Torostoros

Same with my dad, "of Joseph". Interesting to know he's not the only one.

Hi TFP - thanks for your responses. I've always understood the teaching of the Saviour as self-existent to refer to the fact that He is not dependent on any other for life - this being one of the reasons that He could break the bands of death - He could take life unto Himself. In this sense I have never considered any of we the imperfect of God's children (all bar the Saviour) to be self-existent. I hope that explains where I am coming from. Maybe leaving out self-existent and only leaving eternal would have been better given my particular question ("The Eternal" being one of the given meanings for the title Jehovah). I'm coming to see that I should have omitted any reference to the Saviour possible atoning for the Father as I only saw this as one potential inference that one could draw from the two teachings (not necessarily doctrines) marked *. I've never believed it myself, and it wasn't important to the question - that of the Saviour being eternal yet begotten by One who was not eternally God from the beginning. It is correct that both your explanations as to how many worlds Christ served as Saviour would resolve the conflict I posed. I have never considered that some amongst all worlds (more than just this one, but not all) were His creation (under Father's guidance) and that these only were the ones that He atoned for. It is an interesting idea. I was unaware that Brigham Young taught such as you posted, either; I had always been taught that the Atonement served all worlds (hence my mention of it as critical to the conflict in question) or if not, no reference in teaching to how many worlds it served at all. I also appreciate your insights in your final two paragraphs - one does ring familiar to me; I have also pondered at times re. the Saviour becoming a Father instead of being perpetually limited to being "#2" (without that meaning to sound belittling). Thanks again for your comments.

I hope that I have understood you correctly, that what it means to be spiritually begotten/how being spiritually begotten happens, has not yet been revealed. I would consider a knowledge that Christ was spiritually begotten of the Father (Only Begotten in Flesh, First Begotten in Spirit) - though we may be unsure what spiritually begotten truly means - has definitely been revealed.

Thank you for your input. I absolutely would agree that there is nothing doctrinal in Heavenly Father needing Christ's Atonement, and don't hold such a belief myself; however, if both the two * points are true (as I said, I'm unsure if there's anything doctrinal underpinning those either, though I'm sure I am not the only one to have heard them over the years), I could definitely see how somebody could make such an inference. Perhaps I should not have included the "through Christ's Atonement" wording to end my question (it was not critical to my question; the teaching that "God was not always God" was, though). I have since removed that wording.

A question that came to my mind and is based on the following two things that I have heard/been taught (unsure if they are considered doctrinal or absolute truth): * That God was once a man like us and progressed to His Godly state in like manner as we are attempting * That the Atonement of Christ, performed on this world, was not just for this world, but all worlds past, present and future a potential inference being that the Atonement covered the world in which our Heavenly Father once lived as a man. My question is: How could Jehovah be "self-existent" or "eternal" if he was both spiritually and physically begotten of God the Father, but God the Father was not always God the Father, having been once a man that had to progress to Godhood? Any insights appreciated. P.S. Go Bulls

A good non-member friend of mine has asked me to read a passage out at her wedding and has entrusted me to choose it. It's to be about marriage. Very brief background: Her partner is not particularly fond of the LDS Church at all and for that reason it took a while for him to be convinced that it was OK for my friend and I to continue to catch up after we stopped working together (they are in their late 40s; I'm 28). For this reason quotes presenting as specifically Mormon (mentioning the Church's name, giving the appearance of wanting to convert, dripping in specifically-Mormon-theology, etc.) would not be welcome (especially as the wedding is happening in their Anglican Church). My thoughts at present are to select something from President Eyring's remarks at the recent Interfaith Global Conference on marriage, though in reading through it I can't find anything that stands out to me or stands out as faith-neutral enough. Something re. husbands and wives complementing each other and the purposes and beauties of marriage would be great. I don't think I'm required to be up there for any more than a minute. While I wait on replies, I'll read the Family Proclamation again. Thanks in advance.

The Kimball quote provided is the one I was looking for! Thank you Capitalist_Oinker

Hi I'm looking for a quote by an LDS leader. I think it's Pres. Packer but am not even close to certain of that. The crux of the quote (I think it's about five or six sentences long) is to address the fallacy that those that commit sin (esp. major sin) and repent are somehow then more enlightened/advanced than those that chose to live obediently and not sin in the first place. Any help is appreciated Thanks

Yep the Bishop can still place restrictions on those struggling with such worthiness issues - informal probation. Just no form of formal probation (disc. council + official record of the probation/discipline, etc.)

Leaders are instructed not to hold disciplinary councils for pornography, word of wisdom, or self-abuse (incl. masturbation) issues. Handbook. No disciplinary council = no form of formal discipline

I'm assuming you use what we call BPAY in Australia (using online banking and the Church's online biller code) when you talk about paying the Church directly. If that's the case (I could be wrong; you could be posting them cash for all I know), then the local ward, via MLS, certainly can see your donations and the dates they were made. It all shows on MLS - all members have their donation summaries (can't remember the exact word) printed from MLS at Tithing Settlement time. Even at any other time, anyone with the MLS access for finances can print a record showing all donations made by a person between certain dates (dating back years if they so choose); this is possible regardless of whether said donations were made via traditional tithing-slip-given-to-Bishop methods or the online billing method.

Having lived with scrupulosity for years myself (though different moral/religious concerns), it sounds exactly like what's at play here (from reading your post). It's a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, though centred on religious beliefs and largely manifested in obsessive guilt, so obsessive that you simply can't enjoy life anymore. Compulsive trips to the bishop's office, with small periods of alleviated guilt, which soon return, prompting another visit? All sounds WAY too familiar to me. So do the perpetual feelings of guilt. I'm not a qualified psychologist, so this doesn't count as a diagnosis, but speaking as one that has been through the same, scheduling an appointment with one qualified to help her work through these issues should be a HUGE priority right now. Scrupulosity is horrible. Here's a basic fact sheet: http://www.ocfoundation.org/uploadedFiles/MainContent/Find_Help/IOCDF_Scrupulosity_fact_sheet.pdf

Forgive me for chiming in late (that said, I've read every post in the thread). I much prefer to read others' insights into the topics on this forum than write posts of my own (I believe the term is "lurking"). One thing that came to mind as I read this post is the concept that God presides over who know how many worlds/planets. From this, who knows whether the Celestial Kingdom of our Heavenly Father, to which we refer, is inherited by only those upon this one planet, or by those from all worlds/planets over which He presides, that obtain this glory? Do they have a different Celestial Kingdom, because they lived their mortal estate on a separate planet? If the Kingdom is one and the same, then we wouldn't have the foggiest idea as to gender discrepancies, He having an infinite number of creations - both worlds and children. A step further, could the one Celestial Kingdom be for all that inherit the Celestial glory, from ALL planets/worlds of ALL Gods, knowing that there is more than one? Who really knows what is possible and what the gender discrepancies will be at any one time in an arena presided over by One not subject the same time and space dimensions to which we mortals are subject in our current sphere. My own line of questioning could very well expose limits in my own human understanding - I like to think of Celestial Kingdom/glory as not just a geographical space/place, but a state of being and a sociality, so there's numerous layers/dimensions on that front also. Just my

I'm after some recommendations for good books about Jewish history as I think this could greatly enrich my study of the Old Testament and other standard works like The Book of Mormon. Please don't just say "the Bible". I'm hoping to increase my understanding of the Jewish as a people and the nation of Israel, their history and current situation, etc. I think this would also help me gain a greater appreciation for prophecies given (both anciently and in modern times) regarding the Lord's covenant people and the nation of Israel. Hoping for something relatively in-depth (not only surface-level summaries) without being fat and thick enough to be a five-year task. Any recommendations?

I certainly agree that those heading out on missions now are better prepared for the task than the generations gone before.