Gifts of the Spirit and Faith

Q.

This question is about gifts of the Spirit. Elder Oaks in the Sep 1986 Ensign said:

"Spiritual gifts come to those who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. As the Prophet Joseph Smith taught, the gifts of the Spirit 'are obtained through that medium' [the Holy Ghost] and 'cannot be enjoyed without the gift of the Holy Ghost. … The world in general can know nothing about them.'"

However, one of the most freely given gifts of the Spirit, that of Faith, comes to many before they are baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

So is the gift of Faith (and perhaps the gift of Faith to be healed) not actually a gift of the Spirit but rather just a preparatory gift? It feels contradictory but most likely is just my limited understanding. Please let me know if you can shed light on this for me. Thanks!

A.

1 Corinthians 12:9 and Moroni 10:11 both present the point that faith is a gift of the Spirit. Note, though, that Moroni qualifies this as "exceedingly great faith."

Joseph Smith has presented that without having the gift of the Holy Ghost you can't enjoy the gifts of the Spirit; and that the world doesn't have the gift of the Holy Ghost. However the Holy Ghost and ministering angels can work with people as much as people allow them to. There is no requirement to be a member for this to happen. But these people don't have it as a permanent gift: Only a fleeting experience.

To have the gift of the Holy Ghost with you constantly it is required to first have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore the Holy Ghost can give gifts in some measure without giving a permanent gift.

To receive the constant gift of the Holy Ghost also requires baptism. Almost everyone being baptised isn't really baptised in their hearts immediately, as their faith in Christ isn't complete at that point. It is a long process in most cases. Therefore they don't have the permanent companionship of the Holy Ghost immediately either. So the gifts come in measure also (as true heart baptism is required to have the gift).

As we follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost we become sanctified. Through seeing the blessings that come from sanctification we gain greater faith and a greater union with the Holy Ghost. Thus the gifts of the Spirit become stronger in us through the additional faith and union with the Holy Ghost, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. This creates the "exceeding great faith" that Moroni speaks of.

POST YOUR QUESTION HERE

To ask the question you press the "comment" link, and fill out as a normal comment. The difference is that when you press the "Login and Publish" button it will NOT be published. But I will get your question. The question will be answered as soon as possible, and will appear on this site.

Married or Not

Q. am i married or not, i was given a ring in 1961 and he was in the air force and we were over seas then came home and were lost to each other. we have found each other and a document were were married by proxy.

A. You haven't given me much to go on. But you appear to be married in the temple. You would have to look into your states legal situation to know the answer to how the law sees you.

Dinosaurs, How they fit with the Gospel.

Dinosaurs, How they fit with the Gospel.

Q.

What's your take on dinosaurs, and how they fit in with the Gospel?

A.

In writing to Timothy Paul warned,

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding ... oppositions of science falsely so called."

So Paul has advised Timothy to keep that which he knew to be true spiritually and avoid opposing ideas from science falsely so called.

The word "science" (Latin) means "to know" or "knowledge". However "modern science" is full of theories. The word "theory" (Greek) means "to speculate" or "guess". Therefore when someone speaks of a "scientific theory" the term is an oxy-moron. For if it is "scientific" it is known to be a fact and can't be a "theory".

Anyone professing that scientific evidence exists to prove that something is millions of years old, is talking illogical nonsense. For who has been back to prove that they are correct?

Almost all scientific discoveries have began with a scientifically "proven" theory which failed when attempted in practice. In spite of all the "scientific" evidence showing it MUST be right. Provable science (i.e. areas of science where a working product must be manufactured or where tests can be made to completely prove the idea) are the only areas of science where the term "science" can be said to be appropriate.

When we get to areas such as a proposed "dinosaur age" we are into deep speculation.

Have we found evidence of all types of extinct forms of life (including reptilian)? Most certainly! But when we get to creating the concept of an age were only certain creatures existed, we step far beyond science and get into areas of wild and totally unprovable speculation. Certainly the "scientific" community like to stand united in supporting many of these types of wild theories. And as some people find these ideas as fascinating as Darth Vader and death stars, a lot of money goes into "proving" that these theories are fact. Evidence to the contrary is quickly twisted or not mentioned.

Logic would suggest that if large reptiles existed during the early time of man they would have been wiped out for man's survival. We could speculate on whether anyone made hybrid large reptiles later, for war or any other purpose. However this theory would be as unprovable as the dinosaur age.

In spite of seemingly endless claims and statistics to support the idea that dating methods have some high degree of accuracy, SCIENTISTS themselves CONTINUE to discard the findings of all the ones that oppose their desired dates, and cling to the one that they can eventually find to support it (which may not be the method they accept next time): About as "scientific" as "Alice in Wonderland." Scientific dating methods are about as consistent as girls playing hard to get as a dating method to get a guy - I guess it works sometimes, with modification.

Students in science classes had been taught for years that the rings around Saturn were made of a continuous substance and that it was a liquid like oil or a gas. Yet upon us sending a probe past it we discovered that both these scientific(?) claims were false. It is made of rocks and they are separate. Zero out of 2 for the "scientists".

I could go on with virtually endless examples. Yet I don't need to because even "scientists" admit that they are constantly changing their minds as new ideas present themselves. An admittance that these areas of science aren't really science at all. It would be better termed "the search for science."

This having been established, it then becomes a question of do you believe God when He says He actually DOES know; yet it doesn't fit with the latest theories?

As people searching for the truth, we must look for real proof of claims in regard to scientific ideas. Firstly I look to see if that presented is as scientific as they claim. We must look through, what may only be, flimsy evidence, and see if it actually holds up. Secondly I look to see if claims are consistent with religiously known facts. If the Scriptures seem to oppose it then closer scrutiny is necessary.

The Scriptures tell me that no death occurred until mankind erred. And that this fall occurred around 6,000 years ago. Do I hear lots of claims that this can't be right? Yes. Do I see anything PROVEN by anyone to discredit this claim? No!

In my life I have sometimes challenged the ideas presented by God: I couldn't see how he was right. Yet experience has eventually made me come to realise that he is always right and man always wrong. Because of this trust in him and my distrust of "modern science" because of its many flaws, continuous change and blatant lies, I have to find no inconsistency between what God says and TRUE science.

Was there Resurrections before Christ's?

Q.

I was reading through Alma 40, and came across verse 2 which reads:

"Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection - or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality, this corruption does not put on incorruption - until after the coming of Christ."

Moroni was resurrected, among others, so does this then refer to the FIRST coming of Christ?

A.

In verse 3 Alma states,

"....But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet..."

He is pointing out that no resurrection has occurred before this time.

When discussing the cruxcifiction of Jesus Matthew states,

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Matt 27:52-53

So these people weren't resurrected until after Jesus was resurrected. And Matthew has made a point of mentioning that this was a later event.

Paul declares that Christ was risen first _

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." 1 Cor 15:20

There are several general times for resurrection. Christ's second coming is one of those. Naturally the final resurrection will be after the millennium when all things are completed. But resurrections will be going on during the millennium also (D&C 101:30-31).

No resurrections could occur before Christ made it possible.

Does Christ Suffer for Each Sin individually?

Q.
When we sin does Christ suffer more than if we had not sinned? That is, does Christ suffer for each person's sins separately, or does he just suffer for sin? Has any General Authority answered this question? What do the Scriptures say?

A.
Firstly the Law of Moses clearly answers this question. Each Israelite was commanded to come to the temple once a year and place their sins upon the head of the sacrifice. Each subsequent year the sins for that year were placed upon the ram. This sacrifice was done outside the temple but still within the camp (Jerusalem).

Additionally to this there was one sacrifice made outside the city. One sacrifice for ALL Israel.

The first of these 2 sacrifices represents the suffering in the garden. The second one represents the crucifixion outside Jerusalem on the hill.

If we look at the first sacrifice we see that a sacrifice was required for EACH person. Thus Christ had to suffer separately for each of us. Secondly we see that additional sacrifice was required each and every year for additional sins done that year. This demonstrates that Christ suffers separately for every sin we make.

In the D&C Christ stated that without repentance suffering is required.

"And surely every man must repent or suffer..." D&C 19:4

In verse 17 he goes on further to say,

"But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I."

So Christ is stating that we would be suffering that same type of suffering he did if we don't accept him suffering on our behalf.

In examining this question we must ask why suffering is required? This is also answered in the Scriptures.

Of those who have known the truth and rejected it Mosiah 2:37-38 says,
"...therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever."

So, due to our conscience, suffering becomes necessary. We need to appease our conscience by an equal suffering for what we have caused ("divine justice").

We may well say, "well, I don't want to have Christ suffer on my behalf, I'll do it myself." The problem with that is the sanctification that is required. The above verse also points out that sin ruins our relationship with God, as he can't dwell in us. This means we can't progress. Without a cleansing of our sins the Holy Spirit can't be our constant companion to sanctify us (make us pure and perfect in thought and feeling).

The Scriptures additionally demonstrate that each person must suffer different amounts according to how well we understood.

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:47-48

Thus for Christ to be an equivalent sacrifice he must suffer according to our knowledge also.

Christ suffered in the garden for the sins performed before he lived and long after he lived, by the eternity factor. Time is an illusion. God dwells in eternity where all is present. Christ took his mind to this and then Abraham (for example) could have his sins forgiven and be cleansed then sanctified while he lived. Christ thus, from a time perspective, suffered for our sins before the sins even occurred. So he doesn't need to keep going back.

As to whether a GA has made some comment, I couldn't find one.

Quotes of General Church Authorities - Christ Keeping Nail Prints

Q.
My question is with regards to the resurrected body of the Savior. When he was resurrected, the prints of the nails were in his hands and in his feet. My question is why they were there. I remember hearing something from my mission president that because Christ willfully gave his life, He made the choice to be crucified, and because it was a personal choice, his resurected body would have the prints because He chose to let it happen. I am only interested in if there is a quote from one of the Brethren on this topic. Thanks.

A.
This answer contains 2 parts. The first part considering the assumption of the question. The second part looking at an answer to the problem itself.

I appreciate the sincerity of your question. However it proposes that a concept should be accepted as fact if those in certain positions in the church believe it to be so: That they are always right by virtue of those positions. This proposes that God has some magic way to imbue all knowledge upon an individual at any time he chooses. (Solomon received wisdom by obedience, not magic - else we would have to believe God's proposed magic had problems, as Solomon went after false gods by the end). Either that or we would have to believe that God calls the most knowledgeable people to certain positions (who already have all the answers).

The Scriptures, current circumstances and church history don't support either of these ideas.

This refutes the Scripture that teaches in regard learning doctrine _

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Isa 28:10

God spoke to the boy Samuel when the President of the Priesthood ("The Prophet"), Eli, wasn't listening in regard his sons. He gave revelation to the prophetess Deborah because the President of the Priesthood wasn't listening. Lehi (the nobody) was spoken to by God, yet he was from Manasseh (through whom comes no priesthood). Jeremiah received revelation that the President of the Priesthood was not teaching. Jesus Christ was rejected and crucified at the request of the President of the Priesthood (who, incidentally, received revelation about him by virtue of his office Jn 11:51). The Apostle Judas betrayed Christ for money. Several Apostles in these latter days (as some propose that somehow things are now different) betrayed Joseph Smith. Some started their own churches. And the differences of opinions of some Presidents of the Priesthood, in these days, is well documented.

Differences of opinions of Presidents of the Priesthood and Apostles isn't new.

"For it has been declared to me of you, my brethren... that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptised in the name of Paul?" 1 Cor 1:11-13

In other words the teachings of these various Apostles and the President of the Priesthood (Cephas - Peter) were so different as to cause groups following the doctrines of each.

Harold B. Lee (when President of the Priesthood) made the following statement.

"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorised to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth." (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses, 69.)

The catch 22 of this statement of Harold B. Lee is that it can't be incorrect, as if it were that would make it correct of itself, as he was a prophet speaking in general conference.

This lays out that only the standard works are to be regarded as totally authoritative concepts. Any person can only present other ideas as his OPINION ONLY, "regardless of his position in the church." Only "the President of the Church" may present new doctrine, and then it MUST be sustained by all of the church, and then it will be placed within the standard works, and thus be Scripture also. Us sustaining him in his office DOESN'T mean we sustain all his opinions.

The special duty and office of an Apostle is to testify of the risen Christ.

The special duty and office of the President of the Priesthood (what we term "The Prophet") is to be there to receive any specific revelation, to the whole church, that God wishes to give in addition to that which he has already done. As we see evidence of in the 2 declarations given in the back of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Certainly it is part of their position to decide what must be taught as basic fundamentals. But these things must be laid out in Scripture also. They attempt to avoid including doctrinal opinions of their own as church doctrine.

The Scriptures set forth that it is your responsibility to obtain revelation from God in regard these questions. Reading the Scriptures definitely helps in our study. And this should be the main source of truth from man. Next would come hearing those things stated by GAs. Lastly would come the ideas of members where you are.

Some quote the following statement of Wilford Woodruff to support the idea that we can believe every word Presidents of the church teach _

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this church to lead you astray...." Manifesto 1:14

However Presidents of the church have taught different ideas on certain subjects. So, obviously, this statement shouldn't be taken to such an extreme. It must be remembered what he is speaking about in saying this. The occasion was that a concept of the gospel was being removed. Question arose as to his right to remove a gospel principle. He is defending this decision by stating that God wouldn't allow him to remove a gospel principle if it weren't the appropriate thing to do at the time.

This doesn't support the concept that all doctrinal ideas expressed by a President of the church are infallible. It only supports the concept it is written relative to (ie. that the President of the church won't add or remove principles contrary to the will of God).

Man is subject to error, regardless of his position in the church organisation. And that should never be forgotten. You MUST use the Spirit as your final source in these matters. The latter is continually emphasised in Scripture and by prophets and apostles in these latter-days.

"For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived--surely I say to you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day." D&C 45:57

Taking the Holy Spirit for your guide is imperative, not an optional extra.

The primary thing that you should achieve relative to knowledge is to walk and talk with the Father, and learn from him. To do this you must go through the Son. But along with these the Spirit is still required.

As to the concept that you have inquired about, I would first add my agreement to the opinion expressed by your mission president, that Christ is resurrected, and therefore needn't keep his holes. But he has chosen to keep them for us to identify him in further ways. Zech 13:6 and D&C 45:51-52 present that Christ will show these holes at his second coming. He proved who he was by showing them to the Nephites when he visited the Americas.

To further quote the Standard Works of the church in regard this issue _ I'm sure you would be familiar with Doubting Thomas: The Apostle who had to see Christ resurrected himself, to believe. Note what they say in regard him _

"The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." John 20:25

So it was important to Thomas that Christ still had this demonstration that he was indeed the crucified Christ. Therefore it isn't hard to accept that others would feel the same way: It is a sign of proof.

Having stated (hopefully clearly) the importance of using the Holy Ghost in regard any opinion you hear I would present the following quote by the Apostle Hugh B. Brown:

"All the people were invited to come forward and feel the prints of the nails in His hands and feet and the wounds of the sword in His side so that they would know that He was the promised Savior who had been slain for the world." (Gospel Library > Magazines > Friend > April 1972) [Thanks for this quote Michelle :-) ]

Mind-reading and Psychic Things - good or evil?

Q.
WHAT IS THE CHURCH'S STAND ON MIND READING AND PSYCHIC STUFF? I KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH THAT TALENT BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW IF THEY ARE DECEIVING YOU. THE REASON I WANTED TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE I KNOW FROM READING THE SCRIPTURES THAT IN THE LAST DAYS, IN WHICH WE ARE LIVING RIGHT NOW, THERE WILL BE MANY WHO WILL SHOW WONDERS AND SIGNS AND WHO WILL PERFORM ALL KINDS OF MIRACLES AND MANY PEOPLE WILL BE DECEIVED BY THEIR DOING.

A.
The church's stand is to support that written in Scripture. The Scriptures do record people's thoughts being revealed at times. Yet the Scriptures oppose the idea of constant communication with an unknown dead person or evil spirits (familiar spirits).

But your question relates to those living. This is an interesting subject, of which I could write extensively on, but will try to keep it as brief as possible. Hopefully this will help you.

Most doing such things know very little about what they are actually doing. When we were just an intelligence (ie. before being born to Heavenly Father and our Heavenly Mother as spirit children) we communicated by thought. Upon being born as spirits we continued in this communication style to some extent. In this life, part of our spirit body can come out of our physical body (along with part of our intelligence) and go to other people. Those who can see spirits can see these people where so chosen.

I have some people, who practice this ability (in fact 2 of my children do), come to me for additional communication. I have no problem with it, as I have nothing to hide. However many can become extremely paranoid about this. For this reason those who do it normally like to keep it a secret from those who may be adversely affected.

It is just a natural ability. There is nothing evil about it of itself. It is like our ability to speak and hear. The only problem exists in what people may do.

As my wife died young and I am now single, I have had females try to persuade me that I am romantically interested in them, for example. Some have tried to test my spiritual integrity by drawing my attention to parts that females are showing, such as cleavage, and throwing in a lustful feeling. I know these things don't come from me and so I just ignore them. But it demonstrates that people can use it in incorrect ways.

Furthermore people can carry on directed communications with you (which they produce the attitude and direction of and it becomes a subconscious conversation) and come away thinking that the responses you gave during this biased view point (in your mind) are actually what you believe. These people really need an instruction manual.

People practicing this sometimes come to see themselves as some superior class. This isn't always the case, of course. But it does happen. So it is like anything else. It can be good or can be evil, depending on what you do with it.

As to other psychic (spirit) abilities, the same applies. Wise use of abilities is no problem. Whatever a person does they must always remember to practice no evil of any sort with them. Also not to infringe upon anyone's personal life nor their right to their own decisions etc.

I enjoy feeling the purity in others with my spirit (I only focus on the good bits I feel in them). I can go in as far as I wish - a useful tool when looking for a marriage partner. This doesn't affect them negatively in the slightest. These are also abilities we used as an intelligence. I don't do things to demonstrate tricks to others or to deceive in any way. The only people who know I do them are those people who read my mind.

The most wonderful person I know, who is by far the most Christ like, sends her spirit to me on a regular basis (ie. reads my mind). She has been invaluable to me through several difficult times I have been through. She is spiritually encouraging and a strong member. She has her own family, so comes purely out of love and friendship for me as a person. I'm the only person she comes to.

So while I can see that wrong can be done with it, much good can also come from it. Therefore I don't see this as fulfilling the prophecy you refer to, of itself. Also this isn't new, as such things are recorded as having happened throughout history. I don't think you need to worry there. That prophecy, along with the one about signs in the heavens, are considered by some to be fulfilled by our latest technology (airplanes etc) and the deceptions of theory science (evolution, ice age, millions of years old earth, etc). I reserve judgement on it just yet.

Magic Tricks and Sorcery

Q.
What should we feel about magic tricks? I know that there have been strict warnings against sorcery and witch craft. Are magic tricks to be considered as sorcery?

A.
In the vast majority of cases magicians use simple devices for doing their tricks. This is just pure entertainment; and there is nothing wrong in that.

It is true, however, that some few incorporate mind-matter abilities in tricks. This can only be wrong where the person seeks some help from a dark (ie. evil) source, where they are using it for an evil purpose or where they are putting their lives in jeopardy.

If they are seeking a dark source for more power (which the dark side [Satan] can't give them) then that becomes sorcery or witch craft.

I would strongly advise any person using mind abilities to resist any desire to use them in any way that does damage to others for the purpose of revenge or any other evil reason. It takes a wise person, realising we all have such abilities, to not abuse them.

Women's Role

Q.

I was wondering if you could give me your perspective on a women's role in the LDS church, because I have been reading that the priesthood is only for men, and some members discourage women who want to work?

A.

To understand the different roles of men and women we would have to look at what we are inside (psychology). Firstly, even our own (generally) primitive science accepts that several differences have been established to exist between men and women. There is the sometimes quoted survey that found that females of around 14 come out better on IQ tests (as we presently have them) than males do of that age. Females are (generally speaking) more inclined toward heart feelings than men. Men are more inclined toward single focus than women. Men tend to rely more on cold logic. Women try to make a blend of emotion and logic.

My own personal experience has shown to me that women are better at creating order out of chaos on a local level, and men are better at perceiving the general state of the society globally.

These facts show that the eternal roles of God and Godess are very well thought out, and not just some random gender accident. ie. Men's spirits are different from women's spirits eternally and match the roles given.

While a good woman can be better at a man's role than a bad man (and visa-versa) it is better that a man do his role and grow to become what he should be. And, equally, a woman is better to do a woman's role so that she may grow in it. Her greatest potential lies in being a woman.

God instituted that only men receive the priesthood to Moses. An examination of Genesis reveals that this wasn't new at that time. Abraham, Issac and Jacob all offered sacrifices and no mention is made that their wives did, in spite of the gospel of Jesus Christ having been taught prior to Moses receiving the Law. Christ called 12 male apostles in spite of women also following him. If he had planned on presenting some new doctrine that women could now hold priesthood he would have called females also. Public opinion didn't stop him from introducing anything else he wanted to present.

Priesthood is a concept of authority and administration. An ability to deal well in this is required by a God, who is administrating over an entire earth full of people. As this is the male's role throughout eternity it is one the man must learn. The woman's role in eternity is entirely different. So what point is there in her learning his role rather than him learning it? It's like proposing that those desiring to be a carpenter should learn how to be plumbers and apprentice plumbers learn to be carpenters.

To understand, then, the woman's role, it is important to understand her role in eternity. The primary role of both God and Godess is to be parents. Heavenly Father is exactly that. And a woman's role is to be a Heavenly Mother. They aren't sitting around doing nothing. They are having children, teaching them, nurturing them, loving them, and showing by example how to live. She gets to take intelligences that can't go beyond where they are, on their own, and to give them the wonderful opportunities we have at this time. And this is thanks to our Heavenly Mothers.

So it is good for a woman (where she is physically capable) to have children, and to work at nurturing those children. Firstly it is of advantage to the spirits waiting for a body. And secondly it is of advantage to the woman to learn to be more successful at that which she plans on doing for eternity. Also she learns greater love the more children she has. She also learns to handle larger amounts of children, which skill is required.

Therefore when you ask about women being discouraged from working, it isn't that women are discouraged from working when single or their children have grown up. This is assuming that males requiring work to support their families, within the community, are all employed. Otherwise women can find areas where service is required to make themselves more useful. However, when married, women are encouraged to pursue their eternal careers first, rather than focusing on an extremely temporary career for this life only.

It should be noted that God has continually stated that men should also have their first focus on the family, rather than careers. He told Joseph Smith off several times for focusing on his calling more than his family. In fact he told the whole first presidency off for this. So getting the family situation right is more important than ANY other thing we do.

Did Christ Marry?

Q. My questions deals with temple marriage. I have read in the scriptures state that we must be married and sealed in the temple to recieve exaltation. Meaning, that to be recieved in the Celestial Kingdom we must be married and sealed in the temple with an eternal companion. If this is correct then my question is did Jesus Christ marry? His most famous scripture he said to John states, "to fullfill all righteousness." He says this after John asks him why he should be baptized. Thus if he fullfilled all righteousness, did he marry?

A. Yes. Jesus Christ had to be married to be accepted as a teacher or leader in Israel. It was required under the Law of Moses, that "the leader of my people must marry a virgin." This meant that the leader would have understanding of family problems, and would have demonstrated an ability to hold a marriage together (as this obviously implies that he is still married to her).

It was also required that they be 30 years old. Which Christ also complied with.

Had he failed to marry he also wouldn't be fulfilling the commandment given to be fruitful and multiply. It should be understood that righteous sex doesn't include lust. I mention this just in case this is an issue which may confuse you or others reading.

Joe

This site is for doctrinal questions, not analysis of people.

If there is some idea/s that someone has that concern you then ask about those.

Need for Authority

Q. How do you understand Luke 9:49-50?

A. I am writing on this very subject at present and it will be on my site at http://www.dtowers.blogspot.com next week - all going well.

Adam-God Theory

Q. Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory (I've read the Journal of Discourses, and it was not taken out of context, etc). But the LDS Church does not teach those things today.

Brother Brigham also said that everything that he said could be considered scripture.

So, is the Adam-God theory true? If so, why does the church today teach that it isn't? If it isn't true, then why did Brigham Young teach it as doctrine?


A. This post is to answer the Adam-God theory.

I've done a search in Brigham Young's Discourses and found nothing under "as good as Scripture". I did a search under "good as" and found nothing to do with Scripture. So I can only look at the idea of what if some prophet claimed his comments were as good as Scripture. This does not make them such. Something as good as done, isn't done, either. Firstly I will quote the following from the prophet Harold B. Lee in regard this point.

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator --please note that one exception--you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF THE MAN WHO SAYS IT [my emphasis]." (Stand Ye in Holy Places" by Harold B. Lee 15:162:6).

To make real Scripture for the church, a prophet must present all his words as coming to him by revelation in his office as prophet for the church, and that God has said these should become established doctrine. He will then call upon the membership to sustain it as being Scripture. And the sustaining must be unanimous. Upon acceptance it will then be placed in the Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). There has of recent decades been 3 additions made to our Scriptures by this process (D&C [Doctrine and Covenants] 137 and 138, and Official Declaration 2). The church is a democratic theocracy. Meaning that while it is directed by Christ, it is done by the ACCEPTANCE and to the level of the Saints (members) as a whole. No individual member, regardless of his position, has a right to decide what is true for everyone else. Thus it is called "The Church of Jesus Christ [theocracy] of Latter-Day Saints [democracy]. According to the prophet Harold B. Lee the only real Scripture we have are the Standard Works. If some members regard all sorts of other things as Scripture, be that to them. And if any man propose his words or anyone else's to be Scripture (other than the Standard Works), that is his opinion. I've never heard it presented at conference that I am to sustain all comments by GAs (General Authorities) and/or all manuals as Scripture. Only that I accept GAs as holding certain positions. Scripture for the church is only that written in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. So we are looking at Brigham Young's statements purely as speculative theory of a church member, if not supported by Scripture. And if in opposition to Scripture then they are false (as Harold B. Lee also stated concerning ANY person within the church having doctrine opposed to Scripture). Of course the catch 22 is that if Harold B. Lee is incorrect that makes him correct, as he was the prophet when it was quoted in an Institute Manual. Having laid that aside, let's move on to the question.

I have read the statements of Brigham's that you mention. My first response was that it was very clear that he was saying Adam to be the Father of Jesus Christ's body and our spirit body. And I thought that for a long time. However I have since found some statements that have changed my mind on the matter. Also I think I should throw in a fairly official statement on it.

When a prophet, Spencer W. Kimball made the following statement at general conference.
"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Kimball, Spencer W. "Our Own Liahona." Ensign (Nov. 1976), p. 77-79.

This was a plain statement that current GAs disagree with the doctine of Adam being God, and that they feel Brigham Young's statements are misunderstood.

The question you have posed as to why Brigham taught it, I assume to be in the interest of truth. Therefore the question becomes, "was Adam really our Heavenly Father"? Which will be answered by Scripture lastly. But in the interest of hopefully laying aside ALL your concerns, it is a good question as to why someone with such revelatory ability and knowledge would beleive something so obviously contrary to Scripture, if he did?

Here I should make you aware of surrounding beliefs that, I believe, would have influenced and concerned Brigham Young while making these statements. He was speaking against thinking created by Protestant/Catholic teaching. They, generally, totally condemn Adam and Eve as disgusting beings who are totally responsible for our present predicament. To them all would have been wonderful had Adam and Eve followed simple instructions. I have seen Protestant publications that draw Adam as a truly evil character. Brigham, therefore, is presenting what a wonderful and important character Adam actually was. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Paul the Apostle all suffer from the same problem. They were the first of a new breed. And they didn't realise that you must be extremely careful with how you put things. People take them completely out of context of your thinking. They knew what they meant, when they said things. But it sounds different to us.

Typical Opinions Brigham Expressed:-

"Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50. (1852)

However in the very NEXT paragraph he stated, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael..." Any illusion that he was proposing Adam (Michael) to be Heavenly Father (Eloheim) is tossed out here. But for better understanding let's proceed anyway.

To try and understand what Brigham must have meant in the first bit I will present some possible ideas. Adam is a god, as are all who accept and follow the gospel of Christ in its fulness (John 10:35). And as he is the first parent in fallen flesh, and we are cut off because of the fall, he is the only god with whom we have to do patriachally (as to get to the Father we must go through the Son, not patriarchally).
Eve was one of his celestial wives, looking backward (ie she now being one of his celestial wives). He brought her with him. But she wasn't one of his celestial wives at the time he brought her.
He is the Ancient of Days, being our first father to live a life of years here (as stated in D&C 27:11).
Of course these are only assumptions of his intent, as he isn't available for comment.

Brigham said "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he [Christ] took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve....

"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven....

"Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." Journal of Discourses. vol. 1, pp. 50-51.

Heavenly Father is the father of the human family (while Adam can be regarded so also).
Heavenly Father was also a character in the garden of Eden when talking to Adam and Eve (I'll quote Brigham on this soon)(even though Adam lived there permanently at the time). So it could be that we should be reading Brigham's statements based on his assumption of the knowledge of the hearers. Others propose that there were errors in recording by those writing his talk down. Either way the following adds insight.

Reading these quotes of Brigham bellow makes it very clear what he thought of Adam and God, and Adam to Christ:-

"We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."

"The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" Discourses of Brigham Young. 2nd ed., p. 94.

"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.159

"Our Lord Jesus Christ-the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [Adam and Eve]." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.40.

Now consider the following Scripture references:-

Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee."

D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) 78:15-16 "That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion [Jesus Christ], who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who hath appointed Michael [Adam] your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high. and given him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days and end of life."

D&C 29:34 "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."

Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

Moses 6:22 "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed."

It is obvious from these latter collections that 1. Brigham Young didn't think Adam was our Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus Christ. And 2. (and most importantly) that the Scriptures oppose such a concept.

The Trinity or 3 Separate Beings?

Q. My question is could you help me prove the separation of the godhead (3 separate beings). One of my friends does not believe the Book or Mormon. So I was wondering if you could tell me how to prove it, using the Bible? I am pretty sure its possible but I dont know where to look. Can you help me?

A. Actually there is an enormous amount of Biblical evidence that the 3 are separate. Far more than would be sensible to post here. I have written on this subject and you can read it by clicking the following link _

The Trinity

Negroes and the Priesthood

Q. You have asked what God looks like, and about the reason and oriigin of races.

A. You are right in asking, as there are endless theories in and out of the church. And I'm not interested in adding another one. So I will tell you those things I know, only. And I must declare that the things I say are purely as a church member, not an authority of the church. And I have never heard or read a general authority of the church, living or past, make these comments. Or any other member. So I must declare them as only those things of which I have been informed by the Holy Ghost as one person. Not established church doctrine.

In the pre-existence Satan presented a plan that was impossible, but appealed to many. One third of all spirits present, in fact. Of the other two thirds many were not certain who to go with. They had concerns. Being loving, Heavenly Father made a deal with them that if they went down he would make sure that they couldn't go to outer darkness - which, apparently councerned them. To go there requires the priesthood. So he promised them that a mark would be put on them that no one would put them in the position they feared. In his love God placed a dark skin upon them to distinguish them from those wishing the priesthood. He made sure that these spirits were born to negro parents. Of more recent years there seems to have been reached a point where these have all come down already, or aren't in a position to receive that which concerned them. Consequently the priesthood has also been given to negros since that time.

The Book of Mormon explains the origin of the Lamanites. They are from Israel.

As to Heavenly Father, and his race. Joseph Smith declared, and I can equally testify, that God shines with a white light that emanates from inside him. Therefore discussing the colour of his skin is a bit meaningless.