According to Mormon doctrine, Resurrected beings have physical bodies that can only be in one place at one time, which is why the Holy Ghost remains a spirit, so that he can dwell in the hearts of men: > "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son > also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a > personage of Spirit. **Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in > us.**" (D&C 130:22 , *emphasis added*) It appears to me that some form of power or ability is *lost* at the resurrection. An essential power that only spirits have, which resurrected beings do not, hence the necessity of the Holy Ghost remaining a spirit. It seems somewhat paradoxical to me that we would have anything to *lose* at the resurrection–if anyone understands what I'm trying to communicate by phrasing it that way... Obviously the Holy Ghost is going to be resurrected at some point (I feel it's safe to assume so at least), at which point in time he will forfeit the power that makes his role in the Godhead essential, and receive a resurrected body. My question is, what exactly is this power that the Father and Christ cannot wield as resurrected beings? Or where do I err in my pondering or phrasing of my question?

I understand that the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, is the most translated book in the world. It seems that giving the Word of God to all the world is considered part of the Great Commission. Since the LDS church holds the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God, just like the Bible, what is the current total number of languages into which it has been translated. I would also be interested in statistics for the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants.

I apologize for the length of this question, but it requires establishing some premises that refute the most common response, being that the purpose of suffering is for us to learn and grow, and be tested . > Abraham 3:25 - And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;. I've been thinking about this a long time and have been unable to find satisfactory answers. Please point out any flaws in my logic or research. According to the LDS Institute Doctrines of the Gospel manual : > Earth life, though brief, is crucial to us in our quest for eternal life. Here we receive bodies of flesh and bones and are tested in all things. Those who learn obedience and gain self-mastery will return to live with God the Eternal Father. In the 1977 April Ensign, Elder Bruce R. McConkie teaches that children who die before the age of accountability will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom: > Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom? > >To this question the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other.... They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. This leads to another question then, which McConkie answers also. Will they be saved into the highest possible Celestial Kingdom (in other words they are not worse off in any way for dying young)? > "Will they have eternal life?" > > Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives.... In the providences of Him who is infinitely wise, the answer is in the affirmative. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Further down in the same page , the question of "Will children ever be tested?" is answered: > Absolutely not! Any idea that they will be tested in paradise or during the millennium or after the millennium is pure fantasy. At this point, it seems logical to wonder, given the immense amount of suffering that people face in this world, would you not be better off to die young? McConkie seems to anticipate this logical progression: > Are those who die better off than those who remain in mortality? > > We may rest assured that all things are controlled and governed by Him whose spirit children we are. He knows the end from the beginning, and he provides for each of us the testings and trials which he knows we need. President Joseph Fielding Smith once told me that we must assume that the Lord knows and arranges beforehand who shall be taken in infancy and who shall remain on earth to undergo whatever tests are needed in their cases. This accords with Joseph Smith’s statement: “The Lord takes many away, even in infancy, that they may escape the envy of man, and the sorrows and evils of this present world; they were too pure, too lovely, to live on earth.” (Teachings, pp. 196–97.) It is implicit in the whole scheme of things that those of us who have arrived at the years of accountability need the tests and trials to which we are subject and that our problem is to overcome the world and attain that spotless and pure state which little children already possess. All of this seems to suggest that: 1. It is possible to reach the highest levels of Salvation/Exaltation without going through mortal life and all the suffering it entails. 2. God can know our hearts and our purity without testing us in mortality (otherwise he could not know that those who die before the age of accountability are worthy of exaltation) 3. The test (and growth) in mortality is therefore unnecessary, which means that mortal life is unnecessary. 4. If mortal life is unnecessary than so is all of the suffering in the world. So my question is, what is the purpose of suffering? It is not a requirement for us to learn and grow and be tested, otherwise kids who die before the age of accountability could not be saved (yet they are). Why would an all-loving (omni-benevolent) Heavenly Father subject us to unnecessary torture (in many cases)? Logically, it also seems that one of the best things a parent could do for their children would be to hope they die prior to reaching the age of accountability. This is obviously a disturbing thing to say and will no doubt create an emotional reaction (it's difficult to even type for me), but it does seem logical. By having your children grow, you are risking their exaltation and rolling the dice (they might grow up and reject the faith). If you love them enough to let them die, they could be guaranteed eternal exaltation. If that is not correct, where is the flaw in the logic?

Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 appears to teach that anyone who kills cannot ever be forgiven. Does "killing" refer only to murder or to any killing, be it in self defense or as part of a way? > And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&C 42:18 Does the LDS Church hold to this position today? If so, how is God's forgiveness of David reconciled with that as well as the people mentioned in the book of Alma? > Nathan said to David, “You are the man... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites... David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “**The LORD also has put away your sin**; you shall not die. 2 Samuel 12 (portions) ESV > > And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that **he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed**, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son. Alma 24:10

The Bible is by far the most translated book in the world at over 470 languages. Another question asks specifically about the Book of Mormon, which has apparently been translated into 82 languages. The LDS Church recognizes the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants as Scripture as well. In fact, they seem to contain the primary basis for many of the doctrines that are exclusive to the LDS. So, what are the translation statistics for these works?

In the following verses (and many others), the word "key" is used in an untraditional way. Typically you would use a key to unlock a lock. The supposed "lock" is highlighted in bold in every verse. Matthew 16:19 > And I will give unto thee the keys of **the kingdom of heaven**: and > whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and > whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. D&C 7:7 > And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; > and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of **this > ministry** until I come. D&C 13:1 > Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the > Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of **the ministering of > angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion > for the remission of sins**; and this shall never be taken again from > the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the > Lord in righteousness. Is there one united meaning of the word "key" in the scriptures, from an LDS perspective?

For proponents of *Sola Scriptura*, only the Bible is inspired and authoritative. For Latter-day Saints, three additional books are inspired and authoritative too: *the Book of Mormon*, *Doctrine and Covenants* and *Pearl of Great Price*. According to proponents of *Sola Scriptura*, are there any doctrines solidly grounded in rigorous biblical exegesis that are in direct **logical contradiction** to well-established LDS doctrines derived from their holy books? To use an illustration, let's suppose that book A unambiguously teaches that *"all cars are either yellow or blue"*. Let's suppose also that book B unambiguously teaches that *"some cars are green"*. Then the logical contradiction becomes quite obvious: if book B claims that green cars exist, that logically contradicts the teaching from book A that cars can only be either yellow or blue. According to proponents of *Sola Scriptura*, what would be **illustrative examples** of instances where: - we know the Bible unambiguously teaches doctrine X, - a LDS sacred book unambiguously teaches doctrine Y, and - doctrines X and Y cannot both be true (they lead to a logical contradiction)? ___________ **Note**: when I say that I want examples of logical contradictions, I'm talking specifically about contradictions between the *contents* of the books. In other words, something that the Bible says (substantiated by quotation of specific verses) vs. something that a LDS holy book says (substantiated by quotation of specific verses). Thus, the contradiction would need to be grounded in accurate *exegesis* of the texts: the Bible says *X* based on exegesis of certain passages, a LDS book says *Y* based on exegesis of certain passages, and *X* and *Y* cannot both be true (*logical contradiction*). Therefore, unless *Sola Scriptura* can be inferred exegetically from the Bible, it would be out-of-scope for this question to appeal to *Sola Scriptura* itself as an axiom that is contradicted by claims of new revelation by Latter-day Saints. As I said, I want contradictions that are grounded in exegesis of the texts, not in contradictions of *a priori* axioms which are not found in the texts. That said, for those interested in the more fundamental debate on whether *Sola Scriptura* is a reasonable premise to hold, the following related questions may be of interest: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1332/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91337/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1334/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/85908/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/3096/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89281/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89378/50422

I'm very intrigued by the concept of *constant companionship of the Holy Ghost* taught by the LDS church. This is mentioned in [Doctrine and Covenants 121:46](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121) : > 46 **The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion**, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of brighteousness and truth; and thy cdominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. According to [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/84055/50422) , the *constant companionship of the Holy Ghost* is a blessing that only Latter-day Saints can enjoy. No other denomination has access to this privilege: > [...] **only those who are baptized and confirmed as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost**. Once they have received the Gift, they must live worthy of it in order to maintain the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. > > **Those who are not baptized** can still experience some of the Power of the Holy Ghost, receive certain Revelations, and feel the influence of the Light of Christ, but they **do not have the promise of constant companionship from the Holy Ghost**. > > What does that mean in practical terms? **The constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is the state of being "born of the Spirit" which Christ mentions in John 3:5**, saying "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". Thus, in order to achieve our full potential and eventually live with God in His kingdom, we must receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost and strive to keep our covenants. Those who do not do this will be unable to receive all that God has prepared for them in the eternities. The *constant companionship of the Holy Ghost*, thus, appears to be a very special kind of bond or relationship between a LDS believer and the Holy Ghost which Christians from other denominations are deprived of. Hence my interest to learn more about it. However, instead of reading a theoretical definition of the concept, I would rather learn from the testimonies of Latter-day Saints who have personally experienced this special connection with the Holy Ghost firsthand. **Question**: Has any Latter-day Saint published detailed descriptions of their personal experiences with the *constant companionship of the Holy Ghost*?

I just finished reading [Chapter 16: The Gift of the Holy Ghost](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/16-gift-of-the-holy-ghost) of the LDS book *Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual*. One section that caught my attention is the following: > “True it is that honest truth seekers come to know of the truth and divinity of the Lord’s work by the power of the Holy Ghost: **they receive a flash of revelation telling them that Jesus is the Lord, that Joseph Smith is his prophet, that the Book of Mormon is the mind and will and voice of the Lord, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth**. They gain a testimony before baptism. **But it is only after they pledge their all in the cause of Christ that they receive the gift of the Holy Ghost**, which is the heavenly endowment of which Jesus spoke. **Then they receive a fulfillment of the promise**: ‘By the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.’ (Moro. 10:5.) **Then they receive ‘the spirit of revelation,’** and the Lord tells them in their heart and in their mind whatsoever he will. (D&C 8:1–3.)” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4:98–99). I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting this paragraph, but to me it sounds as if only Latter-day Saints who acknowledge Joseph Smith as prophet and the Book of Mormon as divine revelation can receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Two questions: - Am I right? Can only Latter-day Saints receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost? - If the answer to the question above is "yes": what are the implications for non-LDS Christians? Are there things that Latter-day Saints with the Gift of the Holy Ghost can do that non-LDS Christians (who--as we just agreed--lack of the Gift of the Holy Ghost) can't?

When discussing doctrine with ex-LDS acquaintances, they've mentioned the concept of "milk before meat," presumably based on these words from Joseph Smith's revelation in Doctrines & Covenants 19: >"And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish" (Doctrine & Covenants 19:21-22). The individuals I discussed this with said that there are teachings of the LDS church that are considered "meat" doctrines, which Mormons are discouraged from sharing with outsiders or prospective converts until they are ready to receive and understand them. Until that time, they teach them "milk" doctrines" to help them grow and establish their budding faith. I haven't been able to find a precise list or codification of what constitutes "milk doctrines" as opposed to "meat doctrines." Most of what I've found has been from anti-Mormon teachers and sources, which I won't trust as true until hearing the actual Mormons' side of things. >The Prophet Joseph Smith observed, "If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it [will] be a hard matter to get right." When a proper foundation has been laid, the truth can then flow more freely. The apostle Peter is said to have explained to Clement of Rome: "The teaching of all doctrine has a certain order, and there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so all in their order; and if these things be delivered in their order, they become plain; but if they be brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason" (ldsliving.com ) . Is there a codified list of what's a "milk doctrine" and what's a "meat doctrine?" Or is it up to the discretion of the individual Mormon to determine what an outsider or prospective convert can or can't "bear?"

I ask as I am only familiar with the Bible. I am asking those familiar with both the Bible and the LDS extra-biblical holy books, i.e. the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Does any of the LDS extra-biblical holy books assert anything that is in direct, clear, course (as opposed to minutiae) contradiction to what the Bible asserts?

Starting from [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62197/9158) question, I'm curious how the LDS church handles the doctrine changes. I saw a similar question (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12381/9158) , but what I'm wondering is how this works in practice: - Let's assume a new idea comes. Who validates that the new idea is right or wrong? Is there a vote? - Where are these changes published? - What are some examples of doctrine changes? I expect to see them reflected in the [archives of the conferences](https://www.lds.org/general-conference/conferences?lang=eng) (or other official archives).

In several passages Christ says that he will dwell in his followers. Ephesians 3:17 is one of the clearest: > Ephesians 3:16-17a: I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. Doctrines & Covenants 130:3 however says that > [D&C 130:3](https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng) : John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. So how do LDS reconcile this contradiction?

Top leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a document titled: "The Restoration of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; A Bicentennial Proclamation to the world. I'm not so much concerned about the "Restoration" part as with what else was said here. > Two hundred years ago, on a beautiful spring morning in 1820, young Joseph Smith, seeking to know which church to join, went into the woods to pray near his home in upstate New York, USA. He had questions regarding the salvation of his soul and trusted that God would direct him. > In humility, we declare that in answer to his prayer, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph and inaugurated the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21) as foretold in the Bible. In this vision, he learned that following the death of the original Apostles, Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the earth. Joseph would be instrumental in its return. The full article can be found here: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/04/05/what-new-lds-proclamation/ Specifically it says, "God the Father and His Son, appeared to Joseph." I would like to know how it is that God the Father appeared to Smith since according to the Bible God the Father cannot be seen. I know that this was a vision but even the definition of the word vision is, "the faculty or state of being able to see." Also, Jesus Christ Himself said at John 1:18, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." Or at John 5:37, "And the Father who sent Me, He has born witness of Me, You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form." According to the LDS "Doctrine and Covenants 130:22," The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's,” Joseph taught in April 1843, “the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). So how does the LDS Church reconcile their teaching that the Father can be seen and He has a body of flesh and bones with what Jesus said and John 4:24 says, "God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth." Just to sum up Smith says he saw God the Father and the Son of God. Jesus says His Father cannot be seen with the physical eyes. Since both of us cannot be right that means one of us is wrong. Or were both wrong. You posted verses that you believe shows that God the Father was seen. First of all I'm familiar with those verses and others that people use to show it's God the Father who physically appeared in the OT. Now, I'm not going to address the verses you posted except for two of them kutschkem. I am not going to quote all the verses but highlight the salient points. I will start out with Genesis 26:1-5. Verse 2, God appears to Isaac. At verse 3 God says "I will establish the oath which I swore to your father Abraham." At verse 24 the Lord appears again and said, "I am the God of your father Abraham; Do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants, For the sake of My servant Abraham." So the question is where did the Lord God swear the oath to Abraham and was it God the Father? Genesis 22:11, "But the angel of the Lord called to him/Abraham from heaven, and said Abraham, Abraham and he said "Here I am." Vs12, And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me." Verse 15, "Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven. vs16, "and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because (or why?) you have done this thing, and have not withheld you son, your only son." Verse 17, "indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore etc. It was the angel of the Lord who swore the oath and the angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. It was not God the Father. Going back to Genesis 16:7 the angel of the Lord first appears as the angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and tells her at verse 10, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count. Moreover, she said at vs13, "Thou art a God who sees; for she said, Have I even remained alive after see Him." Now look at Genesis 17:1-2, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord APPEARED to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. vs2, "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." This was a physical appearance and it's based on Genesis 17:22, "And when He finished talking with him, GOD went up from Abraham." God ascended straight up due north and disappeared. This was not God the Father. The angel of the Lord who multiplied Hagar's descendants is the same "being" who multiplied Abraham's descendants at Genesis 17:1-2. The writer of the book of Hebrews said the following at Hebrews 6:13-14, "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He/God could not swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, vs14, saying, I will surely bless you/Abraham, and I will surely multiply you." Notice, you never see the title "the Father." It just says, "God." Now, what about Stephen at Acts 7? Acts 7:1, "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham etc." Jumping down to vs30, "And after forty years had passed, An Angel appeared to Him (That is Moses) in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, the flame of a burning thorn bush." Verse 32, "I am the God of your fathers, The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." Are you seeing a pattern here? Verse 38, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the ANGEL, THE ANGEL OF THE LORD who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai." All you have to do to confirm what I'm saying is please read Exodus 3. There is only one being of God who chose to reveal Himself as three distinct persons in the Bible. It was not God the Father who was seen in the OT, but God the Son as the angel of the Lord. Jesus Christ is the one and only physical manifestation of His Father. This is brought out at various places in the Bible but I like what is said at John 14:9, "Jesus said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." This does not mean that Jesus is God the Father. John 14:11, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me." God the Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the ONLY manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is knows of the Father is revealed through the Son. To see the Son is to see the essence of the Father, (John 1:1,18; John 10:30; John 12:45; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.

According to modern revelation - from an LDS perspective, what is the source of God's power? I'm looking for references from the standard works and quotes from the brethren that may indicate to us what God's power is and how it works.

Is there a scriptural basis (preferably in Doctrine & Covenants) for the priesthood being restricted to men (at least on this earth)? If not, what is the explanation for this practice?

From this link > In our premortal life, **we** were taught lessons that prepared us to > assist Heavenly Father in bringing about the salvation of His children > (see D&C 138:56). For a non Christian like me, especially English is not my mother language, it's difficult to understand a sentence which came from a Christian world. That's why to me the word "we" in the quote is ambiguous since it can be:
A. We = the elects
B. We = all humankind Hence the question.

What does the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or prophets say about the prohibition of lust as a sin?

I'm preparing for a Sunday School lesson that includes 3 Nephi 25 where Christ quotes Malachi 4 . > 1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. That verse is part of a prophecy that the earth will be cleansed when Christ returns. The cleansing is frequently described as fire , such as in the passage quoted above. How will this happen? The verse I quoted has figurative language, so it could be assumed that the fire is figurative. But whenever this topic comes up in church, the discussion seems to imply that the burning will be literal with people occasionally going so far as speculating it will be caused by nuclear bombs (that is not doctrine of the LDS church). The Gospel Principles manual also implies that it's a literal burning: > When Jesus Christ comes again to the earth, He will do the following things: > > 1. He will cleanse the earth. When Jesus comes again, He will come in power and great glory. At that time the wicked will be destroyed. All things that are corrupt will be burned, and the earth will be cleansed by fire (see D&C 101:24–25 ). So which is it? If it's figurative, do we know what the fire represents? If it's literal, do we know what will cause the fire? How will the righteous escape?

Literal descendants of Aaron have a legal right to Aaronic priesthood: > "No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this > priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron." (D&C 107:16) If a literal descendant of Aaron were to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints–supposing they could trace their lineage–would they need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthood, or would the church recognize their legal right to it?