This is topic Curious about Mormons in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=022467

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Hello all.

After just reading "Lost Boys" and reading past posts and the like I must say that I'm kinda curious about da Mormons.

What does the word mean anyway? What is the best way to learn what they are... from a web site or to talk to a Mormon Priest or missionary? Well... of course talking to a Priest or missionary would be best but I haven't seen any missonaries around for years.. not even the Jahova Witnesses!

So anwyway, I'm curious. While I am an agnostic I still am facinated by stories of the divine, rituals, icons, symbols, and stories.

And especially the community. It seems, at least from OSC, that the Mormon culture is still pretty alive and vibrant. Of course it could be askewed by OSC... since any organizations gives more to you as you give more to it....

So I guess what I'm asking are true stories and facts from da people here...
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Oh, boy.
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
It's actually spelled Jehovah's Witnesses.

And no one has been around in a while? Give me your address, and my wife will let them know to send someone over right away.

BTW, Mormon's eat their babies, and bathe in blood. They will also steal your pocketwatch, and lie on government sponsered surveys. Don't look directly into their eyes, or they will hypnotize you!
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
well for starters...

www.lds.org
www.nauvoo.com

(and I'm not LDS either)
AJ
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
www.mormon.org is designed for people that want to learn more about the Mormons.
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
I once saw a Jehovah's Witness eating a baby...

*eyes Slash suspiciously*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
There has to be a Mormon priest around here somewhere who's willing answer a non-member's questions.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Or a Mormon returned missionary . . .
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Slash, you forgot the horns!
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Telp, my hubby and I live right in the thick of Mormon society. Yes, it is alive and well!
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
The best way to learn about the Mormons and what they believe is by talking to the missionaries. You can request a free copy of the Book of Mormon through lds.org and the missionaries will deliver it to you. They'll also answer your questions and present the fundamental beliefs of the church. You could also look up The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in your area.

"Mormon" is not the official name of the church, but we are often referred to by that name. Mormon was the main writer and compiler/editor of the Book of Mormon. He had access to the records his people had kept over the thousand year period that they had inhabited the Americas. He put together what would become the BOok of Mormon in the latter half of the 300s AD.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
But seriously, if you are interested in getting answers on hatrack, try posing some specific questions. It is a daunting question to say, "Tell me all about your religion/culture!"

Edit: Duh, I guess you did ask some specific questions! Sorry, I'm slow.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I have come to the conclusion that between the Bible, the BoM, and the various proclomations, pronunciations and decrees of the leaders of the church that Mormons seem to remember with about as much effort as the rest of us memorize a phone number, Mormons have to have the biggest, fattest brains on the planet.

Too bad they're not so hot in the looks department.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 

quote:

---

Telp, my hubby and I live right in the thick of Mormon society. Yes, it is alive and well!

---

By "thick", she's referring to the fatty portions of the baby carcasses.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Not so hot in the looks department? I beg to differ.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Come to BYU sometime, SS.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Stormy, I'm so hurt.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Too bad they're not so hot in the looks department.

---

Hmmm, yeah. Ever heard of "Relief Society arms"? I wonder if I add to the looks department or detract from it?

Edit: No kiddin' afr! I have never seen so many drop-dead-gorgeous girls in one place. At least not so many that were modestly dressed.

[ March 16, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
 
Begging won't change reality, pig boy.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Lol! Thick... hehe


Thanks for the links guys! Checking them out now...
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
A discussion on the use of linking to Nauvoo that seems relevant (scroll down to the kacard and Papa Moose posts) kacard is one of *the* Cards, which is not always true of everyone who has card in their ID. Not that I think anyone does it to throw anyone off.

I would definitely recommend mormon.org over nauvoo for answers to general questions.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

Hmmm, yeah. Ever heard of "Relief Society arms"? I wonder if I add to the looks department or detract from it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

There is a place that one of the prophets of the Church said was so nice, if you saw it you'd kill yourself to get there. That's where suicides go.

---

quote:

---

Missionaries are self or family supported.

---

Woah, woah, woah. Are you telling me that the church does not support the missionaries from tithes?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
No, not at all. They either earn the money, or their family pays it. Missionary support is $375 a month, currently. (As far as I know.)
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
No, couldn't find it in Gospel link (program, not a website, sorry dudes) but I always heard it as John Taylor. Anyway, you want me to edit all those out or just declare it bagged? The idea is we don't believe in torments being inflicted on sinners in the afterlife. Even those who go to the Celestial Kingdom will have the sorrow of anyone they loved who didn't make it there with them.

"Bev" has a point, that we basically believe in Faith, Repentance, Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

P.S. for Storm, there are some whose mission is paid out of offerings, if they otherwise couldn't afford to go.

[ March 16, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Absolutely. Individual missionaries and their families have the primary financial responsibility. Local wards, or members thereof, may help out if there is a shortfall.

Missionaries from poorer countries may have their mission costs subsidized by the church as a result of special donations by members in richer countries.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
The support isn't from tithing, though. It comes from separate donations on top of tithing.

Tithing builds temples and church buildings.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I sold my beloved cute, quasi-sporty, black, stick-shift, Acura Integra with the sunroof so I could help fund my mission.

I think I might have tried to buy it back afterwards, but the guy it was sold to totaled it!
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
(Responding to the replies in general)I'm sorry, but that just seems crazy. I can understand where the church might not want to pay people over and above room and board, but I think if someone is willing to work for the church--go thousands of miles away in some cases--the least the church should do is pay for room and board.

[ March 16, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
My parents paid for my mission, with the understanding that I would come up with the money for my college education.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
What can I say? We believe in sacrifice!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Storm, the members ARE the church. Going on a mission is a commandment and a privilege.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well, if you're happy with it, more power to you. *salute*
 

---

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
 
Yeah, Storm, but isn't it amazing that so many missionaries do go anyway? That has got to strengthen their conviction at any rate, and make them make sure they really want to go before they do.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
[Tangent]
You know, I've found that what people refer to as 'deeper doctrines' are generally one-note, peripheral speculations based on something some early Church leader may have said (or not). I don't seem most of them as being all that deep or doctrinal.

Not that these peripheral matters aren't somewhat interesting. It's simply that I have seen them presented or discussed as mind-blowing and totally fascinating when they really aren't -- esp. not compared to the core stuff. It's not meat (ref = milk before meat thing with some long-time members getting frustrated that there isn't more 'meat' in LDS Sunday services). And the solution isn't more of that stuff, but to understand the scriptures better as well as how they relate to our lives in a more personal, profound way.

The Gospel Principles manual, which is used in the Sunday School class for new members, is about as deep and doctrinal as you can get, imo. As is much of canonical Mormon scripture. I mean Lehi on agency and opposites. Alma on justice and mercy. Moses and Abraham on creation, priesthood and the cosmos. Joseph Smith on light, truth and spirit, on the atonement, and on the use and miuse of priesthood power. etc. etc.
[/Tangent]

Sorry about that rant. It's a sore topic with me.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Storm, it gets even better than that. The missionary, or his/her family, doesn't spend the money himself. He pays it to the Church, who then distributes the collective funds to all the missionaries on the basis of need, e.g. local living expenses.

So every missionary (at least from North America) pays the same monthly amount, but every mission has different expenses. Plus, the Church (actually the local representatives, such as the Mission Presidents) decide how much money each missionary will actually get. They are not allowed to rent too expensive of an apartment, or pay too much for meals, or for laundry service. If prices are raised, they might be asked to find a different, cheaper apartment, or to eat more often with the members.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Hmm. The closest thing I can find is this, pooka:

quote:

---

The Lord has told us of three degrees of glory. There are three "heavens," as it is often referred to. We call them the telestial, terrestrial, and the celestial. I cannot for a minute conceive the telestial being hell, either, because it is considered a heaven, a glory. The Prophet Joseph Smith told us that if we could getone little glimpse into the telestial glory even, the glory is so great that we would be tempted to commit suicide to get there (Eldred G. Smith, BYU Speeches, March 10, 1964, p. 4).

---

I can't find any statement like that from Joseph Smith, though. Here's a nice discussion of it over at Eric D. Snider's message board. About halfway down the page, Eric refutes the statement pretty well.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
SS - I can understand your thoughts. However, from the perspective of an LDS missionary, you are there to serve God (and the people with whom you will come into contact) - and God doesn't pay you (in money) to serve Him. I actually like that missionaries are required to contribute to their own sustenance, because I think that being a missionary is a privalege, and having to pay your own way helps to reinforce that (in my mind). You have to understand though, that service in the LDS church is not paid - it is volunteer work. We have a lay ministry (and a lay missionary force).

[ March 16, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Heh. I actually lost about fifteen pounds in Detroit without excercize simply because there weren't any members to feed us and we had only $100 a month to spend on food. That, and we didn't believe in stopping for dinner.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The deep doctrine gives context and meaning, the 'bigger picture,' but is not vital."

Does this mean that you can disbelieve all the "deep doctrine," but still legitimately be called a Mormon?
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 

quote:

---

The support isn't from tithing, though. It comes from separate donations on top of tithing.

Tithing builds temples and church buildings.

---

quote:

---

Does this mean that you can disbelieve all the "deep doctrine," but still legitimately be called a Mormon?

---

quote:

---

Storm, it gets even better than that. The missionary, or his/her family, doesn't spend the money himself. He pays it to the Church, who then distributes the collective funds to all the missionaries on the basis of need, e.g. local living expenses.

So every missionary (at least from North America) pays the same monthly amount, but every mission has different expenses. Plus, the Church (actually the local representatives, such as the Mission Presidents) decide how much money each missionary will actually get. They are not allowed to rent too expensive of an apartment, or pay too much for meals, or for laundry service. If prices are raised, they might be asked to find a different, cheaper apartment, or to eat more often with the members.

---

quote:

---

That, and we didn't believe in stopping for dinner

---

quote:

---

Does this mean that you can disbelieve all the "deep doctrine," but still legitimately be called a Mormon?

---

Depends on how you define being "called a Mormon". But that is aside from the point.

An important part of being a believing Latter-day Saint is believing in the cannonized scripture and the words of living prophets and apostles. If you didn't believe those things, you would probably feel more comfortable in any number of other Christian religions that don't require quite so much of their members.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Zal, we did it for seven months and it worked out fine. Big breakfast - biscuits, olive oil and balsamic vinegar, and yogurt - and a good lunch, and then an apple sometimes when we got in at night.

*misses Aldi's*

quote:

---

Though I still think that if the young men are commanded to do it, I think just taking the time out of your life to go do it is enough sacrifice on that member's part and the church ought to pay for all expenses while that person is a missionary.

---

Well, it's the Lord commanding, and since everything we have comes from him, and the ability to afford to pay for a mission is a blessing...

[ March 16, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Yeah, Tom, pretty much. There are some basics you need to believe and act on, but there is actually quite a bit of variety. Though you might not know that going to church and seeing everyone in suits and skirts.

For instance, I believe the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved.

Many LDS people I know believe it is about 6 thousand years old and that the Genesis account is quite literal.

The Articles of Faith, The Family: A proclamation to the World pretty much describe what it takes to be Mormon.

[ March 16, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Tom, a better question would be: Can you be unaware of all the "deep doctrine" and still be a member of the Church in good standing?

I define deep doctrine as all the stuff that doesn't matter to your salvation.

Not that learning and knowing things is discouraged. But when the quest for the trivial facts and obscure references becomes more important than gaining faith in Jesus Christ and living his gospel, then there's a problem. We believe that as a person is faithful and obedient to the basic teachings, knowledge will naturally be added on. That's the order of things.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hmmm, Zal, I would consider some of those things speculations rather than deep doctrines.

Tom, we all believe that there is a-plenty not yet revealed to us, so a lot of us like to get into long, deep discussions on what might be, infering based on what has been revealed.

Is this anything like the famed Jewish love of debating based on their cannonized scripture?

[ March 16, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
We really need a better term. This 'deep doctrine' thing is really bugging me. And in some cases, I think that it interferes with Mormons trying to better understand those doctrines that *are* essential.

EDIT: to repond to beverly's reply -- exactly my point. *you* would define them that way. but in my experience other Mormons wouldn't -- they define 'deep doctrine' as anything and more importantly everything that goes beyond your basic sunday school answers. the problem with this attitude, imo, is what I refer to above.

[ March 16, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
More often than "deep doctrine," I hear the word "mysteries." I have a problem with both terms, as they are used to describe areas of speculation.

To me, as long as it is really "doctrine," there is nothing wrong with "deep doctrine." If it's not doctrine, then don't call it that.

As for "mysteries," the best definition I have ever heard is "something that cannot be known without revelation." Any other meaning gets murky or downright silly.

[ March 16, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Right on, Zal.
 

---

Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
 
Sorry if this is ancient history to anyone following this thread live. I just got done reading it for the first time.

Pooka, there have been 2 proclamations in your lifetime. (You mentioned your age in the Older thread earlier today)

1. Offical declaration from 1978 regarding the Priesthood being available to all worthy males.

2. Proclamation on the family from 1995.

Sorry if this is nitpicking, but it's a point of doctrine that was inaccurate.

Good luck with your search for truth and meaning Telperion...
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Mmmmm.... travel the world and free dinners! Rock on! heheheh This is all great info.

(Stand up and tell 'em your frommmmmm.. DETROIT!)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I went to Detroit on my mission. I served in Ann Arbor, Croswell, and the Palmer Park area of Detroit.

Where are you from, exactly?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Storm Saxon - what is it about the sacrifice that bothers you? That someone would ask somebody else to do that? That teenagers would be willing to do it? That you think that they must be brainwashed to do so? That you are uncomfortable with others giving up more than you have been asked to? (I have no way of knowing if this is true -- I'm just throwing out ideas here)
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Katharina, I'm from Downriver area...city of Allen Park.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*thinks* I've heard of that... I don't think I ever went there, though. It's outside the city limits, isn't it?

I really love Detroit. That city has my heart, and it breaks it most of the time.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
peterh- When they issued the proclamation (on the family) they said it was only one of five that had been issued since the restoration. I don't know if Declaration 2 is included or not. (Declaration 2, for observers, was already made part of the canon, Joining declaration 1, the rescindment of Polygamy).

I don't know about the definition of Deep doctrine as being personal revelation only. That makes it sound like it's desireable. I liked the expression "Space Doctrine" I heard once for lost tribes sorts of questions. Whether the Atonement involves time travel... I dunno. (One major reason that I wouldn't see "The Passion" even if it weren't rated R is overexposure to this kind of puzzling). Joseph F. Smith (Nephew of the first Joseph Smith and also a church president) called them "Gospel Hobbies". You feel like you are obsessing with something spiritual, but you're still obsessing and it's taking you away from the basic idea of working on becoming more Christlike.

[ March 16, 2004, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
I know all the places you mentioned Katharina.
Ann Arbor rocks... great college city. I'm an Alma College boy myself, but UofM is fun too. I'm glad you like our Metro City... it gets a bad rap alot of the time.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yeah, Ann Arbor was incredible. It's the only place I've ever seen that was truly integrated across racial and religious lines, all on the same street.

Of course, everyone had money, so there was a unifying theme.
 

---

Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
 
You're exactly right Pooka. We've been alive for 2 of the 5.

Also I like the phrase "straining at a gnat" when talking about "gospel hobbies". It's the classic forest for the trees discussion.
 

---

Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
 
I think a lot more must go on in the spirit world than just waiting around for the resurrection, too. Because of eternal progression. There must be some sort of experiences and learning over all that time to allow us to continue to progress and grow up and become truly Christlike. But I guess we know everything we need to know about it at this point. We will find out more when the time comes.

I think the BoM is the true spiritual story. Whether and when and how the exact archeological timetable happened isn't so important to me. I don't see scriptures as being intended to be used as science texts. So, yes, I totally believe in science: in paleontology and geology and evolution and so on. Like Brigham Young said, everything that's true is part of our religion. We are encouraged (over and over again) constantly to educate ourselves as much as we possibly can.

Anyway, I agree that speculations on things like lost tribes and the nature of the spirit world can distract attention from what really matters, especially to people just finding out about the church.

Something cool that might interest you is the Perpetual Education Fund. We have a fund we can support (on top of tithes and fast offerings and the missionary fund) that goes to provide educational loans for young people (mostly returned missionaries) mostly in poor countries. They pay back the loans when they get done with school, from their increased earnings, and it just grows and grows. I always try to donate a little something to the PEF, as I know lots of people do. Mormons are BIG on education! I love that about the LDS church.
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
Speaking of Missions...

::looks at calendar::

'Bout 7 months.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
w00t!!
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
We're gonna have to throw Nathan a huge Hatrack going away party...
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I DO have a question related to the importance of "deep doctrine," though, insofar as it represents "distracting" speculation: at what point does it BECOME relevant?

Let's take scientology as an example. Is it relevant that the highest levels of scientology center on the alien Xenu, if most of the low-level members are focused on its teachings of self-improvement? At what point does the Xenu thing matter, if ever?
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
aka, I loved your post.


 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
"Deep doctrine" is always relevant if it is in fact doctrine, and not just something somebody made up based on something they overheard somebody who is supposedly "in-the-know" say.

Unfortunately, much of what is often called "deep doctrine" in the LDS Church is not really doctrine at all.

The whole concept of "doctrine" is highly dependent on the church/religion in question, though. For a church as highly centralized/correlated as the LDS Church, it is a very important, and sometimes technical, question.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Tom:

What U-guy said. And...

Let me jump to a conclusion and wonder if your Scientology reference is a veiled allusion to the Mormon doctrines related to the temple and eternal progression.

I'd say that those doctrines are both deep and central. And there's an important difference between us and the Xenu thing -- from the very first presentation the Mormon missionaries make to interested parties, they say that our ultimate goal is to become like our Heavenly Father. Now we may not tease out *all* the implications of that idea from the get-go. But in my experience the deep doctrines are part of Mormon discourse on all levels. And in regards to the temple, as has been repeatedly stated much of what is taught in the temple ceremony comes straight from the canon of Mormon scripture i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & covenants and Pearl of Great Price [unlike Xenu -- I've read Dianetics and there's not much in there that prepared me for what the *higher* levels of Scientoloyg are].

See also the Gospel Principles manual that I mention above.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It wasn't really all THAT veiled.

I guess, for me, the difference is that I simply cannot believe that an enormous civilization -- with horses -- once existed here in America that was previously visited by Jesus, and I have trouble believing that God and his family live on a planet orbiting another star. I don't believe, based on what I've seen, that Joseph Smith had any clue how to translate Egyptian glyphs. These are huge stumbling blocks that, were I to seriously consider the LDS church, I would not be able to get past. Could someone who didn't believe these things still be a Mormon?

[ March 17, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Nobody would forbid you from joining the Church for that, nor would anybody kick you out if you were already a member.

Oh, and Tom

"I don't believe, based on what I've seen, that Joseph Smith had any clue how to translate Egyptian glyphs."

Neither do I. But I do believe that he was in intimate communication with someone that did.

[ March 17, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Well, Card doesn't believe that they had what we call horses. In one of his essays in Storyteller in Zion, he puts forth the idea that they had some animal that they called horses. It's interesting to note that while the Book of Mormon mentions horses, it never mentions anybody riding.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I never got the impression that the Nephite/Lamanite civilization was that huge. And I keep hearing that archaeologists have discovered pre-Colombian horse remains in Mesoamerica, but I don't know where to find out for sure.
 

---

Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
 
Was the Nephite civilization in North or South America? Because South America has llamas, which might be described as a type of horse if you were telling a story to someone who had never seen one, and you had not seen one yourself either. Unless the horses were the point of the story, he (or whoever is considered to have "written" the Book of Mormon) might have just tried to save people some unnecessary confusion.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Believe me, Danzig, there's a whole line of thought -- mainly at BYU -- about what the "horses" could have been. I wonder how many dissertations have been written on the topic.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Tom:

Just to clean up what's already been posted...

1. Most Mormons who have studies the issue believe in the 'localized' view of the events of the Book of Mormon. There are those who still cling to the *all* indigenous Americans descend from Lehi's family, but that's not official doctrine, and you can disagree with it and be fine.

2. The planet and star thing: I've never heard any official pronouncements about this. The actual scripture says that God dwells near Kolob. Anti-Mormons have misread this and said that we say that that's where he lives. He doesn't. Now because we believe that God has a physical body, it's reasonable to suggest that he does live on a planet somewhere. I guess the real question is: is it feasible, in your mind, that God could have a body, albeit an immortal and glorified one, and still be God? Mormon say yes -- and that he can still be all-powerful and all-knowing (not in quite the same way other religions define it, but within the parameters of Mormonism's view of the powers of God which you are well aware of).

3. As others have stated, it all depends on what you mean by translation. There a variety of viewpoints on this. As far as I know the most liberals ones don't disqualify one from full participation in the LDS Church.
 

---

Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
 
we also have to consider the the Book of mormon was tranlated by a man. even with the urim and thumim(Sp). if i remember correctly this question was brought up in a mission Prep class in insitute. the answer that we where given was the teachers oppinion. was that it was an animal that did the equivulant of what a horse did in jospeh smiths time. i'd say put yourself in his shoes what would you do if you came across an animal that not a horse but used like a horse. but the name that was used wasn't tranlateable except for a horse.

ok i have to stop myself cause i think i repeated myself 4 or 5 time and not makeing any sense.

one question wasn't there only one mention of horses anyways ?
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
A quick search via scriptures.lds.org reveals 23 mentions of horses (though some of these are passages parallel to the Bible, like the Sermon on the Mount given to the Nephites when Christ comes).
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"i'd say put yourself in his shoes what would you do if you came across an animal that not a horse but used like a horse. but the name that was used wasn't tranlateable except for a horse."

I would say "the grummhimurram, which were much like horses...."

But that's probably why no one's asked ME to translate the word of God.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Personally, I don't buy the "it was a similar animal that was translated as horse" argument. If that's how translation works, then what's up with the cureloms and cumons here?

To clarify: if the Nephites called the animals horses and wrote the word for horse, I can believe that Joseph Smith would translate it as horse, even if they weren't horses. But I don't believe that Joseph Smith said to himself, "It seems that this animals was like a horse, so I'll translate it as horse."

[ March 17, 2004, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 
There are a couple of easy answers on the horse question.

1) There really were horses. Horses were present up until at least 12000BC, so why is it impossible that some persisted after that date? Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

2) It was the Nephites who called the new animals (tapirs, llamas or whatever) horses, not Joseph Smith. This one seems pretty likely. When you see an animal in a new place that reminds you of a familiar animals it is the most natural thing in the world to name them by resemblance. Hence seahorses, buffalo (when referring to american bison), mountain lion (referring to cougars) etc. If this was the case then Joseph merely translated what was written.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
I think "cureloms and cumoms" is the result of double translation: that is, I think the Nephite prophet that "translated" the plates of Ether didn't know what those words meant any more than Joseph Smith knew what the animal was that ended up translated as "horse."

Well, I don't know if this is really my stand, but I think it's a plausible explanation.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
See, I assumed it was the result of no translation. That is, the Jaredites had names for these animals, but the Nephites didn't know what they were, so they used the Jaredite names. Joseph Smith didn't know what they were either, so he used the same names, too.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
That's kind of what I meant. I mean, those words are two "steps" away from their original meaning, so "translation" is pretty pointless.
 

---

Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
 
I heard somewhere that Mormon's drink human blood.

Weird.


 

---

Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
 
Only my own - if I cut myself - its that sharp wit again
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
That's what we use our horns for.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
Isn't that inconvenient if you're in the mood for some ankle blood?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

 

---

Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
 
See? I'm totally thinking in terms of there being zillions of other universes, with all different sorts of laws of physics and stuff. If you're God you can move around between different ones however you like. So at one point in history people's idea of "very far away from here" is translated as "a whole different continent", then later as "another planet (in our solar system)", then "near a distant star", or "a galaxy far far away", or whatever. When maybe it's just someplace so far away we don't know it even exists yet. Kind of like the way the Valar bent the world so that the straight way, to Valdamar, was hidden.

To me the Book of Mormon was given to us to teach us spiritual truths. I believe that everything in it is true. But was it here or somewhere else, this people or those people, horses or some other species, those are questions that seem to me NOT to be part of the information that's being conveyed. And those questions don't strike me as being very important, either. Not when the real message is completely electrifying and revolutionizes everything about my life, reordering it in a new and drastically better and happier way.

But it is kind of interesting and amusing to speculate on things like that. I just can't see getting hung up on them, or angry about disagreements about them, or anything of that sort.

[ March 18, 2004, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: aka ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
While I think that aka's idea of where the Book of Mormon happened is pretty bizarre, I agree that it doesn't matter much. The Book of Mormon is not a history book. It's a book about God's dealings with a branch of Israel.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, uh, my point was going to be only slightly different.

Yes, I do think that outlook may be a little further out than how I see it, aka, I do think that science's new and startling discoveries show us time after time how silly it is to hold scientific evidence (or lack thereof) as as an absolute for believing something.

As we just recently saw, there is strong evidence for the idea that female mammals continue to produce eggs. Whodda thunk? Not me. I was totally convinced.
 

---

Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
 
If I really think about the difference between, say, what we know about the universe in our western technological society and what some nomadic tribesman several thousand years ago knew about the universe....

And then I realize that what God knows about the universe is likely to be AT LEAST as far ahead of what we know now as we are above the tribesman....

Then it doesn't surprise me that there are stories God might want to tell us that have in them some places, concepts, or events, that are a little difficult to explain. I think what we must get in that case is a sort of shorthand explanation that preserves the essential point of the story, but avoids getting bogged down in stuff that we really don't need to know about anyway, or if we do it would be best to just wait and let us find out on our own.
 

---

Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
 

quote:

---

If you didn't believe those things, you would probably feel more comfortable in any number of other Christian religions that don't require quite so much of their members.

---

quote:

---

Is there any way to appeal a Bishop's decision on a Temple Recommend? I'm curious, because one of my friends is a Mormon who says he knew people who lied to their Bishops in order to maintain their Temple Recommends. I guess my question is how much of this is regarded as being between the member and God versus being between the member and the Church?

---

quote:

---

how do Mormon communities treat people who are inactive?

---

quote:

---

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake• of my flesh and blood unworthily•, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily• eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister• unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know• my• sheep, and they are numbered.

32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues•, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal• them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

---

[ March 18, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Another question... what about the thing about marriages? That getting married in the main Temple in Salt Lake get's you into a special kind of heaven... or something? Or was is that there are two types of Mormon marriage? Earthly and Heavenly?
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
That's a lot more friendly of an approach than what anyone in any religion I've been in taught.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Confessing to and being interviewed by an LDS church leader usually involves sitting across the desk from him in his office. Under these circumstances, you get to make eye contact. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the individual.

[ March 18, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
We believe that under certain circumstances, a marriage can be "sealed". This means that, assuming the individuals in the marriage keep their covenants, they may receive "exaltation", becoming like God (eventually). So there are marriages that are sealed, and marriages that are not.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
All temples have the same ordinances. Many people have an attachment to one temple or another for aesthetic or historical reasons, but that's a personal thing.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 

quote:

---

what about the thing about marriages? That getting married in the main Temple in Salt Lake get's you into a special kind of heaven... or something? Or was is that there are two types of Mormon marriage? Earthly and Heavenly?

---

We belive that the family is not merely an earthly or social construct, but that it was designed by God. We believe that familial bonds can exist past death. When a couple is married in the Temple (there are many - more than 100 world-wide) they are "sealed". Their marriage can be eternal.

In terms of the afterlife, in order for people to return to God's presence (and receive the greatest possible glory), they must be sealed.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
There is being married "Till death do you part" and being married "For Time and All Eternity". You can only be married "For Time and All Eternity" in the temple. That is being sealed.

You do not need to confess every little sin to the bishop. Only those that are fairly serious and/or require a little extra help in the repentance process. When you do talk the the bishop, he doesn't give you some arbitrary task that will absolve the sin once you complete it. He is there merely as a help. He may remind you of what it takes to repent:

Feeling sorrow (If you went to the bishop yourself, chances are you are already there)

Asking for forgiveness, of God whose commandment you've broken and of those you've wronged.

Restitution. Fixing it as much as possible.

Never doing it again.

Let us say your problem is an addiction to something. You may have trouble with the 'never do it again' step. In this case, regular counsel with your bishop may help or very likely he will refer you to professional help. If you can't afford it, the church will pay for it.
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
With regard to repenting and "never doing it again," what is the Church's view on forgiveness? Are you forgiven if you sincerely regret and realize what you've done and ask for forgiveness, or is there such thing as a sin that cannot be forgiven even with Christ's sacrifice?
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
They also do marriages for time only, in the event that one or both of the marriage partners were already sealed to someone else. I guess the benefit of that would be that the temple is a really nice place that is always set up for doing weddings for no charge. My husband's grandma and my sister both got married for time only. When my sister's divorce (the ending of a prior sealing is called a cancellation) got cleared up they went on and got sealed in a separate ceremony. I know a lot of couples who have been married civilly and sealed later.

P.S. Sevumar: I don't know about first degree murder. I think the first presidency of the church decides if someone actually serves their time and then wants to return to church membership. There's also denying the holy ghost. See my explanation of the three kingdoms, I think it's on page one. I think I'm often guilty of not giving the holy ghost a proper reception, but I keep trying. I'm not sure what it means to deny the holy ghost to the extent that one would go to outer darkness.

[ March 18, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: skrika03 ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
There is only one sin that can never be forgiven. That is the sin against the Holy Ghost. Basically its knowing (more than mere faith) the truth of the gospel and still rejecting it, if not actively going against it. Chances of members, or even apostates, having this kind of knowledge is improbable. It has been compared to seeing the sun, but denying its existance.

The only people who would know they had sinned to such a degree would be those who have been condemned directly by God.

All other sins are forgivable, even if you commit them seven times seventy fold. There is a question of if murder is forgiveable if you are already a member. Some interpretations show yes and some no. However, there have been murderers who have repented and joined the Church, both in the Scriptures and otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
Thanks Occasional, that clears it up. Speaking of the Holy Ghost, I was also curious as to what the role of that entity is in the LDS Church. I know that you believe that the Father and Son have perfect, glorified bodies and some actions are attributed to each in scripture. Where does the Holy Ghost fit in the godhead, what are his duties and his relation to the other 2?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Even Presiden Hunter was married civilly in the Salt Lake Temple. He was a widower, she a widow.
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
Seventy times seven used to sound like a lot, and then I realized one day that I've probably been angry at various people more than that. How long was the Clinton administration?
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
The Holy Ghost has Spirit only. It has no physical body so that it can touch our own spirits more directly. It acts as a Witness, communicating the truth of the other two.
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
Does that make it somewhat of a junior partner in the godhead?
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I would like to add that the Holy Ghost bears witness of Truth - all truth.

All 3 members of the Godhead bear witness of each other. I guess some people might think of the Holy Ghost as a junior partner in the Godhead, but I kind of think of them as President (God), Vice-President (Jesus), and CFO (Holy Ghost). Each has a different role to play, all of which are vitally important. God's plan could not function without all three parts - Father, Savior, and Witness.

[ March 18, 2004, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
Despite comments to the contrary, there is no such things as "junior gods" in LDS teachings. You either are one or you aren't. The Holy Ghost is fully God, as much as Jesus is fully God, and God the Father is fully God. That is why we call them "One God," because they all have the same mission and attributes. It is impossible to differenciate them except by trivial matters. When you speak of one, you are speaking of them all.
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
When the Book of Abraham speaks of a plurality of gods, and the Old Testament uses the word "elohim" or gods, what are the other beings that are being referred to?
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't think the corporate ladder structure was divinely inspired. But that's getting into deep doctrine, I guess.

The Holy Ghost testifies to the Saving role of Jesus Christ. The "all truth" idea has to be compatible, first and foremost, with that. The Holy Ghost is also a purifier, comforter, and guide in making decisions.

My understanding of the plurality of God is strictly the Godhead of The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Easy answer: I have no clue. This is where deep doctrine passes into speculation.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I have to agree. The scriptures really don't explain themselves on this issue.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
In fact, this kind of speculation is pretty much the poster child of speculative/inessential "deep" doctrine. I mean, it's fine to ask, but realize we don't know. If it was important for us to know, I'm sure we'd be told.

So...pray about it.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
What do you think it would mean, Sevumar?
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
I think it implies, along with other historical evidence, that the ancestors of the Jewish people were once polytheistic. Over time and through the teachings of prophets they probably narrowed down their belief to the chief god of the pantheon to the exclusion of others.

EDIT: which doesn't exclude the LDS view that Jesus and the Holy Ghost always existed, but were not acknowledged in the Judaic view of the unity of God.

[ March 18, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Sevumar ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
We don't really know, though.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Rivka, correct me if I'm wrong, if you're hanging around. . .

Elohim doesn't refer to a plurality of gods. It refers to the completeness of God's strength. Although the -im ending USUALLY connotates plurality, in this case, it refers to a single being who has cornered the market on might, strength, etc.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I'm curious about something. What exactly are these "callings"?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
A calling refers to any position of service in the church, pretty much any position in the church.

For instance, my hubby and I both have "callings" right now with Cub Scouts.

[ March 18, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
They are referred to as "callings" because Church members are "called" (by the Priesthood leaders in the ward, who we believe are inspired in this capacity) to serve in various positions in their congregation - anything from being a Sunday School teacher to being a choir director to being a Bishop (leader of a congregation known as a "ward").

[ March 18, 2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
What happens if you refuse a calling? What if you don't feel called yourself? Does this ever happen?
 

---

Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
 
My calling right now is as an assistant or councillor to the person running the Primary (the children's Sunday School) in my ward.

It can be anything that helps the running of the church including: being an usher at meetings on Sunday, ordering copies of the church publications for people, being the Bishop in charge of the running of the ward, being a class teacher, being a full time missionary, being an Apostle etc.

All of these callings are extended to the members of the church who are asked if they are willing to fulfill that role. Once a person agrees to accept the calling their name is put before the members of the church (whether at a ward level in the case of a Sunday School teacher or the whole church in the case of the Prophet). The church members are then asked if they will sustain that person (i.e. support and assist them). We agree to sustain someone by "raising our hands to the square" - thus showing outwardly our support. Then we are also given the opportunity to object to any callings as mentioned before - if someone does then the bishop would take them aside and discuss their reasons for objecting and resolve any issues.

We believe that callings come from the Lord via our church leaders. When we accept a calling we serve until the Lord feels its time for us to do something else. They're really a chance for us to serve others and develop our talents and testimony.
 

---

Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
 
Yeah it happens - usually though people express a reservation about serving because they don't feel they have the right skills/ abilities. Usually the person extending the call will ask why they don't feel they can serve and then ask them to go away and think and pray about it. If its what the Lord wants he'll let them know.

There's no issue made if someone refuses a calling though. Their leaders will probably try to find out if the person has any issues/ problems that might prevent them from serving. Then they try to help them resolve those. But if a person outright says no then nothing happens as far as their memberships concerned.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
People often do refuse callings, for whatever reason.

I don't think that anyone ever feels completely prepared to do the things they are called to do (at least I know I never have).
 

---

Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
 
I had to turn down a calling as nursery leader because I'm out of town so much. I help in the nursery when I'm there, but I'm not the leader. Nobody minded or was upset at me.

The idea of callings, I think, is that you learn the most of all by teaching. So we all take turns doing the teaching of each other and that helps us all learn more than we would if we just sat and were taught. I really like that part about the church. And they really do need you, too. It's not that they make up some busy work. It's real work that matters and needs to be done.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Rivka, correct me if I'm wrong, if you're hanging around. . .

Elohim doesn't refer to a plurality of gods. It refers to the completeness of God's strength. Although the -im ending USUALLY connotates plurality, in this case, it refers to a single being who has cornered the market on might, strength, etc.

---

quote:

---

Grammatically, the root word of Elokim is "eleh" the demonstrative pronoun "these". In the plural, "these" connotes the binding unity between each of the individual items, e.g.: "These five buildings were all built by a famous architect." Therefore the plural of eleh, (elohim), represents the unity of many different things combined together.

---

quote:

---

"one through whom all the plurality, (by everything being related to him), becomes a unity."

---

quote:

---

For the purpose of this column, I will write the word elohim as Elokim when referring to G-d.

---

Does the Torah, espcially older ones, use one or the other word? It would seem to me that would be an important point. Of course, if one word is used at one time and another at another time, yet in similar context, that could show possible editorial reworking.

Oh, I see you said it was spelled Elohim in Hebrew. So, it is only an assumption that the word should be different at particular times. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. Seems more a matter of choice than rule.

Edit: I don't mean to be argumentative. I just don't like how this commentator decides things by what I consider presumptions.

[ March 19, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 
In transliteration from Hebrew, what's being represented as "h" "ch" "kh" or occasionally "k" is really a sort of a more throaty sounding "h" as we know it in english.
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
Well, in the LDS church Elohim is sometimes used as a name for Heavenly Father, who we believe is an individual god. We call the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "The Godhead". I didn't realize that the trinity was a different idea until I was in college.

The eternal progression (that we are the spirit children of God) model would seem to imply that He was the spirit child of someone else. But we only acknowledge and worship Heavenly Father. There is a fine line between gratitude to Jesus and worshipping him. I'm afraid it gets crossed with fair regularity. But we are supposed to only pray to Heavenly Father.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Spoof on the Trinity:

God: I Am God. Worship only me. Just me. That's right. Just me.

Jesus: Pssssst! Dad! *tugs on God's sleeve*

God: What?? Ok, fine fine... Worship me, only me.... . and my Son.

Jesus: Dad! Common! *points*

God: OK OK! Worship just me, my son..... and our pet Ghost. AND THAT'S IT!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Sevumar is correct that a heyh is far more guttural than an English H, but that's NOT why both I and the link used Elokim.

The word elohim, not referring to God, is not His name -- so there's no problem saying or writing it. However, when it is used to refer to God, it is one of His Names, and thus is only spoken or written by Orthodox Jews as part of a prayer.
 

---

Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
 
LDS have a more flexible view on the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain. While we shouldn't swear, any sincere and reverent use of His name is acceptable. Of course, in addition to formal prayers we have a commandment to pray always.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*confused* Does that mean every thing said is a prayer?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
IMO, a sincere and reverent use of His name would most likely be a prayer (or possibly for teaching purposes, which would also be ok, as necessary).
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I have a more "unified" conception of worshipping the "Godhead," although its all been arguable. When you are worshipping Jesus Christ, you are basically Worshipping the Father. On the other hand, when you are worshipping the Father, you are equally Worshipping Jesus Christ. Of course, you are ALSO worshipping the Holy Ghost who is the Witness of both.

Now we are commanded to pray to Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, but that doesn't represent a gradation of "rank" as it were. Rather, it is mostly a matter of procedure. There are times in the Scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, where Jesus Christ was directly prayed too. On the other hand, in return He prays to Heavenly Father on behalf of the people.

On the other hand, this is partly one of those "deep doctrine" ideas that aren't particularly important to the basic doctrine. That is because the "rank" view of things isn't exactly beyond the truth. It just depends on if you are focusing on the individual members' roles or the unifying purpose of their mission.
 

---

Posted by Sevumar (Member # 4420) on :
 

quote:

---

I have a more "unified" conception of worshipping the "Godhead," although its all been arguable. When you are worshipping Jesus Christ, you are basically Worshipping the Father. On the other hand, when you are worshipping the Father, you are equally Worshipping Jesus Christ. Of course, you are ALSO worshipping the Holy Ghost who is the Witness of both.

Now we are commanded to pray to Heavenly Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, but that doesn't represent a gradation of "rank" as it were. Rather, it is mostly a matter of procedure. There are times in the Scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon, where Jesus Christ was directly prayed too. On the other hand, in return He prays to Heavenly Father on behalf of the people.

---

This is similar to what one of my very good LDS friends has told me too. It seems to me that if you pray to one part of the godhead, the unity of purpose that the Church holds could also mean you are praying to all of them. Just like if you speak of "America" you are speaking of the 50 states that make it up.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Just to clarify, unless you are in the presence of Christ, you are commanded to pray to the Father.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Are people really designed to be married forever? I guess that I ask the question is a good indication of why I'm not married. or

And, yeah, I know I mention this every time the topic comes up. It's just such an alien idea to me.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think God knew the majority of His children would not choose to be married forever. But it is a good ideal to aspire to, and we believe, an importand part of becoming like God.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well, that was just really well said, Beverly.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Why, thank you Storm.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
The short answer -- Yes.

The longer answer -- You don't have to be married to be in the Highest degree of Heaven living with God (i.e. The Celestial Kingdom). However, you won't be able to increase your full potential, but become as the angles to those who did marry. Of course, if you didn't recieve that chance on Earth to marry than you will at some other time.

The Eternal Marriage section of the Doctrine and Covenants; especially the yellow portion.

quote:

---

What is the cosmology of the Mormon Church?

---

quote:

---

When you do talk the the bishop, he doesn't give you some arbitrary task that will absolve the sin once you complete it.

---