propaganda you would think you knew all about the USA when in fact you were only exposed to their biased opinions and not the whole truth.

A good example today would be the Al Jezeera TV broadcasts regarding the USA, our intentions and our military in Iraq. Like you, they think they know what we teach and how we think but like you, they are on the outside looking in and are not aware of the truth on the inside.

Your statement could be correct if you included a member of the Godhead within your comment.

It should read; The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how the Holy Ghost interacts and makes one "feels" about it”. Just like our two travelers mentioned in: Luke 24:32 “And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Your opinion seems to imply that LDS encourage a self-willed or self-imposed feeling when in reality it is an effect proven to be caused by the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You would have as much success convincing those today who have received that same confirmation from the Holy Ghost, as you would have convincing our two travelers that the effect of the “did not our heart burn within us,” was imaginary or self willed. I know you would try and that is what I mean and why I say you are on the outside looking in, at the travelers and at LDS.

Trout:
The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

LDSTrue:
Does your scientifically applied expert scripture exegesis really have you conclude that you should fear God, as in be terrified of Him. Not respect, love and honor but “fear”? There must be several ways to interpret or define the word “fear” used in this scripture quote? Hopefully your fear toward God our Father includes love for Him. God is love!

Quote Trout: Where in LDS teachings are we to fear Satan as in, "be terrified" of him? In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.

Where did you get the impression LDS teaches we should be terrified of satan? On guard yes, on the lookout certainly, constantly aware of his potential to harm of course. It is hard for a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in good standing to be terrified of satan but we keep the watch considering all the new ways he has to influence our families today with the same old sins.

I said nothing about satan in my quote above. I said God is love and that our “fear” of God should include confessing and showing our love to and for Him.

However, Jesus spent some time in His ministry casting out evil spirits from sick, tormented and tortured people. I guess you could thank your lucky stars you weren’t one of the ones possessed. If so, maybe then you too would understand my warnings. You make it sound like it could be enjoyable to be possessed and thrashing around uncontrollably. Exorcism is a long-standing term that you must not be familiar with or understand.

Quote Trout: There is no mention of angry, pre-existent, pre-tabernacled humans out to, "get us" in either passage. And the passage in Revelation 12 doesn't seem to fit your timeline.

Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

Quote Trout: So you do think that Satan is smart, you just imagine him not using his intelligence.

No, I think satan is a lot of things and none of them are pleasant or include the term smart or intelligent. He has proven to be a cunning, sly, evil egotistic, prideful … etc. etc. etc. adversary so I try and not underestimate him. If we let our guard down it would be easy to mistakenly “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan” not fear him.

Quote Trout: And that situation seems to be born out of your imagination, as the two passages you cite say nothing of this face off you have asserted. Nor do the passages speak of a pre-mortal existence, nor the idea that we were given some kind of a choice, nor the idea that we were participants in some kind of a war.

Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

Quote Trout: Also, a face off doesn't seem to describe the events surrounding the fall of Satan as I understand it in LDS thought, perhaps you could expound.

What do you understand LDS thought to be, perhaps you could expound.

Quote Trout: Do you think Satan is a coward? You said that he wasn't a coward earlier in a prior post, when you said he engaged in a face off with God.

Wrong, I said he was stupid. If you think what satan did represents bravery instead of stupidity then you need a refresher course on bravery. Ask a loyal Marine for starters.

Quote Trout: When you say that Satan will, "kick me" what exactly do you mean? Have you been kicked by Satan?

Satan wants to do worse than that to you if he can get you to rot in HE double-Hockey-sticks with him. I must admit I have been tempted at time to do wrong but then I CTR (chose the right).

Quote Trout: When you say that Satan will, "stick it to you" what exactly do you mean, LDSTrue? Has Satan stuck it to you?

You could say he has tried several times. I am a fast moving target and have honed my bob and weave and duck and cover. Our Prophet has taken the sting out of his "stuck" by helping us avoid the places where unsuspecting people usually get stuck by him. Thank God for our Prophet!!!

Quote Trout: The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how one "feels" about it,

LDSTrue quoting Trout: “And that situation seems to be born out of your imagination,”!!!

Thank you for the visit Trout, I hope I will be seeing you again soon!

Always LDSTrue!

PS: Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

It works every time it is patiently and sincerely tried with real intent!

Trout

October 12th 2005, 02:00 PM

Trout:
Thank you for providing your opinions. Some of your opinions seem to be outside the pale of LDS, "orthodoxy". Perhaps you'd take the time to clarify some of the claims you've made.

LDSTrue:
Trout, are you claiming to be orthodox LDS? You must first know and be in the inside of pale before you accuse one of being on the outside. I always thought you were on the outside of LDS looking in.

I don't have to be LDS to know what correct LDS doctrine is, right LDSTrue?

Trout:
How did you come to the opinion that, "host of heaven" means pre-tabernacled spirits?

LDSTrue:
How did you come to the opinion that “host of heaven” doesn’t mean pre-tabernacled spirits? Prove me wrong if you can, I'm all ears.

You have posited a truth claim, with that, you bear the responsibility to demonstrate that what you have claimed corresponds with reality. You have chosen two prooftexts to verify your assertions, neither of which serve to demonstrate that your claim is correct You are now attempting to shift the burden of proof to me, when in fact it is you who needs to back up the claim that has been made.

Trout:
In your opinion, how does this hierarchy work? In your opinion, what would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

LDSTrue:
What would make you think he doesn’t?

Trout:
Again, the burden to demonstrate the truthfulness of that claim rests upon you.

LDSTrue:
I can only assume Heaven is organized so it would stand to reason that while in Heaven satan was an astute student and learned how to organize.

You have also claimed that Satan isn't, "smart", so your claim here is incoherent, or at the very least it seems contradictory to the claims you've already asserted.

LDSTrue:
He organized a third of the “host of heaven” and marched them out.

Can you provide a prooftext for that claim, LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
If all who have ever came to Earth or will come to Earth represent the two-thirds that remained then the one third that left would be a considerable amount. Quite logically Billions!

On the contrary, it's not logical at all to assume that the premise of your claim is correct, until you can establish the basis for your argument, it is logical to assume that you claim is unfounded.

LDSTrue:
Seems to me like he has a tremendous advantage. That’s right, the evil invisible one attacking us with 7,000 years of evil experience and billions of agents has the clear and distinct advantage. Did I say HELP ME JESUS!!!

Trout:
7000 years? How did you come to that opinion?

LDSTrue:
Why not 7,000 years?

So you arrived at that figure completely arbitrarily?

LDSTrue:
Ok then, 7 Biblical days if that makes you feel better.

A Biblical day seems to be a twenty four hour period.

LDSTrue:
Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man.

Trout:
Can you provide a prooftext for that idea?

LDSTrue
Can you provide a proof-text against that idea?

Again, you have posited a truth claim, you bear the responsibility to demonstrate it's truthfulness.

LDSTrue:
Here is a proof-text that Jesus can.

“And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

That scripture has nothing to do with the claim made by the LDS church, if the verse in question would have said something like, "Then Jesus asked them to pray about the Bible to see if it was true, and if true, they will get a burning bosom. And it came to pass that they received a burning bosom". Then you would probably have a point, but since it doesn't say anything like that, you do not have a point.

Do you have evidence to believe that the early evangelists told people to pray to receive a burning bosom?

LDSTrue:
You provide a proof-text that satan has or can.

Again, you have made a truth claim, you have claimed, "Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man." In doing so, the burden of demonstrating the truthfulness of the claim rests with you.

Trout:
The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how one "feels" about it”,

LDSTrue:
Trout, I don’t remember seeing you in any Priesthood or General Conference sessions. Your name is not on the membership rolls of the Church and yet you think you know orthodox LDS and have the inside track on what we teach. Why and how is that?

I have been a student of Mormonism for many years. If I say anything claiming that it is taught by the LDS church and you have knowledge that I am incorrect, please don't hesitate to tell me, I will be happy to correct my wrong notions.

LDSTrue:
Your statement could be correct if you included a member of the Godhead within your comment.

It should read; The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how the Holy Ghost interacts and makes one "feels" about it”.

Your opinion seems to imply that LDS encourage a self-willed or self-imposed feeling when in reality it is an effect proven to be caused by the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Not at all, it seems that you are using the very system that you condemned. It's your idea that people who live by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it" are wrong in doing so. That appears to be hypocritical.

Trout:
The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

LDSTrue:
Does your scientifically applied expert scripture exegesis really have you conclude that you should fear God, as in be terrified of Him. Not respect, love and honor but “fear”? There must be several ways to interpret or define the word “fear” used in this scripture quote? Hopefully your fear toward God our Father includes love for Him. God is love!

Trout: Where in LDS teachings are we to fear Satan as in, "be terrified" of him? In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.

LDSTrue:
Where did you get the impression LDS teaches we should be terrified of satan?

I don't believe the LDS church teaches their members to fear Satan, this seems to be one of the areas where you are outside the pale. Or at least lacking consistency.

You said:

LDSTrue:
Are you frightened now? I have been and still am!

LDSTrue:
If that doesn’t frighten you then you are without proper understanding of our adversary and their potential for evil and personal harm

LDSTrue:
Satan and his billions of invisible enemy agents here on earth as mad as all Hell and charging at you day and night. Scary thought!

LDSTrue:
you have a powerful invisible enemy coming at you hell bent on seeking revenge and determined to get their pound of retribution? If the sound of that doesn’t cause cold chills to run throughout your body then you are not properly appraised of exactly what their plan is for you and just how efficient and evil they really are.

You seem to have been incorrect in the above statements, as I read your qualifying statement below:

LDSTrue:
On guard yes, on the lookout certainly, constantly aware of his potential to harm of course. It is hard for a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in good standing to be terrified of satan but we keep the watch considering all the new ways he has to influence our families today with the same old sins.

LDSTrue:
I said nothing about satan in my quote above. I said God is love and that our “fear” of God should include confessing and showing our love to and for Him.

Yes, you did. My comment, "The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else." was in response to your comment:

LDSTrue:
If that doesn’t frighten you then you are without proper understanding of our adversary and their potential for evil and personal harm. Granted, the Bible calls him a serpent but nowhere does it stipulate that he will, or that he is required to, rattle before he strikes. There is only one cure for his venomous bite a few there be that find it. Please help us Jesus!

Perhaps you just forgot?

LDSTrue:
You make it sound like it could be enjoyable to be possessed and thrashing around uncontrollably.

What have I said to give you that impression, I think you are incorrect.

LDSTrue:
Exorcism is a long-standing term that you must not be familiar with or understand.

What have I said to leave you with that impression? I believe you are incorrect.

Trout:
There is no mention of angry, pre-existent, pre-tabernacled humans out to, "get us" in either passage. And the passage in Revelation 12 doesn't seem to fit your timeline.

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

There is no mention of those concepts in that verse either, perhaps you are incorrect in your understanding of what you've said.

Trout:
So you do think that Satan is smart, you just imagine him not using his intelligence.

LDSTrue:
No, I think satan is a lot of things and none of them are pleasant or include the term smart or intelligent. He has proven to be a cunning, sly, evil egotistic, prideful … etc. etc. etc. adversary so I try and not underestimate him.

Both Jethreuel and John Mormon have posited the claim that Satan is very intelligent, and from those attributes you claim Satan has above, I think they are correct.

LDSTrue:
If we let our guard down it would be easy to mistakenly “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan” not fear him.

Again, you seem to lack consistency, you have claimed that we should fear Satan, and you claim that we shouldn't fear Satan.

Why have you posited both concepts as truth?

Trout:
And that situation seems to be born out of your imagination, as the two passages you cite say nothing of this face off you have asserted. Nor do the passages speak of a pre-mortal existence, nor the idea that we were given some kind of a choice, nor the idea that we were participants in some kind of a war.

Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

Again, that verse doesn't serve to verify your claims. It says nothing of a war, or a pre-mortal existence. etc.

Trout:
Also, a face off doesn't seem to describe the events surrounding the fall of Satan as I understand it in LDS thought, perhaps you could expound.

LDSTrue:
What do you understand LDS thought to be, perhaps you could expound.

As I understand it, in LDS thought Satan presented a idea to God the Father outlining his redemtive plan for mankind. His plan was rejected.

Trout:
Do you think Satan is a coward? You said that he wasn't a coward earlier in a prior post, when you said he engaged in a face off with God.

LDSTrue:
Wrong, I said he was stupid. If you think what satan did represents bravery instead of stupidity then you need a refresher course on bravery. Ask a loyal Marine for starters.

You said:

LDSTrue:
You must agree that Lucifer thinks he has considerable power as he insisted on a face-off with our Father God. Please take a minute and try to imagine that. Lucifer thinking he can challenge Almighty God to a knockdown, drag-out confrontation assuming he will win.

From what you said above, you seem to imply that Satan is brave.

Trout:
When you say that Satan will, "kick me" what exactly do you mean? Have you been kicked by Satan?

LDSTrue:
Satan wants to do worse than that to you if he can get you to rot in HE double-Hockey-sticks with him. I must admit I have been tempted at time to do wrong but then I CTR (chose the right).

Trout:
When you say that Satan will, "stick it to you" what exactly do you mean, LDSTrue? Has Satan stuck it to you?

LDSTrue:
You could say he has tried several times. I am a fast moving target and have honed my bob and weave and duck and cover. Our Prophet has taken the sting out of his "stuck" by helping us avoid the places where unsuspecting people usually get stuck by him. Thank God for our Prophet!!!

Do you believe that you've had personal interaction with Satan himself?

LDSTrue:
Thank you for the visit Trout, I hope I will be seeing you again soon!

Always LDSTrue!

And thank you.

John Powell

October 12th 2005, 03:47 PM

POWELL:
I suggest that Jerome did not preserve "Heosphoros" in his Latin translation partly because of a question that future Christians might ask: Why didn't God's prophet realize that Venus in the morning was the same as Venus in the evening?

You see, Trout, the early Greeks (and everyone else of importance) thought that Venus seen in the morning was a different planet / God than Venus seen in the evening.

TROUT:
I didn't know that.

POWELL:
Did you know that ancient people believed that the sky was blue because it was water held up there by a transparent dome?

Surely you knew the ancients thought the Earth was flat and didn't move. That's why references in the Bible reflective of that mistaken view are pointed out by Bible critics and defended by apologists.

TROUT:
More recently, along with the Reformation, we also had the Copernican Revolution. During which theology received a real black eye, Calvin and Luther were both wrong in their defense of geocentricity. It was a much easier transition for theology as a whole to go from the flat earth theory to the Ptolemaic theory, than it was from Ptolemy to Copernicus, of course the Catholic church fought the transition right along side Wesley, Luther, Calvin etc. As well as most of science at the time. As I'm sure you are well aware of.

POWELL:
Yes.

TROUT:
The way I try to reconcile the whole thing is to think about the creation as general revelation, and the Bible as special revelation, when science seems to contradict the Bible, usually what is happening is that the interpreters of general revelation, (scientists) are correcting my wrong interpretation of special revelation.

But most of the specifics of that branch of apologetics are far beyond the scope of my knowledge.

POWELL:
I understand what you're saying even if I see things differently as an atheist.

POWELL:
Job 9:9.

The Brenton's LXX (presumably based on a very old Hebrew text) calls the celestial objects: "Pleias", "Hesperus", "Arcturus", and "the chambers of the south";

Recall that I claimed that Hesperus is the name the early Greeks gave to the planet Venus in the evening since they thought it was two different planets.

The Douay Rheims Vulgate (presumably based on an old Hebrew text, but one newer than the LXX) calls the objects "Arcturus", "Orion", "Hyades", and "the inner parts of the south."

The KJV (based on the more recent Masoretic text) calls the celestial objects "Arcturus," "Orion," "Pleiades," and "the chambers of the south".

It appears to me that some Hebrew scribe(s) between the time of the LXX and the Hebrew text used by Jerome changed Hesperus to Orion (presumably to avoid the embarrasing question concerning Hesperus). Perhaps Orion was chosen because Job had used that constellation elsewhere.

I don't know what Jerome was doing in using Hyades instead of Pleiades. Maybe he didn't know the difference between them since they are both star clusters in the same constellation (Taurus) and put Hyades instead of Pleiades by mistake.

TROUT:
I hadn't heard about the problem in that passage before, I'd better do some research.

POWELL:
I fear you'll find little that will help, but I'd be interested in what you find.

JOHN MORMON:
It is a popular Mormon saying (taken from 3 Ne 11:29) that "contention is of the Devil."

TROUT:
I've heard that statement many times, typically when an argument is being lost.

POWELL:
As long as the Mormon believes he's being persuasive then there's no feeling of stress. I guess when those feelings of stress arise (because the arguments are being resisted) then that's Satan, see?

TROUT:
Do you think that when the average LDS person uses that phrase (contention is of the Devil) he/she really believes that Satan is present, creating the contention?

Or do they mean to convey the notion that contention is one of the qualities of the Devil.

POWELL:
I don't know about others, but I associated positive religious discussion with the influence of the Holy Ghost and negative feelings with the influence of Satan. I believed that when I became stressed about the discussion (you might say when I was losing the debate) then that was the influence of Satan replacing the leaving of the Holy Ghost and served as a sign to me to change the discussion somehow to "get the spirit back" or terminate the discussion.

While training to be a missionary I was encouraged that when in the discussion it seemed like our investigators were coming to a feeling of agreement with our message to point out to them that it was the spirit of God confirming our message.

TROUT:
I understand what you are getting at now, there seems to be little way out. But, could the LDS apologist argue that the passage is figurative, as I've also heard offered. In fact I think it was Nibley who developed the symbolic concept of this passage.

He thought that Kolob might be a representation of Christ, not a literal throne upon which God sat at some specific address within the physical universe.

http://www.bibleman.net/Kolob_and_temples.htm

POWELL:
Of course. Anytime scripture seems to be wrong when taken literally then the die-hard believer can take them [it] to be figurative to avoid the problem. However, I see no good reason to think that Joseph didn't mean his readers to take those words literally except to avoid the problem that what he said was literally wrong which begs the question as to whether Joseph erred. It seems to me that Joseph thought he was describing the correct spin attributes of things like the Moon.

TROUT:
Maybe it was just phenomenological language? Just kidding, John. I'm practicing my weak (non-existent) defense of Biblical Cosmology.

Thanks again for your time and patience.

POWELL:
Cheers.

John Powell

LDSTrue

October 13th 2005, 04:25 PM

Hey Trout,

We meet again, (I hope)

Quote:
Trout:
Thank you for providing your opinions. Some of your opinions seem to be outside the pale of LDS, "orthodoxy". Perhaps you'd take the time to clarify some of the claims you've made.

LDSTrue:
Trout, are you claiming to be orthodox LDS? You must first know and be in the inside of pale before you accuse one of being on the outside. I always thought you were on the outside of LDS looking in.

Trout:
I don't have to be LDS to know what correct LDS doctrine is, right LDSTrue?

Trout, if you believed that LDS doctrine was correct you would have joined long ago. It is obvious that to know correct LDS doctrine you must be LDS. The anti’s do not believe LDS doctrine is correct and that is why they do and say the things they do in their unbelief.

I equate your comment to an Al Quaida member saying he doesn’t have to be an American living in the USA to know what correct American doctrine is. Can you picture that, here is this Al Quaida terrorist living in a dark cave in Afghanistan trying to tell the USA what is wrong with its doctrine. He should come out of his cave into the light, come to the USA, and do the things necessary to become a citizen first, right? It could easily change his opinion.

You do need to be an LDS to receive the heavenly gifts provided by the Priesthood that help and allow LDS to know and understand correct and true Gospel principals. One very special gift given to all LDS after baptism is the Gift of the Holy Ghost. That’s right, the “did not our heart burn within us” Holy Ghost, one and the same and He is a gift!

Think about it Trout, where would the original Apostles have been without the guidance, influence and revelation received from the Holy Ghost. It was true then and it is true today, without the Holy Ghost and revelation you are left with your own limited understanding foundering around with your own limited light to sort through all the confusion. That reminds me of a story … …you’ve probably heard it before.

Quote:
Trout:
How did you come to the opinion that, "host of heaven" means pre-tabernacled spirits?

LDSTrue:
How did you come to the opinion that “host of heaven” doesn’t mean pre-tabernacled spirits? Prove me wrong if you can, I'm all ears.

Quote Trout: You have posited a truth claim, with that, you bear the responsibility to demonstrate that what you have claimed corresponds with reality. You have chosen two prooftexts to verify your assertions, neither of which serve to demonstrate that your claim is correct You are now attempting to shift the burden of proof to me, when in fact it is you who needs to back up the claim that has been made.

Trout, all of a sudden you are demanding “prooftexts” and now you are insisting that my opinion is not my opinion but instead is a “truth claim”? Who imagined or made that up?

Insisting on “prooftexts” to my opinion and now claiming that I must substantiate what you call a “truth claim” with chapter and verse to a solicited belief must be some kind of Tweb tactic and the beginning of my Kangaroo Court. (Kangaroo court: An unfair trial in which the rights of the accused and precepts of justice are ignored and the outcome is usually known beforehand.).

No Trout, you asked for my opinion and I posted my opinionated beliefs. My belief is a composite of many years of living the Gospel, scripture study, in and out of class, situations if have witnessed and experienced, combined with personal revelation received from the Holy Ghost among other factors.

Ones own opinions and beliefs are not demonstrated in one sentence or paragraph, instead they are a compilation of complex events, factors, and impressions.

If you want chapter and verse you have it, it’s called the scriptures. If you expect me to point to a particular line or paragraph it is not going to happen. Maybe in your Kangaroo Court you can get away with it but not here and not now with me. Besides, I don’t sense real intent in your questions, more like a waiting to ridicule spirit.

Quote:
Trout:
In your opinion, how does this hierarchy work? In your opinion, what would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

LDSTrue:
What would make you think he doesn’t?

Trout:
Again, the burden to demonstrate the truthfulness of that claim rests upon you.
Wrong! You asked for my opinion and now I’m asking for yours. What is your belief or understanding? Don’t worry Trout, I won’t ask your opinion and then insist that you prove your opinion by demanding exact scripture and verse. With me you can feel free to expound on the subject and state your beliefs without worry of attack by me. I realize opinions and beliefs are complicated and personal and should be respected.
Quote:
LDSTrue:
I can only assume Heaven is organized so it would stand to reason that while in Heaven satan was an astute student and learned how to organize.

You have also claimed that Satan isn't, "smart", so your claim here is incoherent, or at the very least it seems contradictory to the claims you've already asserted.

No Trout, what is incoherent is your defense of Satan. Who’s side on you on anyway? This protracted defense of satan you’ve got is going to stop here and now! Here I am warning you to be on guard against him as he wants to destroy you and your family and you go and say we shouldn’t fear him! I imply he is a louse for trying to get away with a very harmful plan and belittle Father and you imply he is intelligent and smart and did nothing wrong. You had better stop right here and realign your Christian allegiance. It appears that you would side with the devil before you will agree with an LDS. LDS teaches that satan and the spirits that followed him are up to no good and are out to harm humanity in the face of Father and Jesus and here you are arguing with me implying that I could be wrong. I’m sure you want to reconsider you defense of SATAN!!! Trout. This is one time you definitely want to error on the side of caution and your errors in judgments are glaringly wrong headed and liberal in the extreme. See how subtle he can be Trout; he can get a good intelligent Christian like you to come to his defense.
Quote:
LDSTrue:
If all who have ever came to Earth or will come to Earth represent the two-thirds that remained then the one third that left would be a considerable amount. Quite logically Billions!

Quote Trout: On the contrary, it's not logical at all to assume that the premise of your claim is correct, until you can establish the basis for your argument, it is logical to assume that you claim is unfounded.

An unfounded claim? You want basis do you! You accuse me of an of an unfounded claim and assume it is illogical to state that if one third leaves then two thirds are left.

Since when can you take one third away and not leave two thirds behind? Or to put it in another way 3-1=2. If there are three parts and you takeaway one part that leaves you with two parts. Now if the whole or total of all 3 parts equals 60 billion and you take away one third, you would take away 20 billion and have 40 billion left, right!. 20X 3=60. These are arbitrary figures, I confess, but you must by now get my point don’t you? Theoretically, you would have 40 billion in heaven and 20 billion cast out of heaven.

Problem solved with simple math logic on a solid foundation without assumptions. LDSTrue has revealed the truth to Trout once again; shout it from the rooftops over hill and dale.

Quote:

LDSTrue:
Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man.

Trout:
Can you provide a prooftext for that idea?

LDSTrue
Can you provide a proof-text against that idea?

Quote Trout: Again, you have posited a truth claim; you bear the responsibility to demonstrate its truthfulness.

Wrong Trout, if you think my statement is false then you get busy demonstrating that it is false. Otherwise it remains TRUE!

I have already proved a member of the Godhead was involved in the “burning in the bosom” and I can prove satan is not a member of the Godhead ergo; satan cannot produce the “burning in the bosom” as it comes from a member of the Godhead.

It stands on its own and is a proven fact that only Godhead members can initiate that effect in man unless you want to contend with the Bible. Prove otherwise without coming to the defense of satan himself. Not a pretty picture for a Christian to be caught defending Satan and attributing true Godhood powers to him! You may want to slow down here and take a second look in your Bible before you become guilty of doing the unthinkable for a Christian.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Here is a proof-text that Jesus can.
Luke 24:32
“And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Quote Trout: “That scripture has nothing to do with the claim made by the LDS church,”

Trout, allow me to borrow one of your own demanding statements here and request; “you have posited a truth claim, you bear the responsibility to demonstrate its truthfulness.”

I ask Trout, what claim and exactly where and when??? This is where prooftext of claim enters in.

Quote Trout: Do you have evidence to believe that the early evangelists told people to pray to receive a burning bosom?

Are you trying to insinuate that LDS asks its investigators to pray for a burning in the bosom experience? I thought you said you were a student of LDS and have studied it for years and yet you come up with that misnomer. Remember the guy in the cave in Afghanistan, you are beginning to sound more and more like him.

We request that they pray to know the truth then it is up to Jesus determine their true intent and grant them the answer to their prayer through the Holy Ghost. Do you see your mistake? We pray to know if it is true and then the Godhead determines how, where and when conformation is given. No one is instructed to pray for a “burning in the bosom” experience as you incorrectly guess or deliberately insinuate.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
You provide a proof-text that satan has or can.

Quote Trout: Again, you have made a truth claim, you have claimed, "Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man." In doing so, the burden of demonstrating the truthfulness of the claim rests with you.

Quote:
Trout:
The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how one "feels" about it”,

LDSTrue:
Trout, I don’t remember seeing you in any Priesthood or General Conference sessions. Your name is not on the membership rolls of the Church and yet you think you know orthodox LDS and have the inside track on what we teach. Why and how is that?

Quote Trout: I have been a student of Mormonism for many years. If I say anything claiming that it is taught by the LDS church and you have knowledge that I am incorrect, please don't hesitate to tell me, I will be happy to correct my wrong notions.

Thank you, I will, as it is a wrong notion for you to believe you know more about a religion when you are an outsider looking in than someone that has been immersed in it longer than you have been a student.

You are obviously still a student on the outside looking in and I have graduated from within. I tell you it is true after being immersed in it longer than you have been a student standing on the outside looking in. Yet the student is defiant and insists the one immersed is wrong, blinded and false. In Law that is what is called the tail trying to wag the dog, and this old dog wont get wagged by the tail, ever!

If you will fix that notion then everything else will fall into place for you. I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t know it to be true!!! I have the Holy Ghost in my corner and he has won this battle several times over so watch what you say!

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Your statement could be correct if you included a member of the Godhead within your comment.

It should read; The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how the Holy Ghost interacts and makes one "feels" about it”.

Your opinion seems to imply that LDS encourage a self-willed or self-imposed feeling when in reality it is an effect proven to be caused by the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Quote Trout: Not at all, it seems that you are using the very system that you condemned. It's your idea that people who live by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it" are wrong in doing so. That appears to be hypocritical.

Here you are again trying to blend an experience brought about by a member of the Godhood with one of satan's favorite notions. Once again you are attempting to confuse the issue, or, the issue confuses you?

“If it feels good, do it” is a very liberal saying that became popular in the 60’s and 70’s with the sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll, lets all get high and live in a commune generation. You know, the one Bill Clinton is so fond of …, and you know it!

It could appear to one that you have chosen to blatantly disregard the sound council you were given. For you to deliberately try with forethought, after you have been forewarned, to confuse the two experiences and try and meld them together, one being satanic and the other Godly, is unwise considering the consequences and counsel given. Yet another clear indication that you are confused as to where your allegiance should be directed and the direction you should be heading.

Quote:
Trout:
The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

LDSTrue:
Does your scientifically applied expert scripture exegesis really has you conclude that you should fear God, as in be terrified of Him. Not respect, love and honor but “fear”? There must be several ways to interpret or define the word “fear” used in this scripture quote? Hopefully your fear toward God our Father includes love for Him. God is love!

QuoteTrout: Where in LDS teachings are we to fear Satan as in, "be terrified" of him? In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.

LDSTrue:
Where did you get the impression LDS teaches we should be terrified of satan?

Quote Trout: I don't believe the LDS church teaches their members to fear Satan, this seems to be one of the areas where you are outside the pale. Or at least lacking consistency.

Only one on the outside looking in could make a statement like that! Besides, aren’t there degrees of fear that could be taught before you get all the way to “terrified”? Certainly, you must have heard that we warn our members to be on the lookout for him, perhaps you were sick that day and the student miss his class?

Quote Trout: You seem to have been incorrect in the above statements, as I read your qualifying statement below:
Quote:

LDSTrue:
On guard yes, on the lookout certainly, constantly aware of his potential to harm of course. It is hard for a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in good standing to be terrified of satan but we keep the watch considering all the new ways he has to influence our families today with the same old sins.

Trout, it appears I have demonstrated the degrees of fear we are taught (the day you missed class) above without getting to “terrified.” Actually, some say, “terrified” enters in when you discover you have not heeded the warnings and discover you have been influenced by satan and that realization strikes you dead aim in, and at, the heart.

Some say that is what all the torment and weeping and wailing is about, the fact that rescue attempts were thwarted, ignored and mocked. I am now inclined to agree with the some of it all.

I counsell you from a historic and solid foundation of Apostles and Prophets with the Priesthood of God and you stand there on the sand hill arguing with me trying to defend your own non-biblical interpretation with hypostatic union mysteries (not my word) and concepts. The truth will win in the end and hopefully before your end!

Quote:
Trout:
There is no mention of angry, pre-existent, pre-tabernacled humans out to, "get us" in either passage. And the passage in Revelation 12 doesn't seem to fit your timeline.
Matt. 7:7-8 7
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

I have obviously asked and it was given, sought and found, knocked and it was opened. I asked and the Holy Ghost insured I received, I sought and Jesus made sure I found and when I knocked Heaven was opened.

The problem with most is that when told what to ask and where to seek and which door to knock on they argue and refuse so they are unavoidably left out in a dark in cave in Afghanistan assuming they know it all and what’s best.

Quote Trout: There is no mention of those concepts in that verse either, perhaps you are incorrect in your understanding of what you've said.

Quote:
Trout:
So you do think that Satan is smart, you just imagine him not using his intelligence.

LDSTrue:
No, I think satan is a lot of things and none of them are pleasant or include the term smart or intelligent. He has proven to be a cunning, sly, evil egotistic, prideful … etc. etc. etc. adversary so I try and not underestimate him.

Quote Trout: Both Jethreuel and John Mormon have posited the claim that Satan is very intelligent, and from those attributes you claim Satan has above, I think they are correct.

If you think satan is very intelligent and also believe he is an enemy to God the Father and Jesus and you are a Christian then you Trout have an intelligent enemy that you do not fear and are guilty of advising others not to fear so they can prepare for his attacks.

Not only do you not fear him but also you teach me that it would be a mistake to fear an intelligent foe of Father and Jesus. Add to that the fact that not only is he intelligent in your opinion the fact that he is invisible and armed with a third of the host of heaven in tow and you have something substantial to worry about.

Are you now beginning to get he picture? Is your opinion beginning to meld with mine? If you take huge disappointment combined with cast out of heaven and then add the catalyst of evil anger and what do you get!!!

I’ll give you three guesses and I’ll bet none of them include nice, considerate, loving, compassionate or friendly. Fear him in some degree Trout and guard yourself against him or you will be his next victim.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
If we let our guard down it would be easy to mistakenly “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan” not fear him.

Quote Trout: Again, you seem to lack consistency, you have claimed that we should fear Satan, and you claim that we shouldn't fear Satan.

Why have you posited both concepts as truth?[QUOTE]

I didn’t, I posted my fear him combined with your statement”; Quote Trout: “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.”

And you are correct when you say your quote mixed in with mine lacks consistency. That is the point of the problem, I discerned with your statement that one would be incorrect to fear satan.

Once again we have an intelligent Christian defending satan and pleading his case. Once again we see just how sly satan is, he can even get Trout to come to his defense and have him assist in deception.

Quote:
Trout:
And that situation seems to be born out of your imagination, as the two passages you cite say nothing of this face off you have asserted. Nor do the passages speak of a pre-mortal existence, nor the idea that we were given some kind of a choice, nor the idea that we were participants in some kind of a war.
Scripture Verse:
Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

Trout, I have obviously asked and it was given, sought and found, knocked and it was opened. I asked and the Holy Ghost insured I received, I sought and Jesus made sure I found and when I knocked Heaven was opened.

[QUOTE]Quote Trout: Again, that verse doesn't serve to verify your claims. It says nothing of a war, or a pre-mortal existence. etc.

The problem with most is that when told what to ask and where to seek and which door to knock on they argue and refuse so they are unavoidably left out in a dark in cave in Afghanistan assuming they know it all and what’s best.

Quote:
Trout:
Also, a face off doesn't seem to describe the events surrounding the fall of Satan as I understand it in LDS thought, perhaps you could expound.

LDSTrue:
What do you understand LDS thought to be, perhaps you could expound.

Quote Trout: As I understand it, in LDS thought Satan presented a idea to God the Father outlining his redemptive plan for mankind. His plan was rejected.

Trout, can you give us a clue as to why his plan was rejected? Exactly what was his plan? Was it a good idea? Was it a flawless plan or did it contain offense to Almighty God from the start?

You make it sound as if his plan contained an innocent mistake on his part instead of the deliberate offense to God our Father that it was. That is not LDS thought and once again a false impression of one student on the outside looking in.A clear example of a good Christian coming to the defense of satan!

Thank you for this opportunity Trout. I hope I have helped increase the knowledge of the LDS student in some small way.

As Always, LDSTrue!

roddmann

October 13th 2005, 04:38 PM

Wow. This is incredible fiction. If it wasn't so dangerously and factually incorrect it would be rather good fodder for a movie. Personal beliefs, including my own, are generally misguided. Take any book older than about 10 years and you will quickly conclude the author suffered from his or her lack of enlightened knowledge.

Stick with the Holy Scriptures. Don't build entire doctrines on subjects the Bible only briefly discusses. The Book is about Jesus, He said so. You can read all 66 books written by 40+ men inspired by the very breath of God. I have no fear that you may conclude anything anywhere near as crazy as what I have read below. That rubbish comes from other men, false prophets, many who appeared in the last one to two hundred years or so.

Accept the free gift of God - salvation - which is in the Son - and you will never have to worry about how well you understand Lucifer, Son of the Morning, Satan, that Serpent, Murderer, Liar, the one who weakens nations; for you will spend eternity in a different place.

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

~r

Before I give my personal beliefs regarding Satan, let me provide a few Church sites about him.

Found in the Bible Dictionary (http://scriptures.lds.org/bdd/devil)
Found in a book I enjoy called True to the Faith. (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm)
Found at Mormon.org (http://mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-1371-16,00.html)

Now that I have given what the Church teaches about Satan, I will now give my personal beliefs regarding him.

1. No Satan is not a god, nor will he ever become one in the near eternities. He is a spiritual being, and I am pretty sure he is not omni-anything. I don't think he is omni-present or omniscient but he does have a number of fallen angels serving him equal to half of all mankind that has lived on the earth, is living on the earth right now, and will ever live on the earth, which does make for a decent enough taskforce for spreading his influence throughout the earth. As for his powers (and those of his followers,) I believe that he is only capable of inciting people to wickedness (temptation,) and some weak counterfeits of God's power (i.e. he can appear as an angel of light, but he doesn't have any of the Glory that God and His angels have.) If Satan commanded that a person die of something, and a Priesthood (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) holder using God's authority command that the person live, the person would live.

2. He was a spirit son of God, as we all are spirit sons and daughters of God. When God taught us the Plan of Salvation (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) Satan, or Lucifer as he was then known, rebelled and came up with a different plan, a plan that he claimed would save everyone, but at the loss of our Agency (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) , and also required that God give up His throne to him. This led to the War in Heaven (which I personally believe to be a war of words and beliefs rather than a war of weapons and killing.) Satan lost, upon which he and all those who supported him were cast out of Heaven. I guess you could say there was a time when he didn't exist as Satan, before he rebelled against God. If you are asking whether there was a time that the spirit now know as Satan did not exist, that is a complicated answer best left to another thread, another time.

3. Yes, he was a son of God, just as we all are spirit children of God. I don't know if he has access to God's throne, as he was cast out from Heaven. There are those who say that he does have access, based on Job 1, and there are those who say no, based on the scripture that a wicked person would be more comfortable in Hell than with God. Even though Satan is a spirit brother of Christ, I think that Satan hates Him with all his being, as Christ is crucial to the Plan of Salvation, which Satan opposed, and Christ may also be a reminder of what Satan has lost. I state this as Satan is always doing everything he can to destroy the Christ's Church. There is a saying that I heard once, "While good will not willingly tolerate the presence of evil, evil cannot tolerate the presence of good." Every time wicked people meet good people, the person who is wicked is more aware of his wickedness.

4. I believe he is indirectly responsible for most of those mentioned in the Question. I say this, as I don't believe he sends natural disasters, as I believe natural disasters to be one of God's ways of chastening His people for wickedness, or one of His ways to teach us Humility. If someone is in poverty through no act of their own, (such as being laid off during a depression or something like that) I believe it to be another one of God's ways to teach people humility. If someone is in poverty because of their actions, (such as someone becoming a drug addict and wasting all their money) I believe it to be just a natural consequence of mis-using their agency. Note that in cases where the problem is because of the actions of the people, Satan is only responsible for providing the temptation, but we are even more responsible because of our choosing to follow that temptation. He has the power to tempt us to do evil things, but we have the power to resist temptation if we so choose. Many people however mistakenly think they will have a better time if they go along with the temptation, hence much of the wickedness found.

5. He will continue to have the power to tempt mankind until the Millenium (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm) when he will be bound for a 1000 years. After the 1000 years are up he will be loosed for a small season (I don't have any idea how long that will be, the scriptures are kind of vague on that amount of time.) After the season, there will be one final battle, where Satan and his followers will fight against Michael (Adam) and his angels, a battle that Satan will lose, and he and his followers will be cast into Outer Darkness (read: into "the roasting fires of hell" for sake of simplification) forever. I don't think he has a chance at redemption, because when a person rebels against God, in the presence of God, I think they are so hardened of heart to reject even the thought of repentance. I think the author of Paradise Lost had a correct appraisal of Satan's attitude when the author said that Satan "would rather rule over Hell than serve in Heaven." And even if he does have a change of heart, he would still have all those sins that he encouraged people to do to repent of.

I hope this answers your questions.

May God be with you.

Trout

October 14th 2005, 01:09 PM

Trout:
I don't have to be LDS to know what correct LDS doctrine is, right LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
Trout, if you believed that LDS doctrine was correct you would have joined long ago. It is obvious that to know correct LDS doctrine you must be LDS.

You are incorrect, I don't have to be a member of a certain belief system to be familiar with what that system teaches.

Example:

Someone tells me, "The LDS church teaches that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is a true prophet of the LDS church" I know that the person trying to tell me such a thing is in error.

Trout:
How did you come to the opinion that, "host of heaven" means pre-tabernacled spirits?

LDSTrue:
How did you come to the opinion that “host of heaven” doesn’t mean pre-tabernacled spirits? Prove me wrong if you can, I'm all ears.

Trout:
You have posited a truth claim, with that, you bear the responsibility to demonstrate that what you have claimed corresponds with reality. You have chosen two prooftexts to verify your assertions, neither of which serve to demonstrate that your claim is correct You are now attempting to shift the burden of proof to me, when in fact it is you who needs to back up the claim that has been made.

LDSTrue:
Trout, all of a sudden you are demanding “prooftexts” and now you are insisting that my opinion is not my opinion but instead is a “truth claim”? Who imagined or made that up?

Perhaps you didn't carefully read the dialogue up to this point; I asked, "How did you come to the opinion that . . . ?" To which you replied, "Prove me wrong . . ." It was you who were demanding proof from me, not vice versa. I simply asked you to expand on your opinion.

LDSTrue:
Insisting on “prooftexts” to my opinion and now claiming that I must substantiate what you call a “truth claim” with chapter and verse to a solicited belief must be some kind of Tweb tactic and the beginning of my Kangaroo Court. (Kangaroo court: An unfair trial in which the rights of the accused and precepts of justice are ignored and the outcome is usually known beforehand.).

And perhaps you'll re-think that statement now that you realize who has asked for proof?

LDSTrue:
Ones own opinions and beliefs are not demonstrated in one sentence or paragraph, instead they are a compilation of complex events, factors, and impressions.

I would agree with you sometimes, but not all opinions held by an individual are, "complex".

LDSTrue:
If you want chapter and verse you have it, it’s called the scriptures.

I believe that you've failed to demonstrate that the Bible verifies all of the statements you've made about Satan.

LDSTrue:
If you expect me to point to a particular line or paragraph it is not going to happen.

I understand your frustration, I think a lot of what people believe about spiritual things is based in the traditions of men, it's hard to find Biblical precedent for everything one holds as truth. But perhaps if there are no Biblical grounds to hold to a certain belief, it might be time to re-think it?

Trout:
In your opinion, how does this hierarchy work? In your opinion, what would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

LDSTrue:
What would make you think he doesn’t?

Trout:
Again, the burden to demonstrate the truthfulness of that claim rests upon you.

LDSTrue:
Wrong! You asked for my opinion and now I’m asking for yours.

How am I wrong, LDSTrue? I asked your opinion of this hierarchy.

LDSTrue:
What is your belief or understanding? Don’t worry Trout, I won’t ask your opinion and then insist that you prove your opinion by demanding exact scripture and verse. With me you can feel free to expound on the subject and state your beliefs without worry of attack by me. I realize opinions and beliefs are complicated and personal and should be respected.

Feel free to start another thread and please ask me any questions about my doctrinal holdings you'd like to. If you are going to ask what I believe about Satan, the Theology 201 forum would be a good place. Also, feel free to scrutinize my beliefs to any degree you'd like, if what I believe is true then it should be able to stand the test.

LDSTrue:
I can only assume Heaven is organized so it would stand to reason that while in Heaven satan was an astute student and learned how to organize.

Trout:
You have also claimed that Satan isn't, "smart", so your claim here is incoherent, or at the very least it seems contradictory to the claims you've already asserted.

LDSTrue:
No Trout, what is incoherent is your defense of Satan.

You are incorrect, I haven't defended Satan. Please demonstrate that I have.

What I have done is asked you to explain your opinions about him a little further.

Let me make it easier:

Is Satan smart?

1) Yes.

2) No.

3) I don't know.

LDSTrue:
Who’s side on[sic] you on anyway? This protracted defense of satan you’ve got is going to stop here and now! Here I am warning you to be on guard against him as he wants to destroy you and your family and you go and say we shouldn’t fear him!

Actually, it wasn't me who said that we shouldn't fear Satan, God tells me in His word to fear Him and Him alone, if I were to fear Satan it would be sinful.

LDSTrue:
If all who have ever came to Earth or will come to Earth represent the two-thirds that remained then the one third that left would be a considerable amount. Quite logically Billions!

Trout:
On the contrary, it's not logical at all to assume that the premise of your claim is correct, until you can establish the basis for your argument, it is logical to assume that you claim is unfounded.

LDSTrue:
An unfounded claim? You want basis do you! You accuse me of an of an unfounded claim and assume it is illogical to state that if one third leaves then two thirds are left.

The problem isn't with your math, the problem is that you haven't established the basis for your math. You haven't demonstrated that there are billions of enspirited, pre-tabernacled intelligences, you have simply asserted it.

So far you have demonstrated that there are zero spirits, and it's hard to add, subtract, multiply or divide using only zero, right LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man.

Trout:
Again, you have posited a truth claim; you bear the responsibility to demonstrate its truthfulness.

LDSTrue:
Wrong Trout, if you think my statement is false then you get busy demonstrating that it is false. Otherwise it remains TRUE!.

That is a truly ridiculous statement; I can hardly believe that it was penned by an adult.

LDSTrue:
I have already proved a member of the Godhead was involved in the “burning in the bosom” and I can prove satan is not a member of the Godhead ergo; satan cannot produce the “burning in the bosom” as it comes from a member of the Godhead.

You argument is fallacious, it goes as follows:

1) God can make a bosom burn.

2) Satan is not God

Therefore:

3) Satan can't make a bosom burn.

Granted 1 and 2 are true, 3 doesn't follow necessarily.

LDSTrue:
It stands on its own and is a proven fact that only Godhead members can initiate that effect in man unless you want to contend with the Bible.

Trout:
Can you demonstrate using the Bible that what you've said above is true? You have made another bald assertion, you haven't proven that fact to be true.

LDSTrue:
Prove otherwise without coming to the defense of satan himself. Not a pretty picture for a Christian to be caught defending Satan and attributing true Godhood powers to him! You may want to slow down here and take a second look in your Bible before you become guilty of doing the unthinkable for a Christian.

Ether 15:19 says that Satan has full power over the hearts of people:

Ether 15:19 But behold, the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and Satan had full power over the hearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle.

So it appears that you are incorrect, according to Mormon scriptures, Satan has "full power" over the hearts of men, full power would seem to include the ability to make a bosom burn, right LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
Here is a proof-text that Jesus can.

Luke 24:32
“And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Trout:
“That scripture has nothing to do with the claim made by the LDS church,”

LDSTrue:
Trout, allow me to borrow one of your own demanding statements here and request; “you have posited a truth claim, you bear the responsibility to demonstrate its truthfulness.”

I ask Trout, what claim and exactly where and when??? This is where prooftext of claim enters in.

I'd be happy to. The LDS church claims that one way of knowing truth is to follow the example of D & C 9:8:

D & C 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

When Jesus opened the scriptures, there was no asking, no praying, just hearts burning. There is no correlation between the passage in Luke and the truth detector bosom burning spoken of in D & C 9.

Trout:
Do you have evidence to believe that the early evangelists told people to pray to receive a burning bosom?

LDSTrue:
Are you trying to insinuate that LDS asks its investigators to pray for a burning in the bosom experience? I thought you said you were a student of LDS and have studied it for years and yet you come up with that misnomer. Remember the guy in the cave in Afghanistan, you are beginning to sound more and more like him.

We request that they pray to know the truth then it is up to Jesus determine their true intent and grant them the answer to their prayer through the Holy Ghost. Do you see your mistake? We pray to know if it is true and then the Godhead determines how, where and when conformation is given. No one is instructed to pray for a “burning in the bosom” experience as you incorrectly guess or deliberately insinuate.

You seem to be oblivious to your own scripture, LDSTrue:

D & C 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

And I have been asked hundreds of times to pray to receive a burning bosom by many a well-intentioned LDS person.

Perhaps this is another area where your beliefs don't square with orthodox LDS beliefs?

Trout:
The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how one "feels" about it”,

LDSTrue:
Trout, I don’t remember seeing you in any Priesthood or General Conference sessions. Your name is not on the membership rolls of the Church and yet you think you know orthodox LDS and have the inside track on what we teach. Why and how is that?

Trout:
I have been a student of Mormonism for many years. If I say anything claiming that it is taught by the LDS church and you have knowledge that I am incorrect, please don't hesitate to tell me, I will be happy to correct my wrong notions.

LDSTrue:
Thank you, I will, as it is a wrong notion for you to believe you know more about a religion when you are an outsider looking in than someone that has been immersed in it longer than you have been a student.

You are obviously still a student on the outside looking in and I have graduated from within. I tell you it is true after being immersed in it longer than you have been a student standing on the outside looking in. Yet the student is defiant and insists the one immersed is wrong, blinded and false. In Law that is what is called the tail trying to wag the dog, and this old dog wont get wagged by the tail, ever!

Once again, your argument is fallacious, simply because you have been a member of the LDS church longer than I've studied the LDS church (Which I don't believe is correct in itself) doesn't necessarily mean that you know more about the teachings of the LDS church than I do.

That would be similar to me thinking that I know more about math than someone else does simply because I've been doing math longer than they have.

LDSTrue:
Your statement could be correct if you included a member of the Godhead within your comment.

It should read; The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how the Holy Ghost interacts and makes one "feels" about it”.

Your opinion seems to imply that LDS encourage a self-willed or self-imposed feeling when in reality it is an effect proven to be caused by the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Trout:
Not at all, it seems that you are using the very system that you condemned. It's your idea that people who live by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it" are wrong in doing so. That appears to be hypocritical.

LDSTrue:
Here you are again trying to blend an experience brought about by a member of the Godhood with one of satan's favorite notions. Once again you are attempting to confuse the issue, or, the issue confuses you?

“If it feels good, do it” is a very liberal saying that became popular in the 60’s and 70’s with the sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll, lets all get high and live in a commune generation. You know, the one Bill Clinton is so fond of …, and you know it!

Dallin Oaks seems to believe that a burning bosom is a feeling of comfort or serenity:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: "I have met persons who told me they have never had a witness from the Holy Ghost because they have never felt their bosom 'burn within' them. What does a 'burning in the bosom' mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word 'burning' in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity." (Ensign, Mar 1997, 13)

I think the people who live by the maxim that you have condemned are guided by feelings of comfort and or serenity, I think it's hypocritical of you to use the very system that you condemn.

From the official website of the LDS (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1106-1,00.html) church:

You can know that what you’ve been learning is true.

Sincerely pray to your Heavenly Father. Ask Him if what you are learning is true.
Continue to study and give thoughtful consideration to what you are learning.
Listen with your heart for the Holy Ghost to whisper the truth to you.
Follow God’s commandments so you can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You may have experienced feelings of peace, hope, comfort, or happiness as you’ve read. If so, you have already felt the Holy Ghost telling you that these things are true.

Perhaps you didn’t know what the LDS church teaches about a burning bosom?

Don’t you think you are a hypocrite, using the same system that you condemn?

Trout:
The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

LDSTrue:
Does your scientifically applied expert scripture exegesis really has you conclude that you should fear God, as in be terrified of Him. Not respect, love and honor but “fear”? There must be several ways to interpret or define the word “fear” used in this scripture quote? Hopefully your fear toward God our Father includes love for Him. God is love!

Trout:
Where in LDS teachings are we to fear Satan as in, "be terrified" of him? In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.

LDSTrue:
Where did you get the impression LDS teaches we should be terrified of satan?

Trout:
I don't believe the LDS church teaches their members to fear Satan, this seems to be one of the areas where you are outside the pale. Or at least lacking consistency.

LDSTrue:
I counsell[sic] you from a historic and solid foundation of Apostles and Prophets with the Priesthood of God and you stand there on the sand hill arguing with me trying to defend your own non-biblical interpretation with hypostatic union mysteries (not my word) and concepts. The truth will win in the end and hopefully before your end!

Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that the LDS church teaches their members to fear Satan, please do so.

Trout:
There is no mention of angry, pre-existent, pre-tabernacled humans out to, "get us" in either passage. And the passage in Revelation 12 doesn't seem to fit your timeline.

Matt. 7:7-8 7
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

I have obviously asked and it was given, sought and found, knocked and it was opened. I asked and the Holy Ghost insured I received, I sought and Jesus made sure I found and when I knocked Heaven was opened.

The problem with most is that when told what to ask and where to seek and which door to knock on they argue and refuse so they are unavoidably left out in a dark in cave in Afghanistan assuming they know it all and what’s best.

That still doesn't demonstrate the claim you've made, I'm not asking for much, just tell me where you came up with the opinion you have on all this.

Trout:
There is no mention of those concepts in that verse either, perhaps you are incorrect in your understanding of what you've said.

So you do think that Satan is smart, you just imagine him not using his intelligence.

LDSTrue:
No, I think satan is a lot of things and none of them are pleasant or include the term smart or intelligent. He has proven to be a cunning, sly, evil egotistic, prideful … etc. etc. etc. adversary so I try and not underestimate him.

Trout:
Both Jethreuel and John Mormon have posited the claim that Satan is very intelligent, and from those attributes you claim Satan has above, I think they are correct.

LDSTrue:
If we let our guard down it would be easy to mistakenly “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan” not fear him.

Trout:
Again, you seem to lack consistency, you have claimed that we should fear Satan, and you claim that we shouldn't fear Satan.

Why have you posited both concepts as truth?

LDSTrue:
I didn’t, I posted my fear him combined with your statement”; Quote Trout: “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.”

And you are correct when you say your quote mixed in with mine lacks consistency. That is the point of the problem, I discerned with your statement that one would be incorrect to fear satan.

Once again we have an intelligent Christian defending satan and pleading his case. Once again we see just how sly satan is, he can even get Trout to come to his defense and have him assist in deception.

No, you have claimed that you fear Satan and that you don’t fear Satan, I’m simply trying to get you to clarify your belief so that it can be understood.

Let me make it easier.

Is it correct to fear Satan?:

1) Yes.

2) No.

3) I don’t know.

Trout:
And that situation seems to be born out of your imagination, as the two passages you cite say nothing of this face off you have asserted. Nor do the passages speak of a pre-mortal existence, nor the idea that we were given some kind of a choice, nor the idea that we were participants in some kind of a war.

Scripture Verse:
Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

Trout, I have obviously asked and it was given, sought and found, knocked and it was opened. I asked and the Holy Ghost insured I received, I sought and Jesus made sure I found and when I knocked Heaven was opened.

Then it shouldn’t be that difficult for you to provide a proof text verifying your alleged discovery, please do so.

Trout:
Also, a face off doesn't seem to describe the events surrounding the fall of Satan as I understand it in LDS thought, perhaps you could expound.

LDSTrue:
What do you understand LDS thought to be, perhaps you could expound.

Trout:
As I understand it, in LDS thought Satan presented a idea to God the Father outlining his redemptive plan for mankind. His plan was rejected.

LDSTrue:
Trout, can you give us a clue as to why his plan was rejected? Exactly what was his plan? Was it a good idea? Was it a flawless plan or did it contain offense to Almighty God from the start?

You make it sound as if his plan contained an innocent mistake on his part instead of the deliberate offense to God our Father that it was. That is not LDS thought and once again a false impression of one student on the outside looking in.A clear example of a good Christian coming to the defense of satan!

First off, I don’t believe that Satan came to God with a redemptive plan for mankind; I believe that to be pure Mormon fiction. The point that I was making is it doesn’t seem as though there was a face off as you describe it that occurred in LDS thought, I think that you have exaggerated the events claimed to have happened by the LDS church.

Here’s my understanding of the events:

Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved without glory and honor of God. The plan of Jesus, was to give to each the right to choose for himself the course he would travel to earth life and all was to be done to the honor and glory of God our heavenly father.

LDSTrue:
Thank you for this opportunity Trout. I hope I have helped increase the knowledge of the LDS student in some small way.

As Always, LDSTrue!

Thank you,

And hopefully you are learning a thing or two about what the LDS church teaches.

LDSTrue

October 21st 2005, 08:09 PM

10-21-05

Hey Trout,:trout:

I am sorry I have not responded sooner but I have been very busy between Phoenix, Home, and Salt Lake City.:pot:

I have an outstanding response to your last post on my laptop; it's just that I didn't bring the floppy disk unit with me.:bawl: :argh:

I'm in SLC until Wednesday 26th. In order to post I would have to retype it all into this computer. The thought is overwhelming as it is no small feat for me. I will if I must and it is the only way :whip:

My response is a "must have" for all LDS students so I will try and figure out a way to get it off my laptop onto this thread.:idea:

Thank you for your patience and keep the faith, as I will respond ASAP!

Always LDSTrue!

LDSTrue

October 29th 2005, 02:30 AM

Hey Trout,

The opportunity has combined with the will and you finally have my long-time in the making response.

This is part one of two parts as it is too large for one post.

Quote Trout:
You are incorrect, I don't have to be a member of a certain belief system to be familiar with what that system teaches.

Example:

Someone tells me, "The LDS church teaches that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is a true prophet of the LDS church" I know that the person trying to tell me such a thing is in error.

Trout, you are partially correct. Thankfully, you know as much as you do and I appreciate your imagined rebuttal regarding the pretender Sun Myung Moon and his type.

However, I’m afraid your study sans application has convinced you that you know more than you actually do. Your research into the LDS Church has you thinking that you are familiar and knowledgeable where our doctrine is concerned without ever putting it into practice with the proper authority.

For example, your statement of familiarity with LDS would be similar to your study of the Quarterback playbook for the Green Bay Packers and then thinking your familiarity and experience is on par with Brett Favre. Just because you read the playbook and understand the plays does not make you as familiar or as qualified to get in the game and compete with Brett Favre for that position. Until you are on the team and in the game your actual knowledge is quite limited regardless of your playbook familiarity.

One might be familiar with playing Hockey but that familiarity does not necessarily give one license to debate with Wayne Gretzky and begin telling him what it is like to compete for the Stanley Cup. I’m sure you can pitch a baseball but that does not allow you license to debate with Curt Shilling and attempt to tell him what it is like to be the winning pitcher in the final game of the World Series. My point should be obvious.

Your statement declaring that you are familiar with LDS teachings may be accurate, however, familiar does not automatically equate to knowledge or wisdom without the exercise of faith, belief and daily application where the LDS religion is concerned. You are not in the LDS Church and therefore are not receiving any of the blessings of the Priesthood or opportunities for service that turn the application of our faith and knowledge into experience and wisdom.

You may read extensively about Tithing and be very familiar with the concept however, until you pay it on a regular basis and receive the blessings the Lord promised to a full tithe payer your familiarity is incomplete and lacking the rewards that turn familiarity into experience and wisdom. To say you are familiar with LDS doctrine without application and experience leaves your cup half full while those faithfully and diligently living according to LDS doctrine receive tremendous blessings and their cup runneth over, as promised by Deity.

Quote:

LDSTrue:
Trout, all of a sudden you are demanding “prooftexts” and now you are insisting that my opinion is not my opinion but instead is a “truth claim”? Who imagined or made that up?

Quote Trout:
Perhaps you didn't carefully read the dialogue up to this point; I asked, "How did you come to the opinion that . . . ?" To which you replied, "Prove me wrong . . ." It was you who were demanding proof from me, not vice versa. I simply asked you to expand on your opinion.

OH, OK, so turnabout is not fair play here at Tweb? I prove everything and you sit there and editorialize my opinions and try and determine if my “prooftexts” and “truth claims” are adequate in your opinion. You first must know and be familiar with the truth and its application to attempt to judge it. The Holy Ghost confirms truth in ways you admit you are not familiar with.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Insisting on “prooftexts” to my opinion and now claiming that I must substantiate what you call a “truth claim” with chapter and verse to a solicited belief must be some kind of Tweb tactic and the beginning of my Kangaroo Court. (Kangaroo court: An unfair trial in which the rights of the accused and precepts of justice are ignored and the outcome is usually known beforehand.).

Quote Trout:
And perhaps you'll re-think that statement now that you realize who has asked for proof?

Nope, it stands! You have begun your Kangaroo Court based on my opinion and belief and your disagreement with it. I have proven my statements to my satisfaction. It appears Trout that you are aching to become LDS and want me to prove everything all at once. Milk before meat, faith before certainty Trout.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Ones own opinions and beliefs are not demonstrated in one sentence or paragraph, instead they are a compilation of complex events, factors, and impressions.

Quote Trout:
I would agree with you sometimes, but not all opinions held by an individual are, "complex".

Did I say “all”? I am sorry, I should have said most religious opinions could be complex as a religion that involves the brain, heart, and faith is usually emotionally complex, I think.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
If you want chapter and verse you have it, it’s called the scriptures.

Quote Trout:
I believe that you've failed to demonstrate that the Bible verifies all of the statements you've made about Satan.

Please indicate exactly which statement you want verified. Is Job in your bible? Did you think to research Job for clues to my statements? Have you forgotten poor miserable Job and the pain and suffering Satan was responsible for in his life?

Job 2;7 “So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from he sole of his foot unto his crown. Etc, etc, etc, and then more suffering etc, etc, etc!

The Lord allowed Satan to have his way with Job and notice Satan’s way is not loving and kind nor considerate and respectful. Where’s the Love??? I sure hope Satan has forgotten how to do all that for your sake inasmuch as you claim it a possible sin to be on guard against him. Have you ever had a boil?

Job is in my corner and would agree with me considering all the cruelty death and destruction brought about by Satan upon innocent faithful Job and his family. Job’s treatment by Satan should provide you with insight into Satan’s motives for mankind. If you are faithful and loyal to God you are a target for him and he has proven his desire to get man to blame/curse God.

Zech 3:1 “And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

Sounds like a face-off to me. What and who exactly is Satan resisting?

Matt. 4:10 “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
What happens to a Calvinist leaning Christian if he is deceived by Satan and subtly led away from God to a worship of Satan? Could that affect the Calvinist leaning Christians’ salvation for eternity?

If Satan would have Jesus worship him to His destruction would he not have you worship him to your destruction! Satan wants your misery and destruction and here you are “What, me worry!”

Satan proved his confidence in his abilities when he approached the Son of God and attempted to tempt Him. Who are you to him except easy prey and a target within the bulls eye. (I know, the terms easy prey, target and bulls-eye are not scriptural, just prophetic.)

Matt. 4:10 provides you with an example of Satan attempting to change our Fathers plan. What would have happened to all mankind had Satan been successful. You may think Satan was wasting his time to tempt Jesus but Satan didn’t think he was attempting a futile effort.

Satan's brazen attempt should provide you with insight into the extent of his evil designs and the depths to which he will sink in his attempts to thwart Fathers’ plan for his children. If Satan dares to tempt Jesus, the Son of God, then you must look like an easy mark and a piece of cake, especially considering your remarks. “What, me worry!”

Had Satan been successful, all mankind would have been lost without a Savior and our fate sealed without redemption and resurrection. This is the caliber of a louse you are attempting to ignore. He will have you rot in hell with him verses Fathers’ plan which insures that you will return to Him and live in peace and love for eternity. You do have a formable adversary, feared or not, for his capacity for evil is unmatched as he is the author of it along with authoring lies, deceit and deception. Trout, Satan, feared or not, on guard and where’s my “armour”!

Matt. 12:26 “And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?”

Here is proof Satan has a kingdom. One with a kingdom and a third of the host of heaven is seldom working alone. Also, if Satan is as harmless as you might believe, why is Jesus always casting out the evil spirits? If they are harmless and ineffective, why all the casting out in he New Testament? “Cant we all gust get along!”

Also, Ephesians 6:12 has something to say about Satan and his organization: 12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers. Against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Matt. 16:23 “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Here we have Jesus telling all that Satan would have us all savor those things that are an offence to God. You may think Satan is harmless, however, I’m sure you’ll agree that being an offence to God is not a healthy position to find yourself. Satan would inspire your offenses then rejoice at your offensive position.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
If you expect me to point to a particular line or paragraph it is not going to happen.

Quote Trout:
I understand your frustration, I think a lot of what people believe about spiritual things is based in the traditions of men, it's hard to find Biblical precedent for everything one holds as truth. But perhaps if there are no Biblical grounds to hold to a certain belief, it might be time to re-think it?

Trout, please read Acts 2:41. Would you make the same statement to the three thousand added to the Church that day!

Acts 2:41 “Then they gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.”

What was their “Biblical precedent”?

Their “precedent” was still in the works yet they knew the truth when they heard it and acted accordingly, (Jesus’ sheep) unlike most today. They didn’t have nor did they rely on their own refined scripture exegeses and other commentary.

They heard the Apostles, received a witness within of the truthfulness of their words on the spot and were added to the Church that day. How long would they have had to wait for the reliable “Biblical precedent” you prescribe. It appears that the Holy Ghost can and does accelerate the process. Their proof that day was immediate, not a compilation of years of scripture study and review of biblical commentary. The Apostles spoke, they listened, they were gladly converted.

That same event is happening in our day; we have Jesus’ Apostles on the Earth today with power and authority speaking the truth and Jesus’ sheep are hearing His voice and are being added to His church daily through the hastened process and power of the Holy Ghost.

Many in that day could have denied the testimonies given of the three thousand as they went their way after their conversion but those in denial did not alter the fact that the 3,000 were converted and joined the only true Church on the face of the Earth.

The nay-Sayers were wrong then and the nay-Sayers in our day have not and will not change or alter the fact that Jesus has restored His Church in these Latter Days. His Church is restored with the same foundation of Apostles and Prophets possessing the same Priesthood power and keys. I wouldn’t say it if I didn’t know it to be true for a surety! If you want “prooftext” and “truth claims” seek them from the Holy Ghost who will give liberally to those honestly and truly seeking with true and pure intent.

Quote:
Trout:
In your opinion, how does this hierarchy work? In your opinion, what would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

LDSTrue:
What would make you think he doesn’t?

Trout:
Again, the burden to demonstrate the truthfulness of that claim rests upon you.

LDSTrue:
Wrong! You asked for my opinion of one third of the host of heaven and I gave it. Just because you don’t happen to know how many one third of the host of heaven is does not invalidate my opinion. That is why I ask you, if one third of the host of heaven does not number into the billions then you prove that it doesn’t.

Quote Trout:
How am I wrong, LDSTrue? I asked your opinion of this hierarchy.

Don’t you mean “kingdom”? Usually, in most kingdoms there is first a king, then … and so on and so on. You must agree that most, if not all, Kings at the beginning, had their kingdoms in some sense of order beginning with those who had direct access to them. A chain of command so to speak.

Also, Ephesians 6:12 has something to say about Satan and his organization: 12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers. Against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

My claim is legitimate. You seem to be arguing from a position of; I don’t agree and I don’t know why I disagree, it’s just that I don’t agree, so I want to argue with you about it until you agree with me, in what I don’t know could be agreeable.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
What is your belief or understanding? Don’t worry Trout, I won’t ask your opinion and then insist that you prove your opinion by demanding exact scripture and verse. With me you can feel free to expound on the subject and state your beliefs without worry of attack by me. I realize opinions and beliefs are complicated and personal and should be respected.

Quote Trout:
Feel free to start another thread and please ask me any questions about my doctrinal holdings you'd like to. If you are going to ask what I believe about Satan, the Theology 201 forum would be a good place. Also, feel free to scrutinize my beliefs to any degree you'd like, if what I believe is true then it should be able to stand the test.

Thank you, however, it may not be necessary as I am receiving insight with your questions and comments herein. However, have you considered the possibility that the test of your beliefs will not be here on Earth? There is going to be a final test in Heaven and many you deny will be there facing you at the bar.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
I can only assume Heaven is organized so it would stand to reason that while in Heaven satan was an astute student and learned how to organize.

Trout:
You have also claimed that Satan isn't, "smart", so your claim here is incoherent, or at the very least it seems contradictory to the claims you've already asserted.

LDSTrue:
No Trout, what is incoherent is your defense of Satan.

Quote Trout:
You are incorrect, I haven't defended Satan. Please demonstrate that I have.

What I have done is asked you to explain your opinions about him a little further.

Let me make it easier:

Is Satan smart?

1) Yes.

2) No.

3) I don't know.

Trout, you are a self-proclaimed learned LDS student, you tell me what I think, or better yet, what I should think.

Let me make it easier for you to understand my position Trout: Is it smart to be an offense to Almighty God sufficient to get cast out of Heaven? Is it smart to be the father of lies and be the embodiment of evil? Was it smart to attempt to thwart our Fathers plan for the advancement His children? Is it smart to be unrighteous in the face of a righteous Almighty God? Is it a smart to commit acts that get one cast into outer darkness?

Trout, let me make it easier for you as there is one correct answer to all the above (#4).
1) Yes.

2) No.

3) I don't know

4) I agree with LDSTrue on this one!

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Who’s side on[sic] you on anyway? This protracted defense of satan you’ve got is going to stop here and now! Here I am warning you to be on guard against him as he wants to destroy you and your family and you go and say we shouldn’t fear him!

Quote Trout:
Actually, it wasn't me who said that we shouldn't fear Satan, God tells me in His word to fear Him and Him alone, if I were to fear Satan it would be sinful.

As Bill the Cat would say, “context”, it’s all in the “context”. I asked you earlier about your “fear” context and you ignored my request. Is there more than one meaning in Hebrew or Greek for the meaning of “fear”? If God is love, and I know He is, then do you think we are to fear God, the embodiment of love?

“Fear” must have a different meaning when used in the context you quoted. If God is love why should you be afraid of a God that loves you. Jesus loves you, do you fear Jesus with the same fear you fear God?

Quote:
LDSTrue:
If all who have ever came to Earth or will come to Earth represent the two-thirds that remained then the one third that left would be a considerable amount. Quite logically Billions!

Trout:
On the contrary, it's not logical at all to assume that the premise of your claim is correct, until you can establish the basis for your argument, it is logical to assume that your claim is unfounded.

LDSTrue:
An unfounded claim? You want basis do you! You accuse me of an of an unfounded claim and assume it is illogical to state that if one third leaves then two thirds are left.

Quote Trout:
The problem isn't with your math, the problem is that you haven't established the basis for your math. You haven't demonstrated that there are billions of enspirited, pre-tabernacled intelligences, you have simply asserted it.

So far you have demonstrated that there are zero spirits, and it's hard to add, subtract, multiply or divide using only zero, right LDSTrue?

If you took my advice and reviewed Job, in addition to reading about the pain, misery and suffering brought about by Satan you would have also read on two occasions “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord …”

Trout, I believe it is universally accepted that “sons” is plural, therefore, Job has provided a “prooftext” for my assertion. Sounds as if Jesus has many brothers in Heaven. It does not stipulate how many "sons", however, we know it is at least enough "sons" to refute your “zero spirits”.

Let’s hear your assertion Trout, exactly where did your spirit come from and where and when was it created. Assert away, thou spirit son of God. Were you there when “the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord …”? I guess we differ as to exactly when you became a son of God. For me, I choose to believe the sooner the better!

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Satan cannot duplicate or provide a counterfeit “burning in the bosom,” as it is Heaven sent and he does not have the power or authority to produce it within the bosom of man.

Trout:
Again, you have posited a truth claim; you bear the responsibility to demonstrate its truthfulness.

LDSTrue:
Wrong Trout, if you think my statement is false then you get busy demonstrating that it is false. Otherwise it remains TRUE!.

Quote Trout:
That is a truly ridiculous statement; I can hardly believe that it was penned by an adult.

Your position seems curious to me as you insist on proof, yet, when your proof is requested, you call it “a truly ridiculous statement”. Is that a new Tweb tactic your experimenting with?

It appears Trout that you have trouble believing in what is not tangible, visible and accessible to your touch. With that attitude you are going to miss out on all the tremendous blessings requiring first, faith.

I have used scripture to prove my statement and you have yet to provide a scripture to counter it. Satan cannot cause the “burning in the bosom” unless you can provide a scripture proving he has and can. Your position would be dubious in a court of law and I would prevail.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
I have already proved a member of the Godhead was involved in the “burning in the bosom” and I can prove satan is not a member of the Godhead ergo; satan cannot produce the “burning in the bosom” as it comes from a member of the Godhead.

Quote Trout:
You argument is fallacious, it goes as follows:

1) God can make a bosom burn.

2) Satan is not God

Therefore:

3) Satan can't make a bosom burn.

Granted 1 and 2 are true, 3 doesn't follow necessarily.

4) Trout can’t prove otherwise, “necessarily’! Satan does not posses true Godhood powers as he is not a member of the Godhead.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
It stands on its own and is a proven fact that only Godhead members can initiate that effect in man unless you want to contend with the Bible.

Trout:
Can you demonstrate using the Bible that what you've said above is true? You have made another bald assertion, you haven't proven that fact to be true.

LDSTrue:
Prove otherwise without coming to the defense of satan himself. Not a pretty picture for a Christian to be caught defending Satan and attributing true Godhood powers to him! You may want to slow down here and take a second look in your Bible before you become guilty of doing the unthinkable for a Christian.

Quote Trout:
Ether 15:19 says that Satan has full power over the hearts of people:

Ether 15:19 But behold, the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and Satan had full power over the hearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle.

So it appears that you are incorrect, according to Mormon scriptures, Satan has "full power" over the hearts of men, full power would seem to include the ability to make a bosom burn, right LDSTrue?

Trout, your “prooftext” does not mention specifically a “burning in the bosom” and therefore is silent on the issue. It would be just as easy if not highly probable to assume that Satan cannot create a “burning in the bosom” while hardening hearts. A burning in the bosom is used to confirm truth.

If you want to imagine the "burning in the bosom" effect is possible by a hardened hart then I will have to concede to your imagination.

However, notice when Satan has power over the heart they are hardened, blinded, and off to battle and not receiving heaven sent revelation. Nice try Trout, not quite the same effect or consequence as the true and real “burning in the bosom” wrought by the Holy Ghost. A hardened heart is not a very good or convincing counterfeit “burning in the bosom”.

In fact, your scripture is a “prooftext” to my contention. If Satan could have deceived them into thinking it was God’s will by counterfeiting a true burning in the bosom he would have seen to it and that would have been recorded instead of the opposite.

If you contend that Satan can appear as a counterfeit angel of light (and I believe you do) then it must be reasonable for you to assume that he would attempt a convincing counterfeit “burning in the bosom” instead of an obvious hardening of the heart. You have proven that Satan’s effect on the heart of man is exactly opposite of Deity. Will you now believe yourself?

Trout, you quoted the Book of Mormon, is that an indication that you believe in it and subscribe to the scriptures and messages within just like a true LDS student would/does?

This is the end of part one of two parts due to the length.

Always LDSTrue!

LDSTrue

October 29th 2005, 03:38 AM

Hey Trout,

I appreciate your patience, here is part two of two parts.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Here is a proof-text that Jesus can.

Luke 24:32
“And they said one to another, did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Trout:
“That scripture has nothing to do with the claim made by the LDS church,”

LDSTrue:
Trout, allow me to borrow one of your own demanding statements here and request; “you have posited a truth claim, you bear the responsibility to demonstrate its truthfulness.”

I ask Trout, what claim and exactly where and when??? This is where prooftext of claim enters in.

Quote Trout:
I'd be happy to. The LDS church claims that one way of knowing truth is to follow the example of D & C 9:8:

D & C 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
When Jesus opened the scriptures, there was no asking, no praying, just hearts burning. There is no correlation between the passage in Luke and the truth detector bosom burning spoken of in D & C 9.

You say “no correlation” between Jesus providing the “burning in the bosom” and Jesus confirming that He can and will use it again.

The correlation is obvious and furthers my position that Deity is in control of that miracle and not Satan. Thank you for quoting D & C 9. You just proved Jesus was envolved with both events. When you quote D & C 9 Trout, you are quoting Jesus and if you don’t agree with D & C 9 then your argument is with Jesus, not me.

The two traveler’s hearts burned within them when the scriptures were opened to them (read the truth revealed to them) and that is exactly what is promised by Jesus in D & C 9. Proof He is involved in both instances, argue with Him, not me.

Trout, you quoted the Doctrine and Covenants, is that an indication that you believe in it and subscribe to the scriptures and messages within just like a true LDS student would/does?

Quote:
Trout:
Do you have evidence to believe that the early evangelists told people to pray to receive a burning bosom?

LDSTrue:
Are you trying to insinuate that LDS asks its investigators to pray for a burning in the bosom experience? I thought you said you were a student of LDS and have studied it for years and yet you come up with that misnomer. Remember the guy in the cave in Afghanistan, you are beginning to sound more and more like him.

We request that they pray to know the truth then it is up to Jesus determine their true intent and grant them the answer to their prayer through the Holy Ghost. Do you see your mistake? We pray to know if it is true and then the Godhead determines how, where and when conformation is given. No one is instructed to pray for a “burning in the bosom” experience as you incorrectly guess or deliberately insinuate.

Quote Trout:
You seem to be oblivious to your own scripture, LDSTrue:
D & C 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

And I have been asked hundreds of times to pray to receive a burning bosom by many a well-intentioned LDS person.

Perhaps this is another area where your beliefs don't square with orthodox LDS beliefs?

Don’t you mean your limited understanding of what you assume to be “orthodox LDS beliefs”. “Hundreds of times”, and yet you remain on the outside looking in. It is very apparent you did not accept the invitation with a sincere heart and real intent truly needing and wanting to know. I must take your word concerning your own experience, however it is quite possible you weren’t truly listening and misunderstood the well-intentioned LDS persons instructions.

I am personally unaware of any official instruction to pray to receive a burning bosom sans personal revelation of the truthfulness of the scripture or doctrine being paramount. They do go hand in hand when the burning in the bosom is present however, that is not to say everyone is blessed in the same way when they receive a knowledge of truth.

If one is praying to receive a “burning in the bosom” then one is asking for a sign and we all know how the Lord feels about sign-seekers. Sign-seekers will not receive what they expect as evidenced in Matt. 12:39.

Matt. 12:39 “But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall not sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:”

Perhaps Matt. 12:39 is the reason your "hundreds" of prayers for a sign was not answered. Next time pray to know the truthfulness and not for a sign.

The New Testament is full of situations where truth is revealed to many worthy saints and yet there is only the one reference to a “burning in the bosom”. Not all experienced it then when they came to an understanding of the truth and not all require it today. The Lord is not limited to only one way to provide an assurance of His truth and the truthfulness of His Prophets and Apostles on the Earth today. His sheep will hear his voice and follow Him.

Quote:
Trout:
The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how one "feels" about it”,

LDSTrue:
Trout, I don’t remember seeing you in any Priesthood or General Conference sessions. Your name is not on the membership rolls of the Church and yet you think you know orthodox LDS and have the inside track on what we teach. Why and how is that?

Trout:
I have been a student of Mormonism for many years. If I say anything claiming that it is taught by the LDS church and you have knowledge that I am incorrect, please don't hesitate to tell me, I will be happy to correct my wrong notions.

LDSTrue:
Thank you, I will, as it is a wrong notion for you to believe you know more about a religion when you are an outsider looking in than someone that has been immersed in it longer than you have been a student.

You are obviously still a student on the outside looking in and I have graduated from within. I tell you it is true after being immersed in it longer than you have been a student standing on the outside looking in. Yet the student is defiant and insists the one immersed is wrong, blinded and false. In Law that is what is called the tail trying to wag the dog, and this old dog wont get wagged by the tail, ever!

Quote Trout:
Once again, your argument is fallacious, simply because you have been a member of the LDS church longer than I've studied the LDS church (Which I don't believe is correct in itself) doesn't necessarily mean that you know more about the teachings of the LDS church than I do.

That would be similar to me thinking that I know more about math than someone else does simply because I've been doing math longer than they have.

Let me know when you have convinced Brett Favre, Wayne Gretzky and Curt Shilling to acquiesce to your standing on the sidelines looking-in thoughts, instruction and wisdom. Especially after you have told them you’re not on the team and not a fan of the game as you are admittedly not a fan of LDS. "Once again, your argument is fallacious."

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Your statement could be correct if you included a member of the Godhead within your comment.

It should read; The LDS church teaches that spiritual truth can be determined by how the Holy Ghost interacts and makes one "feels" about it”.

Your opinion seems to imply that LDS encourage a self-willed or self-imposed feeling when in reality it is an effect proven to be caused by the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Trout:
Not at all, it seems that you are using the very system that you condemned. It's your idea that people who live by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it" are wrong in doing so. That appears to be hypocritical.

LDSTrue:
Here you are again trying to blend an experience brought about by a member of the Godhood with one of Satan's favorite notions. Once again you are attempting to confuse the issue, or, the issue confuses you?

“If it feels good, do it” is a very liberal saying that became popular in the 60’s and 70’s with the sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll, lets all get high and live in a commune generation. You know, the one Bill Clinton is so fond of …, and you know it!

Quote Trout:
Dallin Oaks seems to believe that a burning bosom is a feeling of comfort or serenity:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: "I have met persons who told me they have never had a witness from the Holy Ghost because they have never felt their bosom 'burn within' them. What does a 'burning in the bosom' mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word 'burning' in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity." (Ensign, Mar 1997, 13)

I think the people who live by the maxim that you have condemned are guided by feelings of comfort and or serenity, I think it's hypocritical of you to use the very system that you condemn.

Your unconscionable mistake here Trout is that you are either deliberately or ignorantly confusing an effect caused by Deity with the emotions of the common man who has a natural enmity toward God.

You are obviously not an authority on the matter and feign misunderstanding however, there is a significant difference and that is where your offence lies.

You would not be making the comparison and accusation if you had that blessed event happen to you and that is why your opinion is suspect. You have yet to understand or differentiate it, giving evidence that your knowledge has not been confirmed by the Holy Ghost, the conveyer of truth.

Sounds like you are leaning upon your own understanding, which can be inadequate and questionable at best. Seek out the Prophets and Apostles the Lord has sent in these Latter-days and your confusion and misunderstanding will be addressed by one with authority and true answers confirmed by the Holy Ghost.

Quote Trout:
From the official website of the LDS church:
You can know that what you’ve been learning is true.

Sincerely pray to your Heavenly Father. Ask Him if what you are learning is true.

Continue to study and give thoughtful consideration to what you are learning.
Listen with your heart for the Holy Ghost to whisper the truth to you.
Follow God’s commandments so you can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You may have experienced feelings of peace, hope, comfort, or happiness as you’ve read. If so, you have already felt the Holy Ghost telling you that these things are true.

Perhaps you didn’t know what the LDS church teaches about a burning bosom?

Don’t you think you are a hypocrite, using the same system that you condemn?

Trout, you quoted a Latter-day Apostle, is that an indication that you believe in and subscribe to the words of the current Apostles and their messages just like a true LDS student would???

I, like the Latter-day Apostles, admit that the Lord conveys truth to us on an individual basis as we are obviously all individuals. Not all will receive a burning in the bosom and not all require it. Not all saints in the New Testament received a burning in the bosom prior to their membership in the only true Church on the face of the Earth.

The Lord is not limited to a burning in the bosom and neither is the Holy Ghost. You are attempting to cast me as a hypocrite because I believe in a scriptural “burning in the bosom” and know it is different than any feeling brought about by Satan or the emotions of the common man! I know the difference and you have yet to experience it. It is not wise to cast dispersions when in the dark regarding a blessing from the Godhead.

I have answered your mistaken impressions on this subject adequately, clearly and concisely. You are left without good reason or legitimate excuse for your continued misguided opinion or misjudgment on this matter. Case closed!

Quote:
Trout:
The Bible makes it clear that we are to fear God, nothing else.

LDSTrue:
Does your scientifically applied expert scripture exegesis really has you conclude that you should fear God, as in be terrified of Him. Not respect, love and honor but “fear”? There must be several ways to interpret or define the word “fear” used in this scripture quote? Hopefully your fear toward God our Father includes love for Him. God is love!

Trout:
Where in LDS teachings are we to fear Satan as in, "be terrified" of him? In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.

LDSTrue:
Where did you get the impression LDS teaches we should be terrified of satan?

Trout:
I don't believe the LDS church teaches their members to fear Satan, this seems to be one of the areas where you are outside the pale. Or at least lacking consistency.

LDSTrue:
I counsel [sic] you from a historic and solid foundation of Apostles and Prophets with the Priesthood of God and you stand there on the sand hill arguing with me trying to defend your own non-biblical interpretation with hypostatic union mysteries (not my word) and concepts. The truth will win in the end and hopefully before your end!

Quote Trout:
Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that the LDS church teaches their members to fear Satan, please do so.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

It is obvious to the discerning that Isaiah is marveling at how far Lucifer aka Satan was cut down, after all, he was powerful enough to weaken entire nations in his heyday. “What, me worry”.

Trout it is easy for me to demonstrate that we should be concerned about Satan as all the true saints should be as evidenced by the admonition Paul gave the Ephesians and the entire world. I purposefully excluded the word “fear” as you have yet to furnish “context” for fear.

You asked for it so here is one “prooftext”, Ephesians 6:11-13. Actually, 11-18 covers it.

11 “Put on he whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers. Against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 ”Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Is “armour” used in peace or war? Sounds to me like there is a battle going on and we need to protect ourselves with “armour” as the war is raging.

If on the one hand we have Trout 1:1 saying we have no reason to fear Satan and then on the other we have an the Apostle Paul warning us and having us put on armour for protection “against the wiles of the devil”. It leads one to believe that Trout either doesn’t know what he is talking about when it come to Satan or Trout is deceived by Satan. Do I heed the council of an Apostle or Trout? I choose the Apostle Paul and Satan chooses Trout!

Quote:
Trout:
There is no mention of angry, pre-existent, pre-tabernacled humans out to, "get us" in either passage. And the passage in Revelation 12 doesn't seem to fit your timeline.

Matt. 7:7-8 7
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

I have obviously asked and it was given, sought and found, knocked and it was opened. I asked and the Holy Ghost insured I received, I sought and Jesus made sure I found and when I knocked Heaven was opened.

The problem with most is that when told what to ask and where to seek and which door to knock on they argue and refuse so they are unavoidably left out in a dark in cave in Afghanistan assuming they know it all and what’s best.

Quote Trout:
That still doesn't demonstrate the claim you've made, I'm not asking for much, just tell me where you came up with the opinion you have on all this.

OK, I will, for starters, reread Ephesians 6: 11-18. Is that sufficient? Combine all that is mentioned there with a third of the host of heaven and you have real trouble brewing on Earth.

Quote:
Trout:
There is no mention of those concepts in that verse either, perhaps you are incorrect in your understanding of what you've said.

So you do think that Satan is smart, you just imagine him not using his intelligence.

LDSTrue:
No, I think satan is a lot of things and none of them are pleasant or include the term smart or intelligent. He has proven to be a cunning, sly, evil egotistic, prideful … etc. etc. etc. adversary so I try and not underestimate him.

Trout:
Both Jethreuel and John Mormon have posited the claim that Satan is very intelligent, and from those attributes you claim Satan has above, I think they are correct.

LDSTrue:
If we let our guard down it would be easy to mistakenly “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan” not fear him.

Trout:
Again, you seem to lack consistency, you have claimed that we should fear Satan, and you claim that we shouldn't fear Satan.

Why have you posited both concepts as truth?

LDSTrue:
I didn’t, I posted my fear him combined with your statement”; Quote Trout: “In my opinion you are incorrect to fear Satan.”

Once again we have an intelligent Christian defending Satan and pleading his case. Once again we see just how sly Satan is, he can even get Trout to come to his defense and have him assist in deception.

Quote Trout:
No, you have claimed that you fear Satan and that you don’t fear Satan, I’m simply trying to get you to clarify your belief so that it can be understood.

You’re right, it is confusing when you try and mix truth and error. My truth, with your error.

And you are correct when you say your quote mixed in with mine lacks consistency. That is the nut of the problem. I discerned in your statement that your opinion is that one would be incorrect and sinful to fear Satan.

You can walk around without the armour that the Apostle Paul encourages us to put on, however it borders on dereliction of duty for a Christian to council others to ignore an Apostle’s council. Who wants to enter the battle following one without his “armour” and encourages others to go to battle without theirs. Not one I would want to follow.

Quote Trout:
Let me make it easier.

Is it correct to fear Satan?:

1) Yes.

2) No.

3) I don’t know.

Trout, you ignored a possible # 4!
4) Ephesians 6:11 –18 Read those scriptures and then see if you still want to ask the question.

Quote:
Trout:
And that situation seems to be born out of your imagination, as the two passages you cite say nothing of this face off you have asserted. Nor do the passages speak of a pre-mortal existence, nor the idea that we were given some kind of a choice, nor the idea that we were participants in some kind of a war.

Scripture Verse:
Matt. 7:7-8 7 “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you:

8 “For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.”

Trout, I have obviously asked and it was given, sought and found, knocked and it was opened. I asked and the Holy Ghost insured I received, I sought and Jesus made sure I found and when I knocked Heaven was opened.

Quote Trout:
Then it shouldn’t be that difficult for you to provide a proof text verifying your alleged discovery, please do so.

I DID! Now it is up to you to knock and have opened. Do you not understand that the door is not opened until you knock? Since when is it necessary for one to knock on an open door? The door is closed and will remain closed until one knocks.

I have obviously knocked and had doors opened that you have yet to find or consider. You act as though you do not know about nor understand revelation. All revelation (especially personal) is not written down first. The very term should give one a clue that it might not have been previously written down prior to receiving it.

If you want the same knowledge of truth as I then it should not be surprising to you that you must be willing to knock on the same doors and seek the same truths I have. Once you have been blessed by the Holy Ghost as I, then it will no longer be necessary for you to request a “prooftext” from me, as you will have Deity revealing truth to you and answering your questions. You continue to look to your own senses and understanding. Where’s the FAITH? Faith preceeds certainty!

Quote:
Trout:
Also, a face off doesn't seem to describe the events surrounding the fall of Satan as I understand it in LDS thought, perhaps you could expound.

LDSTrue:
What do you understand LDS thought to be, perhaps you could expound.

Trout:
As I understand it, in LDS thought Satan presented a idea to God the Father outlining his redemptive plan for mankind. His plan was rejected.

LDSTrue:
Trout, can you give us a clue as to why his plan was rejected? Exactly what was his plan? Was it a good idea? Was it a flawless plan or did it contain offense to Almighty God from the start?

Quote Trout:
First off, I don’t believe that Satan came to God with a redemptive plan for mankind; I believe that to be pure Mormon fiction. The point that I was making is it doesn’t seem as though there was a face off as you describe it that occurred in LDS thought, I think that you have exaggerated the events claimed to have happened by the LDS church.

OK, I admit, I might have embellished a smidge, for effect … so shoot me.

Quote Trout:
Here’s my understanding of the events:

Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved without glory and honor of God. The plan of Jesus, was to give to each the right to choose for himself the course he would travel to earth life and all was to be done to the honor and glory of God our heavenly father.

Trout, I do appreciate the fact that you finally broke down and actually offered your opinion.

However, first you say “First off, I don’t believe that Satan came to God with a redemptive plan for mankind;“ and then you state “Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved”.

Tell me please, in your mind, what is the difference between your statements “redemptive plan” and “would be saved”?

If a mortal is saved is he not redeemed? Are not saved and redeemed synonyms? If Satan “proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved” he proposed a “redemptive plan for mankind”. It appears you agree with and subscribe to “pure Mormon fiction” without realizing it. You may be more LDS than you think considering your “redemptive plan” and “would be saved” statement.

You make it sound as if Satan’s plan contained an innocent mistake on his part instead of the deliberate offense to God our Father that it was.

It appears that you agree and admit that Satan’s plan was opposite to the plan put forth by Jesus. Father chose Jesus’ plan and all Heaven lived happily ever after, right? WRONG!!! Something went terribly wrong causing a third of the host of heaven to be cast out. Father loved them all as much as He loves you so why are they all cast out?

Trout, you must agree that God is love, right? 1 John 4:8 … “for God is love.” OK, so if God is love it would be reasonable to assume that “Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world” would be loved by God, right? If God is love and Lucifer is loved by God then why is Lucifer cast out of Heaven? God loved him as a son yet He cast him out! Why?

Is it your opinion that Father cast Lucifer out of Heaven just because He chose Jesus’ plan. Was the deal, in your opinion, lets have a contest and see which of the two of you can come up with a plan for salvation and the looser gets cast out?

In your opinion, was the “God is love” loving Father’s plan the looser gets cast out of Heaven for eternity and is cursed to become Satan, the embodiment of evil? All this from a God that is the author and embodiment of love.

How unfortunate for Lucifer, if he had only known the rules beforehand he could have abstained and shelved his regrettable plan and remained in heaven with his loving Father and Brother by his side. Quite a dire set of consequences for the son with a looser plan from a loving Father.

Trout, you included in your statement “without glory and honor of God”. You seem to imply that our Father cast Lucifer out because Father wanted to protect his glory and honor and it had little to do with Lucifer and his subsequent actions once Father made His decision and chose Jesus' plan.

Would you say your opinion is that Satan’s plan was rejected because Father was jealously guarding and protecting His glory and honor? Do you believe it had nothing to do with the corrupt plan Satan presented that would have eliminated our free agency and stunted our growth and opportunity to gain true knowledge and wisdom.

It is my opinion that Father wanted His children to advance and use their free agency to hopefully gain understanding and knowledge which could eventually lead to knowledge and wisdom. I do believe our Father wants his children to be intelligent and capable, not robotic and subservient without knowledge or wisdom. Boy, am I glad Lucifer lost and Jesus won!!! I will celebrate Jesus’ victory with both Him and Father for eternity!!!

If Lucifer’s plan was opposite that of Jesus then it would be reasonable to assume that Lucifer’s plan would not have allowed us our free agency. Sounds as if Lucifer would have us all be his robots and be subjugated to him verses Jesus’ plan which allowed us our free agency to choose Him and God.

That statement should remind you of some failed Atheist governments past and present. It would appear that if Lucifer wasn’t able to implement his plan in Heaven that Satan is now having a heyday on Earth with it in some regions. And you thought he was harmless and you don’t need “armour”.

It would appear that his Atheists are always plotting a takeover of the believers in free agency and free market societies. It doesn’t appear that he has given up the fight and he is giving every indication that he still hopes to win by influencing leaders of governments on Earth to suppress free will and free agency.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Thank you for this opportunity Trout. I hope I have helped increase the knowledge of the LDS student in some small way.

As Always, LDSTrue!

Quote Trout: Thank you,

And hopefully you are learning a thing or two about what the LDS church teaches.

Trout, I could and will parrot your closing remark; “And hopefully you are learning a thing or two about what the true LDS Church truly teaches.”

LDSTrue “to the bone” marrow!

PS: Have you begun your attempts with Curt Shilling, Brett Favre, and Wayne Gretzky as you sit in the stands unable to participate. Do you have them convinced that even though you’re not in the game and not on the team that you know best sitting there in the stands?

Trout

October 29th 2005, 06:50 PM

Trout:
You are incorrect, I don't have to be a member of a certain belief system to be familiar with what that system teaches.

Example:

Someone tells me, "The LDS church teaches that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon is a true prophet of the LDS church" I know that the person trying to tell me such a thing is in error.

LDSTrue:
Trout, you are partially correct. Thankfully, you know as much as you do and I appreciate your imagined rebuttal regarding the pretender Sun Myung Moon and his type.

However, I’m afraid your study sans application has convinced you that you know more than you actually do. Your research into the LDS Church has you thinking that you are familiar and knowledgeable where our doctrine is concerned without ever putting it into practice with the proper authority.

I don't have to play in the NHL/NFL to fully understand the rules of either sport.

I don't have to be LDS to understand what the LDS church teaches.

LDSTrue:
Trout, all of a sudden you are demanding “prooftexts” and now you are insisting that my opinion is not my opinion but instead is a “truth claim”? Who imagined or made that up?

Trout:
Perhaps you didn't carefully read the dialogue up to this point; I asked, "How did you come to the opinion that . . . ?" To which you replied, "Prove me wrong . . ." It was you who were demanding proof from me, not vice versa. I simply asked you to expand on your opinion.

LDSTrue:
. . . I have proven my statements to my satisfaction. It appears Trout that you are aching to become LDS and want me to prove everything all at once. Milk before meat, faith before certainty Trout.

I believe that you have failed to demonstrate that what you've said squares with the classical teachings of the LDS church, we haven't entered into a dialogue about the truthfulness or lack thereof of your peculiar belief system.

LDSTrue:
If you want chapter and verse you have it, it’s called the scriptures.

Trout:
I believe that you've failed to demonstrate that the Bible verifies all of the statements you've made about Satan.

Please indicate exactly which statement you want verified.

There are several ideas that we've been discussing:

Does the LDS church teach their members to fear Satan?

Does the LDS church teach the face-off concept that you've spoken of?

LDSTrue:
Zech 3:1 “And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

Sounds like a face-off to me. What and who exactly is Satan resisting?

The verse quoted doesn't contain the elements that you expressed i.e., plans being presented/rejected. Are you implying that Joshua is Jesus? Are you implying that, "the Angel of the Lord" is God?

LDSTrue:
What happens to a Calvinist leaning Christian if he is deceived by Satan and subtly led away from God to a worship of Satan? Could that affect the Calvinist leaning Christians’ salvation for eternity?

A Calvinist leaning Christian is secure in his/her salvation.

Trout:
In your opinion, how does this hierarchy work? In your opinion, what would make you believe that Satan commands billions of agents?

LDSTrue:
What would make you think he doesn’t?

Trout:
Again, the burden to demonstrate the truthfulness of that claim rests upon you.

LDSTrue:
Wrong! You asked for my opinion of one third of the host of heaven and I gave it. Just because you don’t happen to know how many one third of the host of heaven is does not invalidate my opinion. That is why I ask you, if one third of the host of heaven does not number into the billions then you prove that it doesn’t.

Trout:
How am I wrong, LDSTrue? I asked your opinion of this hierarchy.

LDSTrue:
Don’t you mean “kingdom”?

If that will help you to explain the chain of command, then kingdom is fine.

LDSTrue:
I can only assume Heaven is organized so it would stand to reason that while in Heaven satan was an astute student and learned how to organize.

Trout:
You have also claimed that Satan isn't, "smart", so your claim here is incoherent, or at the very least it seems contradictory to the claims you've already asserted.

LDSTrue:
Trout, you are a self-proclaimed learned LDS student, you tell me what I think, or better yet, what I should think.

I'll have to agree with Jethreuel and John Mormon on this one, I believe that the LDS church teaches that Satan is smart. I believe that you are out of sync with classical LDS teachings.

LDSTrue:
Who’s side on[sic] you on anyway? This protracted defense of satan you’ve got is going to stop here and now! Here I am warning you to be on guard against him as he wants to destroy you and your family and you go and say we shouldn’t fear him!

Trout:
Actually, it wasn't me who said that we shouldn't fear Satan, God tells me in His word to fear Him and Him alone, if I were to fear Satan it would be sinful.

As Bill the Cat would say, “context”, it’s all in the “context”. I asked you earlier about your “fear” context and you ignored my request. Is there more than one meaning in Hebrew or Greek for the meaning of “fear”? If God is love, and I know He is, then do you think we are to fear God, the embodiment of love?

“Fear” must have a different meaning when used in the context you quoted. If God is love why should you be afraid of a God that loves you. Jesus loves you, do you fear Jesus with the same fear you fear God?

I did a little research on the fear of God and have written a few of my thoughts down, HERE. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=19823) It's not that I'm ignoring your requests, rather I would like my thread to remain, "on-topic". It's very easy for these discussions to grow beyond the boundaries of the OP. Remember, Tweb has plenty of space for new threads.

LDSTrue:
If all who have ever came to Earth or will come to Earth represent the two-thirds that remained then the one third that left would be a considerable amount. Quite logically Billions!

Trout:
On the contrary, it's not logical at all to assume that the premise of your claim is correct, until you can establish the basis for your argument, it is logical to assume that your claim is unfounded.

LDSTrue:
An unfounded claim? You want basis do you! You accuse me of an of an unfounded claim and assume it is illogical to state that if one third leaves then two thirds are left.

Trout:
The problem isn't with your math, the problem is that you haven't established the basis for your math. You haven't demonstrated that there are billions of enspirited, pre-tabernacled intelligences, you have simply asserted it.

So far you have demonstrated that there are zero spirits, and it's hard to add, subtract, multiply or divide using only zero, right LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
If you took my advice and reviewed Job, in addition to reading about the pain, misery and suffering brought about by Satan you would have also read on two occasions “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord …”

Trout, I believe it is universally accepted that “sons” is plural, therefore, Job has provided a “prooftext” for my assertion. Sounds as if Jesus has many brothers in Heaven. It does not stipulate how many "sons", however, we know it is at least enough "sons" to refute your “zero spirits”.

Sons of God is used as a term that can mean angels also, you have yet to demonstrate that there are billions of en-spirited intelligences roaming the landscape.

LDSTrue:
Let’s hear your assertion Trout, exactly where did your spirit come from and where and when was it created. Assert away, thou spirit son of God. Were you there when “the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord …”? I guess we differ as to exactly when you became a son of God. For me, I choose to believe the sooner the better!

I, like Job, didn't exist prior to the earth's creation.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

LDSTrue:
Wrong Trout, if you think my statement is false then you get busy demonstrating that it is false. Otherwise it remains TRUE!.

Trout:
That is a truly ridiculous statement; I can hardly believe that it was penned by an adult.

LDSTrue:
Your position seems curious to me as you insist on proof, yet, when your proof is requested, you call it “a truly ridiculous statement”. Is that a new Tweb tactic your experimenting with?

No, your statement is ridiculous; simply because you assert something doesn't mean it's true.

LDSTrue:
I have used scripture to prove my statement and you have yet to provide a scripture to counter it. Satan cannot cause the “burning in the bosom” unless you can provide a scripture proving he has and can. Your position would be dubious in a court of law and I would prevail.

I have provided LDS scripture which proves that you are out of sync with classical LDS thinking, Satan had "full power", full power would include making a bosom burn.

Trout:
Ether 15:19 says that Satan has full power over the hearts of people:

Ether 15:19 But behold, the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and Satan had full power over the hearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle.

So it appears that you are incorrect, according to Mormon scriptures, Satan has "full power" over the hearts of men, full power would seem to include the ability to make a bosom burn, right LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
Trout, your “prooftext” does not mention specifically a “burning in the bosom” and therefore is silent on the issue. It would be just as easy if not highly probable to assume that Satan cannot create a “burning in the bosom” while hardening hearts. A burning in the bosom is used to confirm truth.

It need not mention a specific condition of the heart, the key portion is, "full power".

You have been proven wrong and out of step with classical Mormonism.

LDSTrue:
Trout, you quoted the Book of Mormon, is that an indication that you believe in it and subscribe to the scriptures and messages within just like a true LDS student would/does?

No, I believe the BoM to be a novel, but I have assumed that you believe the words contained in it are scripture. But, you have been proven to be out of sync with what the BoM clearly says about the power Satan can have over the human heart. So perhaps in theory you believe it to be scripture, but you seem to deny it's authority over you in this matter of doctrine.

Trout:
I'd be happy to. The LDS church claims that one way of knowing truth is to follow the example of D & C 9:8:

D & C 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

When Jesus opened the scriptures, there was no asking, no praying, just hearts burning. There is no correlation between the passage in Luke and the truth detector bosom burning spoken of in D & C 9.

LDSTrue:
You say “no correlation” between Jesus providing the “burning in the bosom” and Jesus confirming that He can and will use it again.

No, I said there is no correlation between the scripture in Luke and the LDS church's truth dectector bosom burning claim.

LDSTrue:
Trout, you quoted the Doctrine and Covenants, is that an indication that you believe in it and subscribe to the scriptures and messages within just like a true LDS student would/does?

No, I believe that the D & C is fiction.

LDSTrue:
. . . No one is instructed to pray for a “burning in the bosom” experience as you incorrectly guess or deliberately insinuate.

Trout:
You seem to be oblivious to your own scripture, LDSTrue:

D & C 9:8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

And I have been asked hundreds of times to pray to receive a burning bosom by many a well-intentioned LDS person.

Perhaps this is another area where your beliefs don't square with orthodox LDS beliefs?

LDSTrue:
I am personally unaware of any official instruction to pray to receive a burning bosom sans personal revelation of the truthfulness of the scripture or doctrine being paramount. They do go hand in hand when the burning in the bosom is present however, that is not to say everyone is blessed in the same way when they receive a knowledge of truth.

You have once again been proven wrong about the teachings of the LDS church.

Trout:
That would be similar to me thinking that I know more about math than someone else does simply because I've been doing math longer than they have.

LDSTrue:
Let me know when you have convinced Brett Favre, Wayne Gretzky and Curt Shilling to acquiesce to your standing on the sidelines looking-in thoughts, instruction and wisdom. Especially after you have told them you’re not on the team and not a fan of the game as you are admittedly not a fan of LDS. "Once again, your argument is fallacious."

I think at this point it's quite obvious that I know more about the LDS doctrine of Satan than yourself.

LDSTrue:
“If it feels good, do it” is a very liberal saying that became popular in the 60’s and 70’s with the sex, drugs, rock ‘n roll, lets all get high and live in a commune generation. You know, the one Bill Clinton is so fond of …, and you know it!

Trout:
Dallin Oaks seems to believe that a burning bosom is a feeling of comfort or serenity:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: "I have met persons who told me they have never had a witness from the Holy Ghost because they have never felt their bosom 'burn within' them. What does a 'burning in the bosom' mean? Does it need to be a feeling of caloric heat, like the burning produced by combustion? If that is the meaning, I have never had a burning in the bosom. Surely, the word 'burning' in this scripture signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity." (Ensign, Mar 1997, 13)

I think the people who live by the maxim that you have condemned are guided by feelings of comfort and or serenity, I think it's hypocritical of you to use the very system that you condemn.

LDSTrue:
Your unconscionable mistake here Trout is that you are either deliberately or ignorantly confusing an effect caused by Deity with the emotions of the common man who has a natural enmity toward God.

And I believe that you are a hypocrite, using the very same system that you condemn. The people guided by the maxim, "if it feels good, do it" are undoubtadly guided by feelings of, "comfort" and or, "serenity" as defined by Dallin Oaks.

Trout:
From the official website of the LDS church:
You can know that what you’ve been learning is true.

Sincerely pray to your Heavenly Father. Ask Him if what you are learning is true.

Continue to study and give thoughtful consideration to what you are learning.
Listen with your heart for the Holy Ghost to whisper the truth to you.
Follow God’s commandments so you can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost.

You may have experienced feelings of peace, hope, comfort, or happiness as you’ve read. If so, you have already felt the Holy Ghost telling you that these things are true.

Perhaps you didn’t know what the LDS church teaches about a burning bosom?

Don’t you think you are a hypocrite, using the same system that you condemn?

LDSTrue:
I have answered your mistaken impressions on this subject adequately, clearly and concisely. You are left without good reason or legitimate excuse for your continued misguided opinion or misjudgment on this matter. Case closed!

Your answer has clearly and concisely demonstrated your duplicity.

Trout:
Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that the LDS church teaches their members to fear Satan, please do so.

Let me re-word my question as it seems to be confusing:

Can you cite any LDS teaching that clearly expresses that members of the LDS church should fear Satan.

Trout:
There is no mention of angry, pre-existent, pre-tabernacled humans out to, "get us" in either passage. And the passage in Revelation 12 doesn't seem to fit your timeline.

Trout:
That still doesn't demonstrate the claim you've made, I'm not asking for much, just tell me where you came up with the opinion you have on all this.

LDSTrue:
OK, I will, for starters, reread Ephesians 6: 11-18. Is that sufficient? Combine all that is mentioned there with a third of the host of heaven and you have real trouble brewing on Earth.

That passage doesn't tell of all the events you've mentioned. Are there any LDS writings you can cite that would help to verify your opinion?

Trout:
No, you have claimed that you fear Satan and that you don’t fear Satan, I’m simply trying to get you to clarify your belief so that it can be understood.

LDSTrue
I discerned in your statement that your opinion is that one would be incorrect and sinful to fear Satan.

You are correct, the Christian should fear God, not Satan.

LDSTrue:
You can walk around without the armour that the Apostle Paul encourages us to put on, however it borders on dereliction of duty for a Christian to council others to ignore an Apostle’s council. Who wants to enter the battle following one without his “armour” and encourages others to go to battle without theirs. Not one I would want to follow.

The passage you have cited doesn't tell us to fear Satan.

I will, at this time, assume that you have a fear of Satan apart from LDS teaching.

Trout:
Also, a face off doesn't seem to describe the events surrounding the fall of Satan as I understand it in LDS thought, perhaps you could expound.

LDSTrue:
OK, I admit, I might have embellished a smidge, for effect … so shoot me.

Perhaps you could describe the events without embellishing.

Trout:
Here’s my understanding of the events:

Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved without glory and honor of God. The plan of Jesus, was to give to each the right to choose for himself the course he would travel to earth life and all was to be done to the honor and glory of God our heavenly father.

LDSTrue:
However, first you say “First off, I don’t believe that Satan came to God with a redemptive plan for mankind;“ and then you state “Lucifer, a son of God in the spirit world before the earth was formed, proposed a plan under which mortals would be saved”.

Tell me please, in your mind, what is the difference between your statements “redemptive plan” and “would be saved”?

I can see that you misunderstood my intention.

I don't believe the statement that I made is a record of the events that happened, I do not believe that there were redemptive plans being suggested, that is Mormon mythology. What my statement is, is my description of what I believe the LDS church teaches about the event.

Perhaps with that in mind your response will change

Krusader

November 3rd 2005, 12:21 PM

Trout, you'll note, no responses. Typical.

Trout

November 4th 2005, 07:38 PM

Trout, you'll note, no responses. Typical.

Where is Jethreuel? Where is LDSTrue?

Maybe they're having their names removed. :teeth:

Krusader

November 7th 2005, 01:14 PM

Where is Jethreuel? Where is LDSTrue?

Maybe they're having their names removed. :teeth:

Trout, maybe they've actually seen the light and are sitting in a Baptist Bible study as we post!!!! Crusader

Trout

November 7th 2005, 10:56 PM

Trout, maybe they've actually seen the light and are sitting in a Baptist Bible study as we post!!!! Crusader

Hopefully they're at the Presbyterian study, Crusader. :teeth:

LDSTrue

November 8th 2005, 12:03 AM

Hey Trout,

I appreciate your patience with my slow response. I have good reason. Sorry to disappoint both you and Crusader but I have remained true to the faith.

Quote Trout:
I don't have to play in the NHL/NFL to fully understand the rules of either sport. I don't have to be LDS to understand what the LDS church teaches.

I am sure you will agree that Tiger Woods is an outstanding world class golfer. Tiger Woods knows the rules of Golf but he didn’t stop there did he. Is he better today because he entered the game, played by the rules, and applied the instruction given him? It is his application of instruction that has made him successful, not just his knowledge of the rules. Application is everything if you to claim to posses knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

James 2:18 & 20 (18) “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith (knowledge), and I have works (application); shew me thy faith (knowledge) without thy works (application), and I will shew thee my faith (knowledge) by my works (application). (20) ” But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith (knowledge) without works (application) is dead?

Quote Trout:
The verse quoted doesn't contain the elements that you expressed i.e., plans being presented/rejected. Are you implying that Joshua is Jesus? Are you implying that, "the Angel of the Lord" is God?

No, I am providing an example of Satan in a face off. It wasn’t his first and it won’t be his last.

Revelation 16: 13-14 & 16 13” And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out to the mouth of the false prophet.” 14 “For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” 16 “And he gathered them together into a place in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.”

Quote Trout:
A Calvinist leaning Christian is secure in his/her salvation.

I have tried to find a record of Calvin claming to be an Apostle or Prophet of God. Is there such a record? However, it is recorded and I am aware of true Prophets and Apostles leading the way to a secure salvation.

Jesus, the author of salvation, has called them, empowered them with the Priesthood and sent them forth to proclaim the way with the Keys of the Priesthood, which are honored and recognized in heaven. Was Calvin sealing in Heaven as was sealed on Earth? Calvin was certainly a brave soul but a Prophet or Apostle with Priesthood Keys he was not!

Quote Trout:
I'll have to agree with Jethreuel and John Mormon on this one, I believe that the LDS church teaches that Satan is smart. I believe that you are out of sync with classical LDS teachings.

If you hold someone up to be smart are you not putting them on some sort of pedestal? If you claim Satan is smart, what category would you nominate him for the Nobel Prize? What world class trophy or belt would you bestow upon him? I cringe to think that you would put Satan on the smart pedestal.

I am sure there was a time Lucifer could have been considered smart…Satan, NEVER!!!

LDSTrue:
If you took my advice and reviewed Job, in addition to reading about the pain, misery and suffering brought about by Satan you would have also read on two occasions “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord …”

Trout, I believe it is universally accepted that “sons” is plural, therefore, Job has provided a “prooftext” for my assertion. Sounds as if Jesus has many brothers in Heaven. It does not stipulate how many "sons", however, we know it is at least enough "sons" to refute your “zero spirits”.

Quote Trout:
Sons of God is used as a term that can mean angels also, you have yet to demonstrate that there are billions of en-spirited intelligence’s roaming the landscape.

So you are under the impression that the author used the term “sons” incorrectly and should have used the term “angels”?

Whatever or whoever was in attendance, they were “sons”. You have made a “truth claim” and are insinuating “sons” could also mean “angels” without providing “prooftext”. Please provide your “prooftext”.

You have yet to demonstrate that there are NOT billions of en-spirited intelligence’s (your term, not mine) roaming the landscape. I can prove a third of the host of Heaven is here with Satan as their leader. In a court of law, my proof would outweigh you allegation and I would prevail.

Quote Trout:
I, like Job, didn't exist prior to the earth's creation.

Job 38:4

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

I guess you are assuming with your scripture quote that Job’s response was “I didn’t exist” when in fact it is not recorded that he offered your assumed statement. Therefore, your assumption is not logical nor is it scriptural. You have not offered a “prooftext” above for your assertion.

Job’s response was just as likely, I don’t know, I don’t remember. You can logically conclude that Job was not present when the foundations of the earth were laid however, it is illogical to assume Job did not exist due solely to the nature of the question.

2 Tim 1:9 “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.”

Sounds as if Timothy is teaching that some are called with a specific purpose by Jesus “before the world began”.

Also, Jer. 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”

One has to be present to be known and ordained, which in the case of Jeremiah was before he was formed in the belly. This scripture clearly asserts preexistence. Again, your zero is refuted. If Jeremiah, then quite possibly millions or billions of others.

LDSTrue:
Your position seems curious to me as you insist on proof, yet, when your proof is requested, you call it “a truly ridiculous statement”. Is that a new Tweb tactic you’re experimenting with?

Quote Trout:
No, your statement is ridiculous; simply because you assert something doesn't mean it's true.

You are mistaken, I did not simply assert, I proved a third of the host of Heaven was cast out along with Satan. You have no idea how many a third of the host of Heaven is yet you choose to argue with me about the number. I say it could be billions and you disagree without any “prooftext” otherwise. Which one of us is being ridiculous?

You argue about the number that a “host” could represent without any scriptural knowledge of the amount whatsoever. A third of the host of Heaven is in the billions unless you prove otherwise. For my statement to warrant your “ridiculous” label, you would have to prove that a third of the host of Heaven did not exist and were not cast out and that would be impossible.

Father has proven that He has access to billions of spirits as each person ever to walk the Earth has had a spirit within which amounts to several billion to date. It is logical to assume that the spirits Father is sending down to earth are the two thirds that remained loyal to Him and was not cast out with Lucifer.

Quote:
Trout:
Ether 15:19 says that Satan has full power over the hearts of people:

Ether 15:19 But behold, the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and Satan had full power over the hearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle.

So it appears that you are incorrect, according to Mormon scriptures, Satan has "full power" over the hearts of men, full power would seem to include the ability to make a bosom burn, right LDSTrue?

LDSTrue:
Trout, your “prooftext” does not mention specifically a “burning in the bosom” and therefore is silent on the issue. It would be just as easy if not highly probable to assume that Satan cannot create a “burning in the bosom” while hardening hearts. A burning in the bosom is used to confirm truth.

Quote Trout:
It need not mention a specific condition of the heart, the key portion is, "full power". You have been proven wrong and out of step with classical Mormonism.

Trout, Ether is in the Book of Mormon, and you say, and I quote “No, I believe the BoM to be a novel”. Apparently it has become necessary for you to resort to using quotes from a book you consider to be a novel as your “prooftext”. You must be doing so because the Bible is silent on the topic or it doesn’t support your allegation.

A true LDS student would have noticed a prerequisite condition before Satan obtained his “full power”. What is the prerequisite condition that you missed you ask? Did you notice that the beginning of the scripture began with “And behold, the Spirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them”? Why would the Spirit of the Lord cease to strive with them?

The application of scientific scripture exegeses would clearly indicate to the reader that the Lord would first have to give up on the person and allow the Spirit to cease striving with them before Satan could exercise his “full power over the hearts of the people”.

Are you asserting that the Lord has given up on all persons praying to receive confirmation of the truthfulness of scripture due to their “iniquity”? Are you positive that you want us to believe that the Spirit has ceased to strive with persons seeking the truth and that is why Satan is free to harden their hearts and produce a counterfeit “burning in the bosom” within those seeking truthfulness?

Are you truly convinced that the Spirit of the Lord ceases to strive with truth seekers? What is your “prooftext” for that reckless assumption? Since when is “Spirit ceased striving with”, warring, hate filled soldiers cursed due to their iniquity analogies with humble and prayerful truth-seekers. That comparison is indefensible. Those mentioned in Ether were at war seeking blood and revenge; not the truthfulness of scripture and it is incomprehensible to think that you think they are equivalent.

Those mentioned in Ether 15:19 were warring due to a “curse upon all the land because of the iniquity of the people”. (Ether 14:1) Trout, until you make your statement conditional to the conditions as recorded in Ether, you stand rebutted and my statement remains correct when I assert that Satan cannot counterfeit a true Godhead “burning in the bosom”.

Also, it is not all people in general that Satan had full power over as the scripture is specific with regard to exactly who was “given up unto the hardness of their hearts”. You are taking a very specific instance and trying to universalize its application, which must cause anxiety to reverberate to the very foundation of “scientific scripture exegeses”.

Considering all the above, you must retract your “prooftext” for a counterfeit burning in the bosom and concede my point or forever surrender your license to practice or claim “scientific scripture exegeses”.

Quote Trout:
You have again been proven wrong about the teachings of the LDS church.

Jesus says in D & C 9:8 “study it out in your own mind then you must ask me if it be right”.

First off, is it recorded anywhere that Satan knows the thoughts in our mind? If we are studying it out in our minds how does Satan know what we are thinking about?

Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission. He surely can and will try to influence our thoughts but I do not believe there is “prooftext” to support the notion that he knows what we are thinking independent of our actions. He can attempt to place impure thoughts in our minds but we have the power to resist and blot them out. We remain in control of our thoughts independent of Satan and his attempts to influence.

That being said, Satan would not know when to cause a "burning in the bosom” to confirm our thoughts as it would definitely be guesswork on his part. Only the Godhead knows our thoughts and when the “burning in the bosom” would be appropriate for the worthy recipient.

Satan’s conditional control of the hardened heart of man does not include a “burning in the bosom” nor does it allow Satan the ability to read and react to our private thoughts. In order to cause a timely “burning in the bosom” Satan would have to be within and in control of our thoughts. There are several instances recorded in scripture of possessed persons and it is yet to be recorded that possessed persons pray to have truthfulness of scripture revealed to them.

Again, your false impressions of Satan’s powers are rebutted. Only the Godhead can and will cause a “burning in the bosom” to confirm truth when applicable. Satan cannot know our private thoughts or silent prayers, ergo; he cannot and will not cause a “burning in the bosom” as a confirmation of such silent thoughts and prayers.

Quote Trout:
I think at this point it's quite obvious that I know more about the LDS doctrine of Satan than yourself.

Trout, I wish you wouldn’t make those types of assuming comments. If you truly knew more than I about the LDS doctrine of Satan then you would be busy putting on the whole “armour” in an effort to protect yourself from him and his “wiles” instead arguing that it wasn’t necessary, right?

I think at this point it’s “quite obvious” that you think you know more about the LDS doctrine and Satan than you actually do. You should practice the same level of “scientific scripture exegeses” with LDS scripture as you do with the Bible while you still have the license to prevent further erroneous and assuming statements regarding LDS.

LDSTrue:
Your unconscionable mistake here Trout is that you are either deliberately or ignorantly confusing an effect caused by Deity with the emotions of the common man who has a natural enmity toward God.

Quote Trout:
And I believe that you are a hypocrite, using the very same system that you condemn. The people guided by the maxim, "if it feels good, do it" are undoubtedly guided by feelings of, "comfort" and or, "serenity" as defined by Dallin Oaks.

You really believe that I am a hypocrite because I do not confuse a touch from a member of the Godhead with a supposed mortal emotional and lustful want or need as you. You consider me a hypocrite because I agree with scripture that clearly distinguishes the difference between an event wrought by the Godhead and the carnal lustful desires of mortal man.

If I am a hypocrite then so are the Apostles James and Paul who warn against lustful and carnal “if it feels good do it” actions. Your assumptions are rebutted by Apostles, will you continue in your assertions after reviewing what Apostles have to say about your theory?

James 4:4 “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”

Rom. 8:7 “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

You are tragically wrong to assume that when one is praying to know the truth and it is confirmed by Deity that the confirmation received is on parallel with a man expressing his carnal lustful desires. One is a sin and produces a guilty conscience while the other is prescribed by Jesus Himself and confirms truth and produces true saints.

Your futile attempt to equate the emotions the carnal man has with a Godhead experience is irrational and lamentable at best. Were you ever fortunate enough to have it happen to you, you would then know better than to try to confuse the experience with carnal and sinful desires in the face of Deity.

If knowing the difference is being a hypocrite then I thank you for my hypocrite label. You must have a lot at stake on this issue as evidenced by your reactions and comments. What is so important and weighing in the balance that could cause you to deliberately attempt to confuse and falsify such an important gospel principal?

LDSTrue:
I have answered your mistaken impressions on this subject adequately, clearly and concisely. You are left without good reason or legitimate excuse for your continued misguided opinion or misjudgment on this matter. Case closed!

Quote Trout:
Your answer has clearly and concisely demonstrated your duplicity.

Hopefully, my comments supported by scripture above have convinced you that there is no evidence of “duplicity” on my part. “If it feels good do it” is carnal, lustful and sinful and reacting to a touch from the Godhead regarding a prayer to know truthfulness is not in the same Universe. It is as far away from being duplicity as the purpose of Jesus and Satan. You are left without just cause for any further confusion of facts or purpose.

Quote Trout:
The passage you have cited doesn't tell us to fear Satan. I will, at this time, assume that you have a fear of Satan apart from LDS teaching.

My fear of the “wiles of the Devil” is scriptural. They were real to Paul and they are real to me. LDS accepts the Bible (KJV) as scripture and therefore I am not apart from LDS teaching. You are arguing with Paul the Apostle, not I or LDS.

Quote Trout:
Perhaps you could describe the events without embellishing.

I really wasn’t embellishing that much; I was merely trying to simplify scriptures that you are having trouble understanding and comprehending their full impact. Correctly applied “scientific scripture exegeses” would render the same understanding and definitions.

Quote Trout:
I don't believe the statement that I made is a record of the events that happened, I do not believe that there were redemptive plans being suggested, that is Mormon mythology. What my statement is, is my description of what I believe the LDS church teaches about the event. Perhaps with that in mind your response will change.

So you admit you are asking me a question feigning ignorance when in fact you think you have the answer down pat. What could be your motive for such an act? One attempting sly and cunning acts is seldom on the righteous side of motives. Jesus is not the author of attempts at sly and cunning inquiries or motives. Perhaps with that in mind, your attitude and inquiries will change.

Always and forever, LDSTrue!

Trout

November 8th 2005, 11:45 PM

I don't have to play golf to fully understand the rules.

LDSTrue:
I have tried to find a record of Calvin claming to be an Apostle or Prophet of God. Is there such a record? However, it is recorded and I am aware of true Prophets and Apostles leading the way to a secure salvation.

Jesus, the author of salvation, has called them, empowered them with the Priesthood and sent them forth to proclaim the way with the Keys of the Priesthood, which are honored and recognized in heaven. Was Calvin sealing in Heaven as was sealed on Earth? Calvin was certainly a brave soul but a Prophet or Apostle with Priesthood Keys he was not!

Please try to remain on topic. If you'd like to discuss the issue of the LDS church's apostles, please feel free to start a new thread.

LDSTrue:

I am sure there was a time Lucifer could have been considered smart…Satan, NEVER!!!

OK, your opinion has been noted.

LDSTrue:
You have yet to demonstrate that there are NOT billions of en-spirited intelligence’s (your term, not mine) roaming the landscape. I can prove a third of the host of Heaven is here with Satan as their leader. In a court of law, my proof would outweigh you allegation and I would prevail.

No, you have failed to prove your point.

LDSTrue:
I guess you are assuming with your scripture quote that Job’s response was “I didn’t exist” when in fact it is not recorded that he offered your assumed statement. Therefore, your assumption is not logical nor is it scriptural. You have not offered a “prooftext” above for your assertion.

Job’s response was just as likely, I don’t know, I don’t remember. You can logically conclude that Job was not present when the foundations of the earth were laid however, it is illogical to assume Job did not exist due solely to the nature of the question.

You asked me a question, I answered it, please do not try to derail my thread, the thread is about the LDS concept of Satan. If you'd like to discuss other issues, please feel free to start some new threads.

LDSTrue:
You are mistaken, I did not simply assert, I proved a third of the host of Heaven was cast out along with Satan. You have no idea how many a third of the host of Heaven is yet you choose to argue with me about the number. I say it could be billions and you disagree without any “prooftext” otherwise. Which one of us is being ridiculous?

Are you for real? You said that when you stated something, it was true until I proved you wrong. That is flat out ridiculous. Please try to read the statements that I'm replying to.

LDSTrue:
Trout, your “prooftext” does not mention specifically a “burning in the bosom” and therefore is silent on the issue. It would be just as easy if not highly probable to assume that Satan cannot create a “burning in the bosom” while hardening hearts. A burning in the bosom is used to confirm truth.

So full doesn't mean full, but son has to mean son. Are you for real?

Trout, Ether is in the Book of Mormon, and you say, and I quote “No, I believe the BoM to be a novel”. Apparently it has become necessary for you to resort to using quotes from a book you consider to be a novel as your “prooftext”. You must be doing so because the Bible is silent on the topic or it doesn’t support your allegation.

I'm trying to demonstrate that you are out of sync with LDS teachings, what better material to quote than LDS scripture?

LDSTrue:
First off, is it recorded anywhere that Satan knows the thoughts in our mind? If we are studying it out in our minds how does Satan know what we are thinking about?

Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission.

Can you provide a reference for that statement?

LDSTrue:
Trout, I wish you wouldn’t make those types of assuming comments. If you truly knew more than I about the LDS doctrine of Satan then you would be busy putting on the whole “armour” in an effort to protect yourself from him and his “wiles” instead arguing that it wasn’t necessary, right?

I never said the armour of God wasn't necessary, that was a very dishonest comment. I understand the LDS concept of Satan, I don't believe it to be correct.

LDSTrue:
You really believe that I am a hypocrite because I do not confuse a touch from a member of the Godhead with a supposed mortal emotional and lustful want or need as you.

No, I think you are a hypocrite because you don't apply the standard evenly.

LDSTrue:
My fear of the “wiles of the Devil” is scriptural. They were real to Paul and they are real to me. LDS accepts the Bible (KJV) as scripture and therefore I am not apart from LDS teaching. You are arguing with Paul the Apostle, not I or LDS.

I'm glad to see you make the distinction between the Apostle Paul and the LDS church.

LDSTrue:
So you admit you are asking me a question feigning ignorance when in fact you think you have the answer down pat. What could be your motive for such an act? One attempting sly and cunning acts is seldom on the righteous side of motives. Jesus is not the author of attempts at sly and cunning inquiries or motives. Perhaps with that in mind, your attitude and inquiries will change.

Always and forever, LDSTrue!

You asked me what I understood the LDS position to be, I gave you my understanding of it, I never pretended not to know what the LDS church taught on the matter.

Do you have anything else to add about the LDS concept of Satan?

It seems as though we've gone about as far as we can go.

LDSTrue

November 9th 2005, 09:11 PM

Hey Trout,

I appreciate your responses and additional insight.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
First off, is it recorded anywhere that Satan knows the thoughts in our mind? If we are studying it out in our minds how does Satan know what we are thinking about?

Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission.

Quote Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?

Do you disagree with my statement?

Here is scripture proving the Lord, a member of the Godhead, has that power. Can you present scripture proving Satan “knoweth the thoughts of man”?

Job 42 1-2 (1)“THEN Job answered the LORD, and said,”

(2) “I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.”

Psalms 94:11
11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Isaiah 66: 18

18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

Also, Isaiah seems to think it is possible for a wicked man to forsake his unrighteous thoughts. I do not believe Isaiah would have given his council if Satan were in total control of a wicked man’s thoughts. Satan would not allow a wicked man to surrender his unrighteous thoughts if he were in control.

Satan is not the author of righteous thoughts that result in a return to the Lord. It is obvious Isaiah agrees with me and expects man to take control of his own private unrighteous thoughts and forsake them. Satan is not big on allowing the forsaking of unrighteous anything.

Isaiah 55: 7

7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Quote:
LDSTrue:
Trout, I wish you wouldn’t make those types of assuming comments. If you truly knew more than I about the LDS doctrine of Satan then you would be busy putting on the whole “armour” in an effort to protect yourself from him and his “wiles” instead arguing that it wasn’t necessary, right?

Quote Trout: I
never said the armour of God wasn't necessary, that was a very dishonest comment. I understand the LDS concept of Satan, I don't believe it to be correct.

Trout, in your opinion, why is the “armour” necessary?

Quote Trout:
No, I think you are a hypocrite because you don't apply the standard evenly.

Fortunately for me, what you think is not binding in Heaven. Unfortunately for you, what you think is not binding in Heaven. My judge is Jesus and I already know how He feels about it. I am secure in my position as it rests upon a solid foundation. You are left without scripture “prooftext” supporting your opinionated theory.

Quote Trout:
Do you have anything else to add about the LDS concept of Satan?

I do, and it is recorded in 2ND NEPHI 28: 19-25

19 “For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;"

20 “for behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good."

21”And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well-and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell."

22 “And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none-and thus he whispereth in their in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains from whence there is no deliverance."

23 “Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment."

24 “Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!"

25 “Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!"

26 “Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!"

All the above should be sufficient to cause concern for the unconcerned.

Quote Trout:
It seems as though we've gone about as far as we can go.

That would depend upon the direction one is heading, eternally speaking.

Always LDSTrue!

Trout

November 9th 2005, 10:51 PM

LDSTrue:
Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission.

Do you disagree with my statement?

Here is scripture proving the Lord, a member of the Godhead, has that power. Can you present scripture proving Satan “knoweth the thoughts of man”?

Job 42 1-2 (1)“THEN Job answered the LORD, and said,”

(2) “I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.”

Psalms 94:11
11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Isaiah 66: 18

18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

Also, Isaiah seems to think it is possible for a wicked man to forsake his unrighteous thoughts. I do not believe Isaiah would have given his council if Satan were in total control of a wicked man’s thoughts. Satan would not allow a wicked man to surrender his unrighteous thoughts if he were in control.

Satan is not the author of righteous thoughts that result in a return to the Lord. It is obvious Isaiah agrees with me and expects man to take control of his own private unrighteous thoughts and forsake them. Satan is not big on allowing the forsaking of unrighteous anything.

So the answer is, "no"? It doesn't seem that you can provide a prooftext for your opinion.

LDSTrue:
Trout, in your opinion, why is the “armour” necessary?

That would be a good topic for another thread, please feel free to get one started if you so desire.

LDSTrue:
Fortunately for me, what you think is not binding in Heaven. Unfortunately for you, what you think is not binding in Heaven. My judge is Jesus and I already know how He feels about it. I am secure in my position as it rests upon a solid foundation. You are left without scripture “prooftext” supporting your opinionated theory.

Again, it's your opinionated theory that has been called into question, you have failed to differentiate between the LDS concept of a burning bosom and the "If it feels good, do it" maxim.

The people guided by the latter maxim have had the same peaceful feelings as those who claim to have had the LDS experience.

LDSTrue

November 11th 2005, 05:33 PM

Hey Trout,

Thank you for your response.

So the answer is, "no"? It doesn't seem that you can provide a prooftext for your opinion.

That would be a good topic for another thread, please feel free to get one started if you so desire.

Again, it's your opinionated theory that has been called into question, you have failed to differentiate between the LDS concept of a burning bosom and the "If it feels good, do it" maxim.

The people guided by the latter maxim have had the same peaceful feelings as those who claim to have had the LDS experience.

Trout, please be patient with me. I am working on it and hope to post Saturday 11-13. Stay tuned.

LDSTrue

November 12th 2005, 12:23 PM

LDSTrue:
My comment was a reference to the New Testament Apostles and their Priesthood Authority.

Your comment has nothing to do with my thread topic.

LDSTrue:
You have yet to demonstrate that there are NOT billions of en-spirited intelligence’s (your term, not mine) roaming the landscape. I can prove a third of the host of Heaven is here with Satan as their leader. In a court of law, my proof would outweigh you allegation and I would prevail.

Trout:
No, you have failed to prove your point.

LDSTrue:
The Bible is silent on the number a “host” could entail and that is the point. You are free to assume the number a “host” could be but you are not free to tell me the number a “host” represents when the Bible is silent on the issue. My assumption is as accurate and binding as yours.

No, that is not the point. You have simply asserted the notion that there exist some sort of spirit creatures that are somehow intelligences that have recieved a spirit body, who are our brothers and sisters. None of those concepts are Biblical.

You are assuming that the term, "host" validates all of your assertions, it does not.

LDSTrue:
First off, is it recorded anywhere that Satan knows the thoughts in our mind? If we are studying it out in our minds how does Satan know what we are thinking about?

Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission.

Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?

LDSTrue:
Do you disagree with my statement?

Here is scripture proving the Lord, a member of the Godhead, has that power. Can you present scripture proving Satan “knoweth the thoughts of man”?

How dense are you, LDSTrue? When you posit a truth claim, it's your responsibility to validate that claim.

Let me demonstrate:

1) The moon is made of cheese.

Claim 1, made by me, is true, until you provide evidence to the contrary.

Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?

LDSTrue:
So the answer is, "no"? It doesn't seem that you can provide a prooftext for your opinion.

If you cannot demonstrate what you claim to be true, perhaps you should say, "In my opinion, such and such is true". Instead of making absolute claims that you cannot back up.

LDSTrue:
Trout, it seems that you always want to attribute Godhead powers to Satan for some reason. It appears that you are convinced that it is correct to assume that Satan has the “The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man” Godhead power. If so, then this is another instance of you attributing Godhead powers to Satan when he is not a member of the Godhead and the Bible is silent in your defense.

No, LDS scripture makes it abundantely clear that Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men.

The Bible makes no such claim, you are proven wrong by your own scripture, LDSTrue.

LDSTrue:
The following Book of Mormon scripture should be proof enough to one practicing correct “scientific scripture exegeses.”

Moroni 7: 17 “But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.”

That scripture is not a reference to the power Satan has over the hearts of men, the scripture that I chose makes it clear that Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men according to Mormonism.

You are incorrect and out of sync with classical LDS thinking.

LDSTrue:
Trout, a disturbing pattern of yours has developed. Many of your responses regarding Satan have provided substantial proof on several occasions that it is your opinion that unless scripture explicitly stipulates that Satan cannot posses the power or authority attributed to the Godhead that it is then correct “scientific scripture exegeses” to assume that he can or does and then argue his case in his defense. He must certainly appreciate your efforts on his behalf here on Tweb.

Again, you don't seem to have a grasp of the concept of, "burden of proof". A statement made by you isn't true until proven false, it is your responsibility to make a case for the truthfulness of your truth-claims.

LDSTrue:
Following your thought process through to its logical conclusion the following would also be true. It is not explicitly recorded within your accepted scripture that Satan cannot perform the following scriptural acts attributed to members of the Godhead, therefore, following your logic and applying your particular brand of “scientific scripture exegeses” Satan can and does posses these powers.

Again, you don't seem to have your arms around a very simple concept: You bear the burden of proof for the truth claims that you make, I do not bear the responsibility to prove them false.

It's obvious that those who live their lives by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it" are guided by the same feelings based truth dectector as those who claim that the LDS church is true because they feel it to be true.

Remember what Dallin Oaks said, he said that the burning bosom was a feeling of, "comfort and serenity". Sounds a lot like what Satan does in this passage from LDS scripture:

2 Nephi 28:21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

So we see according to Mormon scripture, Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men, and an instance where Satan causes a burning bosom in accordance with Dallin oaks definition of a burning bosom.

Your beliefs are out of sync with Mormon scripture, LDSTrue. Just admit it.

Trout

November 12th 2005, 01:45 PM

Something funky happened here . . . :huh: when I posted, my post appeared where your post was, LDSTrue. That's weird, let me see what happened.

Anyway, here's my response.

LDSTrue:
My comment was a reference to the New Testament Apostles and their Priesthood Authority.

Your comment has nothing to do with my thread topic.

LDSTrue:
You have yet to demonstrate that there are NOT billions of en-spirited intelligence’s (your term, not mine) roaming the landscape. I can prove a third of the host of Heaven is here with Satan as their leader. In a court of law, my proof would outweigh you allegation and I would prevail.

Trout:
No, you have failed to prove your point.

LDSTrue:
The Bible is silent on the number a “host” could entail and that is the point. You are free to assume the number a “host” could be but you are not free to tell me the number a “host” represents when the Bible is silent on the issue. My assumption is as accurate and binding as yours.

No, that is not the point. You have simply asserted the notion that there exist some sort of spirit creatures that are somehow intelligences that have recieved a spirit body, who are our brothers and sisters. None of those concepts are Biblical.

You are assuming that the term, "host" validates all of your assertions, it does not.

LDSTrue:
First off, is it recorded anywhere that Satan knows the thoughts in our mind? If we are studying it out in our minds how does Satan know what we are thinking about?

Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission.

Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?

LDSTrue:
Do you disagree with my statement?

Here is scripture proving the Lord, a member of the Godhead, has that power. Can you present scripture proving Satan “knoweth the thoughts of man”?

How dense are you, LDSTrue? When you posit a truth claim, it's your responsibility to validate that claim.

Let me demonstrate:

1) The moon is made of cheese.

Claim 1, made by me, is true, until you provide evidence to the contrary.

Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?

LDSTrue:
So the answer is, "no"? It doesn't seem that you can provide a prooftext for your opinion.

If you cannot demonstrate what you claim to be true, perhaps you should say, "In my opinion, such and such is true". Instead of making absolute claims that you cannot back up.

LDSTrue:
Trout, it seems that you always want to attribute Godhead powers to Satan for some reason. It appears that you are convinced that it is correct to assume that Satan has the “The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man” Godhead power. If so, then this is another instance of you attributing Godhead powers to Satan when he is not a member of the Godhead and the Bible is silent in your defense.

No, LDS scripture makes it abundantely clear that Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men.

The Bible makes no such claim, you are proven wrong by your own scripture, LDSTrue.

LDSTrue:
The following Book of Mormon scripture should be proof enough to one practicing correct “scientific scripture exegeses.”

Moroni 7: 17 “But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.”

That scripture is not a reference to the power Satan has over the hearts of men, the scripture that I chose makes it clear that Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men according to Mormonism.

You are incorrect and out of sync with classical LDS thinking.

LDSTrue:
Trout, a disturbing pattern of yours has developed. Many of your responses regarding Satan have provided substantial proof on several occasions that it is your opinion that unless scripture explicitly stipulates that Satan cannot posses the power or authority attributed to the Godhead that it is then correct “scientific scripture exegeses” to assume that he can or does and then argue his case in his defense. He must certainly appreciate your efforts on his behalf here on Tweb.

Again, you don't seem to have a grasp of the concept of, "burden of proof". A statement made by you isn't true until proven false, it is your responsibility to make a case for the truthfulness of your truth-claims.

LDSTrue:
Following your thought process through to its logical conclusion the following would also be true. It is not explicitly recorded within your accepted scripture that Satan cannot perform the following scriptural acts attributed to members of the Godhead, therefore, following your logic and applying your particular brand of “scientific scripture exegeses” Satan can and does posses these powers.

Again, you don't seem to have your arms around a very simple concept: You bear the burden of proof for the truth claims that you make, I do not bear the responsibility to prove them false.

It's obvious that those who live their lives by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it" are guided by the same feelings based truth dectector as those who claim that the LDS church is true because they feel it to be true.

Remember what Dallin Oaks said, he said that the burning bosom was a feeling of, "comfort and serenity". Sounds a lot like what Satan does in this passage from LDS scripture:

2 Nephi 28:21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

So we see according to Mormon scripture, Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men, and an instance where Satan causes a burning bosom in accordance with Dallin oaks definition of a burning bosom.

Your beliefs are out of sync with Mormon scripture, LDSTrue. Just admit it.

Trout

November 12th 2005, 01:50 PM

I figured out what happened, LDSTrue. I pressed the wrong button and I edited your post instead of pressing the reply button.

Please forgive me.

LDSTrue

November 16th 2005, 12:39 PM

I figured out what happened, LDSTrue. I pressed the wrong button and I edited your post instead of pressing the reply button.

Please forgive me.

Trout, you are forgiven.

Let’s try this again now that you know what button not to push. :wink:

LDSTrue:
First off, is it recorded anywhere that Satan knows the thoughts in our mind? If we are studying it out in our minds how does Satan know what we are thinking about?

Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission.

Quote Trout: Can you provide a reference for that statement?

LDSTrue: Do you disagree with my statement?

Here is scripture proving the Lord, a member of the Godhead, has that power. Can you present scripture proving Satan “knoweth the thoughts of man”?

Job 42 1-2 (1)“THEN Job answered the LORD, and said,”

(2) “I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.”

Psalms 94:11
11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Isaiah 66: 18

18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

Also, Isaiah seems to think it is possible for a wicked man to forsake his unrighteous thoughts. I do not believe Isaiah would have given his council if Satan were in total control of a wicked man’s thoughts. Satan would not allow a wicked man to surrender his unrighteous thoughts if he were in control.

Satan is not the author of righteous thoughts that result in a return to the Lord. It is obvious Isaiah agrees with me and expects man to take control of his own private unrighteous thoughts and forsake them. Satan is not big on allowing the forsaking of unrighteous anything.

Quote Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?
So the answer is, "no"? It doesn't seem that you can provide a prooftext for your opinion.

Trout, it seems that you always want to attribute Godhead powers to Satan for some reason. It appears that you are convinced that it is correct to assume that Satan has the “The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man” Godhead power. If so, then this is another instance of you attributing Godhead powers to Satan when he is not a member of the Godhead and the Bible is silent in your defense.

The following Book of Mormon scripture should be proof enough to one practicing correct “scientific scripture exegeses.”

Moroni 7: 17 “But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.”

Trout, a disturbing pattern of yours has developed. Many of your responses regarding Satan have provided substantial proof on several occasions that it is your opinion that unless scripture explicitly stipulates that Satan cannot posses the power or authority attributed to the Godhead that it is then correct “scientific scripture exegeses” to assume that he can or does and then argue his case in his defense. He must certainly appreciate your efforts on his behalf here on Tweb.

Following your thought process through to its logical conclusion the following would also be true. It is not explicitly recorded within your accepted scripture that Satan cannot perform the following scriptural acts attributed to members of the Godhead, therefore, following your logic and applying your particular brand of “scientific scripture exegeses” Satan can and does posses these powers.

1. Satan is a creator: John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” It is not explicitly recorded that Satan cannot create ergo he can according to your reasoning, yet we know he can’t.

2. Satan is life: John 1:4 “ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” It is not explicitly recorded that Satan is not life ergo he is according to your reasoning, yet we know he isn’t.

3. Satan is light: John 1:9 “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. It is not explicitly recorded that Satan is not light ergo he is according to your reasoning, yet we know he isn’t.

4. Satan can heal: John 5:8 “Jesus saith unto him, rise, take up they bed, and walk.” It is not explicitly recorded that Satan cannot heal ergo he can according to your reasoning, yet we know he can’t.

5. Satan can feed five thousand: John 6: 12 “When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. It is not explicitly recorded that Satan cannot provide enough food to feed five thousand with only “five barley loaves, and two small fishes:” ergo he can according to your reasoning, yet we know he can’t.

6. Satan can raise the dead: John 11: 43 “And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.” It is not explicitly recorded that Satan cannot raise the dead ergo he can according to your reasoning, yet we know he can’t.

7. Satan is peace: John 14: 27 “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you:” It is not explicitly recorded that Satan cannot give peace ergo he can according to your reasoning, yet we know he can’t.

8. Satan can have us abide in love: John 15:10 “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love;” It is not explicitly recorded that Satan cannot have us abide in love ergo he can according to your reasoning, yet we know he can’t.

9. Satan can forgive sins: Mark 2: 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, son, thy sins be forgiven thee. It is not explicitly recorded that Satan cannot forgive sins ergo he can according to your reasoning, yet we know he can’t.

For you to apply your brand of “scientific scripture exegeses” which then results in your assumption that Satan can cause a “burning in the bosom” and that he can know our private thoughts and silent prayers is faulty. Your demand of a “prootext” to disprove the obvious truthfulness of my statements supported by scripture is just as preposterous as one assuming Satan has the Godhead powers mentioned in1 through 9 above. Are you that “one”?

For you continue to hold to the contention that Satan has the powers of “burning in the bosom” and “knoweth the thoughts of man” is extreme. One could not assume that your contention would be the correct conclusion when one practices the proficient application of “scientific scripture exegeses”. Hopefully, you are that “one”.

Universally, LDSTrue!

Krusader

November 17th 2005, 05:56 PM

LDS True, good to see you back from your sabbatical - or whatever.

Quick question: Was Satan a fallen angel in Mormon theology? Since Mormons teach that angels are actually deceased humans which have been resurrected and changed into angels, was Satan ever a human being?

Christians believe angels are a separate order of creation, not evolved men. Smith did not agree with this, and taught otherwise.

Trout

November 19th 2005, 01:16 PM

LDSTrue:
My comment was a reference to the New Testament Apostles and their Priesthood Authority.

Your comment has nothing to do with my thread topic.

LDSTrue:
You have yet to demonstrate that there are NOT billions of en-spirited intelligence’s (your term, not mine) roaming the landscape. I can prove a third of the host of Heaven is here with Satan as their leader. In a court of law, my proof would outweigh you allegation and I would prevail.

Trout:
No, you have failed to prove your point.

LDSTrue:
The Bible is silent on the number a “host” could entail and that is the point. You are free to assume the number a “host” could be but you are not free to tell me the number a “host” represents when the Bible is silent on the issue. My assumption is as accurate and binding as yours.

No, that is not the point. You have simply asserted the notion that there exist some sort of spirit creatures that are somehow intelligences that have recieved a spirit body, who are our brothers and sisters. None of those concepts are Biblical.

You are assuming that the term, "host" validates all of your assertions, it does not.

LDSTrue:
First off, is it recorded anywhere that Satan knows the thoughts in our mind? If we are studying it out in our minds how does Satan know what we are thinking about?

Satan cannot interfere with our private thoughts without our permission.

Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?

LDSTrue:
Do you disagree with my statement?

Here is scripture proving the Lord, a member of the Godhead, has that power. Can you present scripture proving Satan “knoweth the thoughts of man”?

How dense are you, LDSTrue? When you posit a truth claim, it's your responsibility to validate that claim.

Let me demonstrate:

1) The moon is made of cheese.

Claim 1, made by me, is true, until you provide evidence to the contrary.

Trout:
Can you provide a reference for that statement?

So the answer is, "no"? It doesn't seem that you can provide a prooftext for your opinion.

If you cannot demonstrate what you claim to be true, perhaps you should say, "In my opinion, such and such is true". Instead of making absolute claims that you cannot back up.

LDSTrue:
Trout, it seems that you always want to attribute Godhead powers to Satan for some reason. It appears that you are convinced that it is correct to assume that Satan has the “The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man” Godhead power. If so, then this is another instance of you attributing Godhead powers to Satan when he is not a member of the Godhead and the Bible is silent in your defense.

No, LDS scripture makes it abundantely clear that Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men.

The Bible makes no such claim, you are proven wrong by your own scripture, LDSTrue.

LDSTrue:
The following Book of Mormon scripture should be proof enough to one practicing correct “scientific scripture exegeses.”

Moroni 7: 17 “But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.”

That scripture is not a reference to the power Satan has over the hearts of men, the scripture that I chose, makes it clear that Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men according to Mormonism.

You are incorrect and out of sync with classical LDS thinking.

LDSTrue:
Trout, a disturbing pattern of yours has developed. Many of your responses regarding Satan have provided substantial proof on several occasions that it is your opinion that unless scripture explicitly stipulates that Satan cannot posses the power or authority attributed to the Godhead that it is then correct “scientific scripture exegeses” to assume that he can or does and then argue his case in his defense. He must certainly appreciate your efforts on his behalf here on Tweb.

Again, you don't seem to have a grasp of the concept of, "burden of proof". A statement made by you isn't true until proven false, it is your responsibility to make a case for the truthfulness of your truth-claims.

LDSTrue:
Following your thought process through to its logical conclusion the following would also be true. It is not explicitly recorded within your accepted scripture that Satan cannot perform the following scriptural acts attributed to members of the Godhead, therefore, following your logic and applying your particular brand of “scientific scripture exegeses” Satan can and does posses these powers.

Again, you don't seem to have your arms around a very simple concept: You bear the burden of proof for the truth claims that you make, I do not bear the responsibility to prove them false.

It's obvious that those who live their lives by the maxim, "If it feels good, do it" are guided by the same feelings based truth dectector as those who claim that the LDS church is true because they feel it to be true.

Remember what Dallin Oaks said, he said that the burning bosom was a feeling of, "comfort and serenity". Sounds a lot like what Satan does in this passage from LDS scripture:

2 Nephi 28:21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

So we see according to Mormon scripture, Satan has, "full power" over the hearts of men, and an instance where Satan causes a burning bosom in accordance with the Dallin Oaks definition of a burning bosom.

Your beliefs are out of sync with Mormon scripture, LDSTrue. Just admit it.

Gene from Pales

November 20th 2005, 12:25 AM

Trout

November 20th 2005, 12:39 AM

Who is Satan? Well, I think his name means he is the accuser. But he is a spirit child of Heavenly Father, just as you and I and everyone else that was ever destined for this earth is. When Father announced His plan to send us here, to give us physical bodies and the opportunity to progress, at the expense of also giving us the opportunity to fail, he rebelled and made a counter proposal, which would have prevented anyone from failing but would severley have diminished what we could gain. He led a third of our Father's Spirit children in the rebellion and was cast out of "Heaven"

What kind of a being is he? He is an unembodied spirit who will never have the opportunity to attain a body, and will never be able to be like Father, who has a body. He will never be able to progress in virtue or any other way. He is not a God or even a god. His powers are limited and even we have more power than he has. If we resist him, he will flee from us. But he can lie very convincingly and we must be on our guard against him.

I explained above how he came to be. He is one of out Father's children just like the rest of us, and he fell through disobedience and rebellion. He is not omini-anything.

I have already answered, I think, down to whether or not Satan has access to God's throne, or presence. Well, according to the Book of Job in the Holy Bible, he came among the other sons of God into His presence and spoke to Him about His servant Job. You may look it up. (Maybe he was using his earlier name of Lucifer.)

His current scope of incluence is whatever men will allow him to have. If we were all righteous and obedient, he would have none.

His final destiny will be in the Outer Darkness, forever outside the presence of God.

You are totally welcome for these answers. I suggest you visit www.lds.org and browse what you may find there. You have access to all the Scriptures, many of the Conference talks in our magazines, our curriculum guides, etc etc etc. This would help to give you information about us.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Gene.

One question, you said:

Gene:
When Father announced His plan to send us here, to give us physical bodies and the opportunity to progress, at the expense of also giving us the opportunity to fail, he rebelled and made a counter proposal, which would have prevented anyone from failing but would severley have diminished what we could gain.

According to LDS teaching I thought that it was Jesus' plan that was the accepted redemptive plan. You seem to imply that it was the Father's plan.

Gene from Pales

November 20th 2005, 01:59 AM

Thanks for taking the time to answer, Gene.

One question, you said:

According to LDS teaching I thought that it was Jesus' plan that was the accepted redemptive plan. You seem to imply that it was the Father's plan.

Trout,

I unwisely entered this "fray" before I had monitored the conversation long enough to undestand it. I have found it to be more contentious than I had expected, but I must say that so far I find you to be reasonable. So I appreachiate your thanks for my reply.

Yes, I think it was Father's plan. I agree that it may not be perfectly clear and not subject to some difference in understanding, but in Abraham 3, starting about verse 22 and going through verse 28 we can read the story as shown to Abraham.

In verse 23, God is saying that He saw many of the noble and wise who He would make His rulers. I understand God, here, to be God the Father. In verse 24, one like God is standing there. If it is one like God the Father and yet not God the Father, my belief is that it is speaking of Jehovah who became Jesus. We are taught as LDS, that He participated basically as the "executive director" (my words) in the orgaization of this earth. Now in the next two verses it is my undestanding that He is merely explaining to the rest what Father has already told Him the plan was.

Now in verse 27, "The Lord" is again God the Father, asking whom He should send, as if He did not know who He would send. And the one like the Son of Man volunteered. Of course in the New Testament, Jesus seems to like to refer to Himself as the Son of Man. Another standing there also volunteered, but the Lord said He would send the First.

Now of course from what is given here, we could pick various characters for different roles, but why would not God the Father be the one to provide the plan?

The problem with trying to condense several years of study and thought and show a "prrof text" for every part of it, is that the same "proof texts" seem to be used by various people to prove utterly different things. Suffice it to say that I was baptized at about age 10, about 1940 (I don't want to divulge my age :lol: ) in the Disciples of Christ denomination. I was baptized agaon about 1954 in the Southern Baptist Denomination, more because of geography (I was in the Air Force and there was not Disciples of Christ Church around. I thought my family should be affiliated with a church, and I like what I saw these folks doing). I was disillusioned by them about 8 years later, was reassigned and found a Disicples of Christ Church and became a member there. They did not require another Baptism. The Chaiman of the Elders got too friendly with my wife of 15+ years, she divorced me, he divorced his wife of about 24-25 years and they were married. I became much less interested in church. A few years later I met a Latter-day Saint young woman and in due time we were married. I had learned a lot about the CHurch while courting her, but resisted accepting what they were teaching me for more than 13 years. I read "anti" literature, etc. The more I read and studied, the more I becmae convinced that the full truth did not exist on earth, but there was more to be found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than in any other place, even if Joseph Smith and the other earthly leaders fell short of perfection. I was baptized in February of 1984 at age 54. All was not home free. A few years later I allowed myself to be led astray, asked to be excommunicated, and stayed out until 1994, I think, but realized what was happening in my life, especially my spiritual life, was not good. I asked to be accepted back. I have been back since then. I don't necessarily speak the jargon. But what I know, I know. How? Well the same way I know anything that happened before I was born and many things since. I was not there, but I believe the witness of those who were. In the case of the Church, I believe the witness of the Holy Spirit of God testifying t my own spirit and advising me what is important and what is not.

I think I probably will not be around here long. I don't really find a spirit of love and joy and peace here, but rather a spirit of contention (that is not pointed at you, and really not at anyone, I guess, I just feel it here) But I am glad I stayed to answer your question. I hope it provides you a thought that you may find useful.

BTW, it is not necessarily true that what seems to be the teachings of the LDS are in fact anything approaching dogma, that must be accepted by all members, when they may be based on something that is not really clearly revealed. I think all these things that happened before man was put on earth and much that has happened since are included there. We are given some, but not all. We are given an "appetite" to learn more so that we will study, maybe. But we are not to "worry" when we don't quite get it all. We will get what we need.

Thank you again. Oh, BTW, I think I suggested you read some stuff. It occurs to me that you already have. Again, ponder it and pray over it. But don't think I suppose you have not. Be open to the leadings of the Holy Ghost. (But don't think I suppose you have not.)

Gene (that was supposed to be Gene from Palestine, since I was born near Palestine, Illinois. I do not live there now.

Trout

November 20th 2005, 01:30 PM

Trout,

I unwisely entered this "fray" before I had monitored the conversation long enough to undestand it. I have found it to be more contentious than I had expected, but I must say that so far I find you to be reasonable. So I appreachiate your thanks for my reply.

Thanks Gene, I try to remain calm, but calmness doesn't always prevail.

Gene:
Yes, I think it was Father's plan. I agree that it may not be perfectly clear and not subject to some difference in understanding, but in Abraham 3, starting about verse 22 and going through verse 28 we can read the story as shown to Abraham.

In verse 23, God is saying that He saw many of the noble and wise who He would make His rulers. I understand God, here, to be God the Father. In verse 24, one like God is standing there. If it is one like God the Father and yet not God the Father, my belief is that it is speaking of Jehovah who became Jesus. We are taught as LDS, that He participated basically as the "executive director" (my words) in the orgaization of this earth. Now in the next two verses it is my undestanding that He is merely explaining to the rest what Father has already told Him the plan was.

Now in verse 27, "The Lord" is again God the Father, asking whom He should send, as if He did not know who He would send. And the one like the Son of Man volunteered. Of course in the New Testament, Jesus seems to like to refer to Himself as the Son of Man. Another standing there also volunteered, but the Lord said He would send the First.

Interesting, thanks for the reference.

So you would say that Satan's plan and Jesus' plan were sub-plans of the Fathers plan, according to LDS thought?

Gene:
Now of course from what is given here, we could pick various characters for different roles, but why would not God the Father be the one to provide the plan?

Seems reasonable.

Gene:
The problem with trying to condense several years of study and thought and show a "prrof text" for every part of it, is that the same "proof texts" seem to be used by various people to prove utterly different things. Suffice it to say that I was baptized at about age 10, about 1940 (I don't want to divulge my age :lol: ) in the Disciples of Christ denomination. I was baptized agaon about 1954 in the Southern Baptist Denomination, more because of geography (I was in the Air Force and there was not Disciples of Christ Church around. I thought my family should be affiliated with a church, and I like what I saw these folks doing). I was disillusioned by them about 8 years later, was reassigned and found a Disicples of Christ Church and became a member there. They did not require another Baptism. The Chaiman of the Elders got too friendly with my wife of 15+ years, she divorced me, he divorced his wife of about 24-25 years and they were married. I became much less interested in church. A few years later I met a Latter-day Saint young woman and in due time we were married. I had learned a lot about the CHurch while courting her, but resisted accepting what they were teaching me for more than 13 years. I read "anti" literature, etc. The more I read and studied, the more I becmae convinced that the full truth did not exist on earth, but there was more to be found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than in any other place, even if Joseph Smith and the other earthly leaders fell short of perfection. I was baptized in February of 1984 at age 54. All was not home free. A few years later I allowed myself to be led astray, asked to be excommunicated, and stayed out until 1994, I think, but realized what was happening in my life, especially my spiritual life, was not good. I asked to be accepted back. I have been back since then. I don't necessarily speak the jargon. But what I know, I know. How? Well the same way I know anything that happened before I was born and many things since. I was not there, but I believe the witness of those who were. In the case of the Church, I believe the witness of the Holy Spirit of God testifying t my own spirit and advising me what is important and what is not.

Thanks for the story, Gene. I've heard similar stories from other LDS converts, it seems that there is a very common thread running through a great many converts to Mormonism - many came from a Baptist background.

Crusader . . . what's up with that? :teeth:

Gene:
I think I probably will not be around here long. I don't really find a spirit of love and joy and peace here, but rather a spirit of contention (that is not pointed at you, and really not at anyone, I guess, I just feel it here) But I am glad I stayed to answer your question. I hope it provides you a thought that you may find useful.

I understand.

Gene:
BTW, it is not necessarily true that what seems to be the teachings of the LDS are in fact anything approaching dogma, that must be accepted by all members, when they may be based on something that is not really clearly revealed. I think all these things that happened before man was put on earth and much that has happened since are included there. We are given some, but not all. We are given an "appetite" to learn more so that we will study, maybe. But we are not to "worry" when we don't quite get it all. We will get what we need.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Gene. I've been trying to get that across to LDSTrue, modern LDS thought is not completely monolithic, there are many differing ideas about various doctrinal ideas within the LDS church.

But wouldn't you agree that there are things that one must adhere to in order to be considered, "orthodox" within the pale of the LDS church?

Gene:
Thank you again. Oh, BTW, I think I suggested you read some stuff. It occurs to me that you already have. Again, ponder it and pray over it. But don't think I suppose you have not. Be open to the leadings of the Holy Ghost. (But don't think I suppose you have not.)

Gene (that was supposed to be Gene from Palestine, since I was born near Palestine, Illinois. I do not live there now.

It's been a pleasure, albeit a rather short one, Gene. Thanks for taking the time to chat a bit.